Some More VHLM Rule Changes (ft. the VHLE)

[Spartan 3,997]

 

Hello, it's me again!

 

Earlier this offseason, @Gustav  and I announced a rule change that redefined an "active" player in the VHLM. At the time, we had a few other rule changes being discussed that needed further deliberation and fleshing out. We're now ready to announce two more changes this offseason:

 

Regulating VHLM Player Retirement and Subsequent Re-Creation

 

Recently, the VHLM has seen a few instances of a VHLM player retiring and then subsequently recreating with a new player. The VHLM currently does not have any rules that cover this area, but we have encountered situations that do not follow our expected competitive integrity for the VHLM. We are adding the following rules to the rulebook:

 

Quote

• Retired players must be dropped once they cross the 3 week threshold without updates. The only exceptions would exist if a player retires 3 weeks before playoffs, at the TDL, or after the TDL. If the user recreates after retiring, the following rules will apply.
• No user may have 2 players from the same VHL draft class in the VHLM at the same time (Ex. If S89 forward Viktor Jensen was playing in the VHLM in S89 and wanted to retire and recreate while finishing the season with Jensen, he would have to wait until the S89 Trade Deadline in order to retire and recreate with a new S90 player).
• If a user retires their player and recreates into the same VHL draft class, the older player must be dropped by their VHLM team (Ex. If Advantage retires S89 Viktor Jensen at season start and creates a new S89 player, Jensen must be released).
• A team may not roster two players by the same user concurrently. If a team has an older retired player and wants to sign the new player, the older player must be dropped. (Ex. If Las Vegas rostered Jensen but wanted to sign Advantage's new player, Jensen must first be dropped).

 

 

Capping VHLM Player Career Lengths

 

For as long as I've been in the VHL, I can remember a career VHLM player existing at some point or the other. There's various valid reasons that a user could prefer to stay in the VHLM for longer than the typical 1-3 season period - some of which we're very proud of. Great team cultures, friendly environments, and user comfort are all reasons that users tend to hang out or revisit their old VHLM stomping grounds.

 

However, it's been apparent over time that VHLM "lifers" pose their own issues to the league. Certain teams often receive 5+ seasons out of a single player, showing a lack of competitive integrity (yes, still important in a development league to prevent abuse of rules). In addition, high TPE lifers are taking valuable minutes away from the targeted demographic of the VHLM - the new users and players. In order to prevent abuse of the lack of rules surrounding these areas, the VHLM is taking a step alongside the VHLE to make a shift to VHLM and VHLE eligibility.

 

Currently, a VHLM player will remain in the VHLM until they cross 200 TPE at an offseason cutoff (or spend over 200 TPA after an offseason cutoff). We are hereby instituting a 4 post-VHL Draft season maximum - any active player at or under 200 TPE after their 4th post-VHL Draft season will then be moved up to the VHLE where they will follow the appropriate VHLE procedures for Free Agency. 4 post-draft seasons were chosen as they would typically signify the completion of the standard 3 season rights period after being drafted with 1 or 2 buffer FA seasons for any edge cases. This should allow the majority of the VHLM population to graduate naturally without any issues.

 

These changes will go into effect immediately - any VHLM player in the S85 class or older will be moved to the VHLE.

 

- @VHLM Commissioner

 

Tagging those involved/impacted:
@VHLE Commissioner

@VHLM GM

@VHLE GM

Edited June 12, 2023 by Spartan
Editing for clarity + added retirement rule clarification

[Zetterberg 859]

So I guess now the VHLM is the equivalent of a major junior league

[AJW 1,744]

4 minutes ago, Zetterberg said:

So I guess now the VHLM is the equivalent of a major junior league

I see it as a development league that pushes players to the VHLE and VHL! What it has always been meant for.

[rory 1,759]

dyl rule 2

[Grape 528]

NO DON'T GIVE THE E MORE RELEVANCE

[Viper 528]

@dylanjj37

[rory 1,759]

IS JUAN CESON VHLE ELIGIBLE!?

[McLovin 389]

RIP ACES LEGEND JUAN CESON. THE MONOPOLY HAS FALLEN, VEGAS IS FREE!

[Spartan 3,997]

16 minutes ago, rory said:

IS JUAN CESON VHLE ELIGIBLE!?

Yes

[Zetterberg 859]

Poor dyl, can't catch a break

[rory 1,759]

24 minutes ago, Spartan said:

Yes

Not signing him, thanks though

[dylanjj37 238]

3 hours ago, Zetterberg said:

Poor dyl, can't catch a break

Looks like I'll be getting one this season!

[Gaikoku-hito 1,646]

How I read these rules:

1. You can create a small army of players in the VHLM by recreating every season at the trade deadline but cannot have a player in the same draft class. Making an interesting challenge of getting a single re-created player playing on all 10 teams in the VHLM. Since most would be inactive/retired around 150TPE or slightly more. (Active rule change might make this harder but wasn`t my first thoughts)

 

2. We know you all are now thinking of recreating a new player every season and creating an army of (Gaikoku-hito) players across all ten teams so we will take that challenge away from you so that you can only have a maximum of five player in the league at one give time since S90 with retire at S91 deadline, S91 (S92), S92(S93), S93(S94) and S94(S95) withe the S91 finally either being forced into the VHLE or officially released from teams.

 

3. Forced to revisit the first post about inactives; only to realize that VHLM Army creation was already killed based on the new 21day player is considered active if they have updated on the portal rule. Meaning Player in S90 if retired at deadline would be inactive by the start of the next season or shortly after the start of the next season meaning you can only have two players active for about three or four weeks maximum. Ha ha!! We wrecked your fun or all thoughts of taking over the ........ VHLM!! 

 

Darn @Spartan are you really trying to kill all creative ways to have fun messing around in the league? Already almost wrecked my zero to hero idea with the announcement of "Must stay active earning TPE rule and not just active in the forums" but I think I figured a work around already since I can either claim only Trivia (if I get it right) of click the practice button. Keeping my TPE earning a bare min!!

 

Being more serious some very good change closing loopholes that I think would have been fun to exploit at least once but are not really in the best interest of development league like the VHLM.

 

Side note* Not an issue any longer but when we only had the VHL & VHLM, it wasn`t uncommon to see Goalies stuck in the VHLM if the team in the VHL that drafted them already had two goalies and wouldn`t make room or couldn`t make room for the goalier to progress past the VHLM to the VHL. With the VHLE now we are less likely to see a situation as such unless every one create a new goalie in one recreate period at the draft deadline filling both the VHLE & the VHLM with goalies. Unlikely to happen but could with a great recruitment like we had in S74/S75.

 

Yes, wine is being sipped as I write so hopefully "you people" understand the light hearted and sarcastic way this was written!!

Edited June 11, 2023 by Gaikoku-hito

[jacobcarson877 2,069]

Excellent addition! Excited to see more great members making their way up the leagues!

[Sjin 167]

As a VHLM lifer myself I’m a bit upset to hear this rule change, I originally planned to progress through the leagues but there was a big shift in my life, also the reason I had to step down as Calgary AGM, which meant I wouldn’t be able to be around as much for a few months ultimately lead to me staying in the M and consequently becoming a lifer.
 

Almost everyone in the league is familiar with what my goal was throughout this career and that was to break the M all time point record, something that I fear won’t be possible anymore, something I have been working towards for the last year. 
 

Whilst I understand that this change was done for competitive integrity is there no way we have current lifers being grand fathered in. I just feel very demoralised after committing so much time to just fall short. 
 

Whilst I agree this with help with the competitiveness of the league one things that’s not being considered is retention of players, for recreates it doesn’t really matter as going through the M and E is to just ultimately make their way to the VHL, it will have a much greater impact on first gens who thrive on activity and I think it’s no surprise that San Diego, Las Vegas and Philly have the most active discords in the M. Lifers that offer no positive utility outside of team performance should be removed, but I think players like myself and Dylan always spark conversations encouraging new players to earn tpe, helping them out with builds etc there is definitely and overall positive impact there. 
 

I also completely agree with the first ruling about players being able to recreate and have both players on the same as I don’t see any positive utility there outside of improving team performance.

 

Anyway that’s my little rant finished, I hope you take into consideration some of the things I’ve mentioned.

[ShawnGlade 1,002]

4 hours ago, Gaikoku-hito said:

2. We know you all are now thinking of recreating a new player every season and creating an army of (Gaikoku-hito) players across all ten teams so we will take that challenge away from you so that you can only have a maximum of five player in the league at one give time since S90 with retire at S91 deadline, S91 (S92), S92(S93), S93(S94) and S94(S95) withe the S91 finally either being forced into the VHLE or officially released from teams.

Well we had an instance where this sorta happened this last season. It was actually my own team, we had a player on our team who wanted to retire and recreate, which is fine, but only wanted to play for my team. Meaning he had two different players on my team giving me a free player pretty much. It wasn't malicious by any means but I think that's what sparked this change

[ShawnGlade 1,002]

3 hours ago, Sjin said:

As a VHLM lifer myself I’m a bit upset to hear this rule change, I originally planned to progress through the leagues but there was a big shift in my life, also the reason I had to step down as Calgary AGM, which meant I wouldn’t be able to be around as much for a few months ultimately lead to me staying in the M and consequently becoming a lifer.
 

Almost everyone in the league is familiar with what my goal was throughout this career and that was to break the M all time point record, something that I fear won’t be possible anymore, something I have been working towards for the last year. 
 

Whilst I understand that this change was done for competitive integrity is there no way we have current lifers being grand fathered in. I just feel very demoralised after committing so much time to just fall short. 
 

Whilst I agree this with help with the competitiveness of the league one things that’s not being considered is retention of players, for recreates it doesn’t really matter as going through the M and E is to just ultimately make their way to the VHL, it will have a much greater impact on first gens who thrive on activity and I think it’s no surprise that San Diego, Las Vegas and Philly have the most active discords in the M. Lifers that offer no positive utility outside of team performance should be removed, but I think players like myself and Dylan always spark conversations encouraging new players to earn tpe, helping them out with builds etc there is definitely and overall positive impact there. 
 

I also completely agree with the first ruling about players being able to recreate and have both players on the same as I don’t see any positive utility there outside of improving team performance.

 

Anyway that’s my little rant finished, I hope you take into consideration some of the things I’ve mentioned.

If you need to be a for-lifer VHLM player just to break the record, then you shouldn't be able to break it. It literally goes against the VHLM to stay down and take ice time from new members or players, and as a GM you know that. The record is already a sham if you need to quite literally ruin your players whole career just to break it

[Sjin 167]

3 hours ago, ShawnGlade said:

If you need to be a for-lifer VHLM player just to break the record, then you shouldn't be able to break it. It literally goes against the VHLM to stay down and take ice time from new members or players, and as a GM you know that. The record is already a sham if you need to quite literally ruin your players whole career just to break it

Given that the record was set by a lifer, it is only logical that a lifer can break it 

[Gaikoku-hito 1,646]

5 hours ago, Sjin said:

Given that the record was set by a lifer, it is only logical that a lifer can break it 

Actually most of the career record in the VHLM; if I am not mistake have been set by inactive players. Which is why they are lifers. Yes, I do know few that stayed down for different reason, with the most common being the fact that we didn`t have a feeder system. It was either play in the VHLM or play in the VHL so it was uncommon to see some players locked out of the VHL due to lack of roster space. Happened more with goalies than players and I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.

 

But this shouldn`t be a record chased by an active player/member as these were set mainly due to inactives. Which is why the inactive rules were added to the VHLM in the first place; I think!! I know when I joined the league in S74 or was it S75, my first player was playing fourth line mintues due to inactives playing the top roles and minutes for the team. Also part of why the rule was created for sure!!

 

Even the VHLE records are actually not worth chasing due to the same reason as most are held by inactive players since the VHLE doesn`t have a rule; that I am aware of; that forces the GM to release inactives. Which has been a good reason why the VHLE can be seen as dead or quiet league for some.

[ShawnGlade 1,002]

19 hours ago, Sjin said:

Given that the record was set by a lifer, it is only logical that a lifer can break it 

yes, but do you see the flaw with that record? its being competed for by lifers, not the actual vhlm players. I'd be much more impressed seeing high point totals coming from a normal player than someone who intentionally stays capped and ruins it for others