Deleting the E: Can It Really Be Done? A Theme Week Feasibility Analysis

[Gustav 6,124]

"Fold the VHLE/This goes without saying."

-@STZ

 

"The VHLE: I suppose this is one thing I'd change, and I'd probably remove the VHLE and expand the TPE allowed in the VHLM."

-@nerji

 

"my first thing as commish I would first remove the vhle..."

-@comrade cat

 

"Remove the VHLE as a middle league, and affiliate VHLM teams to VHL parebt teams."

-@Arce

 

"First off I would Combine the VHLE and VHLM into one league and put the TPE/TPA cutoff up to 500."

-@KRZY

 

"Next, I MIGHT consider removing the VHLE and offer players two seasons in VHLM to grow their player."

-@Scurvy

 

"First, I would probably delete the VHDE."

-@Spartan

 

"Abolish the VHLE"

-@Bojovnik

 

 

Needless to say, I've LOVED some of our theme week suggestions. It's true that I've taken a few of those out of context, but I think it's fair to say that if you're unaware that the E is a major point of contention (and has been since its founding), it's either your first day in the league or you've been living under a rock. It used to take 250 TPE to get up to the VHL--now it takes 400. We've always had issues with players going inactive after the draft, and I'll put right up top that the E did NOT make that worse, but we've never had an entire league dominated by inactives and we've also never had as much objection to the fundamental existence of a league itself by many of those active enough to pass through it. I'll also point to the latest thunderdome thread (can we please use the thunderdome more? I miss it) that didn't really have anything to do with deleting the E but spawned lots and lots of popular support.

 

It is ALSO true that complaining about the E will get a person a good amount of pushback. A good amount of this essentially amounts to "stop complaining", but there are more arguable points in there. Points such as..."the E is necessary" and "you're just deciding we can flip a switch and move all the players into spaces where they can't fit." And, yes, theme week has come with its share of "we should be doing more to help make the E good" points. I'll cite a short theme week blurb that I actually really appreciated here from @JCarson:

 

Quote

As I said it is now 6pm and I might have a free moment to do something I enjoy, I expect by now I have received at least one DM from somebody in the league looking for the assistance of the Commissioner. After taking a deep breath I will perform my sworn duties. After reading a long-winded diatribe I realize it is another half thought out suggestion to dismantle the VHLE. Stopping so that I do not use unbecoming words that might get me banned from discord or forum (moron, waste of human skin, brainless oaf, okay deep breath, let it out in a safe place). I sent a response to the well-meaning member reminding them that banning the VHLE, even with all its’ flaws, would cause damaging repercussions throughout the other leagues and is not something that can be done in the blink of an eye.

 

I'll say here that I completely agree with the basis of this, serious or not: a good number of you guys want to kill the E and don't care about logic. That includes me. I've seen a lot of legitimate complaints about what the E can do to someone's enjoyment--the longer path up to the VHL adds to its inaccessibility, the way our depreciation system works encourages players to stay down and that's against everything we claim to stand for, "I'm stuck on a team where no one is active and my GM doesn't talk to me," you know the deal. Anyone dealing with any of those issues has every right in the world to complain about them, and it's been a lot of people. But, frankly, I've seen a lot of really stupid arguments in favor of deleting the E in my time and I completely understand why someone would be annoyed by those. I'm here to set the record straight. I'm VHL Commissioner for a Day! I have to think critically!

 

I'm here to answer, not the question of "should we delete the E"--because that, like it or not, is a matter of opinion--but "is it realistically possible to delete the E?" If we do decide to just, as one does, wipe an entire league out of existence, will it really "cause damaging repercussions throughout the other leagues"? There was a time, and in fact a long time, when I would have agreed with that statement. I think you can see where I'm going next.

 

Long story short: I believe that it IS realistically possible that, if the VHL wanted to, it could delete the VHLE today with practically no major damage. I have modeled this more accurately and more extensively than I have ever seen anyone do, in public or in private, and I'm going to give you a spreadsheet that tells me exactly what I mean.

 

>>HERE IT IS.<<

 

Tips to make it work yourself:

Spoiler

• I'm not giving you edit access, but you can create exactly the same sheet by going File --> Make a Copy.
• Almost the entire sheet is updated automatically, and as far as I can tell it is fully updated as of the time I post this article. What YOU need to update yourself to make it accurate in the future is:
  • The current season (cell B78 on the Summary sheet)
  • Weeks since the update deadline (cell B79)
  • My partial list of draft picks (cells A71-D113) that list the number of first-round and second-round picks owned by each team next season and the number of first-round picks owned the season after that.
  • Salary brackets (cells F76-Q93; don't ask) if they change
  • On each team page, columns AJ and AK. These can point out which players are inactive and how many seasons each has played in the E (earning and depreciation projections are adjusted accordingly).
• SOMETIMES, things don't like to load correctly. If you see lots of zeros on the summary page, refresh the page. If you continue to see a lot of zeros for one or two teams, but the others look fine, what you'll need to do is this:
  • Go to a team page and find the cells that in column A that have formulas containing the function IMPORTHTML. If you see player names but nothing filling in the cap table next to them, the formula isn't working right and I don't know why.
  • Copy the cell with the formula
  • Delete the cell with the formula. The whole table should disappear.
  • Paste the cell right back in the same place you took it out from. This should fix the issue and I also don't know why.

 

 

Oh, hey. You're still here. Long story short, you say? Conflict of interest from someone who doesn't like the E, you say? Yeah, I'll admit that. Let's get into the long story LONG--I'll explain how my model works, why it's fair, why I haven't tried to manipulate the numbers to show me what I want, and probably bore you to death in the process. I've also got a lot of places to talk about where the sheet isn't perfect, and I'll explain what makes its conclusions perfectly valid overall regardless. There will be times where we'll need to employ the scientific way of thinking--which boils down to actually thinking about your results, and I'll point those out as well.

 

You're still here? Nerd. 

 

Part 1: How It's Made

 

"But Gustav," you say, "backup goalers come at a discount! How on earth do you calculate that?"

 

This spreadsheet will AUTOMATICALLY:

• Pull in and keep updated rosters for each team from the portal, along with their prospect pools (also, what the hell, Vancouver? You don't have any prospects and that wrecked the auto stuff in a way where I had to rework your tab)
• Take my own inputs for current season, weeks since the offseason cutoff, and activity status and seasons played in the E for each player (yes, I clicked on every player page for this), and for each player:
  • Project earn rates based on current season and TPA 
  • Project depreciation and retirement based on current season, draft season, activity, and seasons played in the E
  • Take rookie and prime salary brackets into account based on current season, draft season, and TPA
  • Estimate each player's TPA at the cutoff (based on weeks since the cutoff) to keep current numbers and projections accurate regardless of which point we're at in the season
  • Assume that inactive players who depreciate below 600 TPE will be cut (because you would agree that a player like that isn't worth much and wouldn't play one over your actives, right GMs?)
  • Assign each prospect a chance of making it to the VHL in any given season based on TPA, current season, and draft season, and assign that prospect a "roster number" where they are worth a given fraction of a player (and of a cap hit) in future seasons.

 

• And for each team:
  • Calculate roster numbers at each position
  • Calculate cap
  • Do both of these for the following situations:
    • The current system: nothing much more to say. 9 seasons and the current cap on the E.
    • Nuke the E and nothing else: Keep 9-season careers, get rid of the E, and make the VHLM cap its old mark of 250 TPE.
    • Make the VHLM cap 300: What if bringing more players up is too much? Here, we propose a higher VHLM cap to ease up on VHL rosters.
    • The old way: 8-season careers and a VHLM cap of 250. Making those you call whiny even more so since S80. 8-season careers do lead to more VHLM-to-VHL roster balance--your average recreate will spend 8/9 seasons in the VHL, rather than 9/10--slightly less, and not much less over time, but a double retirement brought on by shortened careers will cut down rosters substantially at first and give recruitment time to adjust the size of future classes.
    • The old way and more VHLM: 8 seasons and 300.
  • Factor in early picks over the next two seasons into roster and cap projections. 1sts and 2nds next season, as well as 1sts two seasons from now, will play into the projections.
  • Figures out the amount of cap space on the roster taken up by inactive players and also finds an "IA-adjusted" cap number for every team showing only the amount of active cap on the roster.
  • "But Gustav," you say, "what about the VHLM?" I've got an answer for you, thankfully--the sheet also pulls numbers from each team's current prospect pool related to the number of players not currently in the M but within its new proposed limits and adds to current VHLM numbers--also fully automated.

 

Everything you need to know for analysis is calculated and nicely bundled up onto the Summary sheet at the start, which (after an absolute metric TON of data entry) shows you all of those numbers, both now and for two seasons to come.

 

Seriously, I probably put in a whole 40 hours making this thing over the past few weeks. I hope you can appreciate it.

 

 

Part 2: The Limitations, and Why They Don't Remove All Meaning

 

No model is ever fully accurate, and that's absolutely true of this one. My future projections are pretty decent because they keep the overall numbers about the same over time, with retirements, player development, and my best guesses at which players make it up and how often they do it. But that being said, I'm well aware that my trying to make projections that did this defeated the purpose--I think it's a pretty good guess that we'll have about the same-sized league two seasons from now, but I don't know that for sure. And as I said in last week's article, it does not mean anything if you'd like to draw a conclusion and then mess with your own numbers until that conclusion is drawn. Absolutely no real argument that we should kill the E comes from anything I've projected for future seasons--I thought it would at first, realized it wouldn't, and really just finished doing it because I think it's going to help me out in some future articles (and maybe a GM or two would appreciate using it as well). 

 

I actually like this because it makes the conclusions less speculative--I'd immediately raise an eyebrow at anyone claiming that we should nuke the E in 2 seasons because their own numbers say roster sizes will decrease by then. Any conclusion that I'll draw here comes from my own projections of what would happen now, with the players we have, and nothing to do with me trying to decide who's creating and when.

 

That's the big point I wanted to address because I don't want people looking at my (lower) 2-season projection and trying to say that my argument is that rosters will decrease. It isn't. I do think it works well to see in general what each team should expect in the future, for things entirely unrelated to this, but that is it.

 

Other things that didn't go exactly as expected, but that would take lots of time for me to fix and wouldn't change any of my conclusions, are as follows:

• My "start of season" estimated TPA is weird because it uses a formula that works great for future projections but throws itself off for the "what if there's no E" box in the current season if the player has spent time in the E--there's more adjustment that would be needed in that case. Fortunately, this skews the "what if there's no E" numbers in the direction of "there's more cap than there should be" and this works in the opposite direction of "Gustav is messing with the numbers".
• There's a rule on the books now that players who are up for their first VHL season are in rookie salary brackets no matter what, and this leads to some players being assigned more cap than they have in real life. This also makes cap numbers higher than they should be--which is good, because a too-high number still working out fine means the real one will too. The "old way" never made use of this rule anyway, so it makes sense that any of my proposals would disregard it.
• In some cases, players have retired early (see Mikhail Kovalchuk) and are projected to be on the roster in the future. I know. This doesn't matter because I don't take future seasons into account for my conclusions.
• Also in some cases, my start-of-season estimate is further thrown off by players developing in different ways than their projections. This also skews the cap numbers higher in some cases (Seattle is an extreme case with a few million extra), and leads us to more error in the way we'd prefer to have it, but in general it's pretty accurate.

 

And that's about it as far as I can tell. I tried to make sure that the things I was doing wrong wouldn't work in ways that I might have tried to force them to, and by making ourselves look at only the current season numbers, we eliminate most of the "here's my opinion" part anyway.

 

 

Part 3: The Conclusions

 

I'm going to start off right now by saying that, if we wanted to, I believe that it would be fully possible to eliminate the VHLE. Not all situations work perfectly, but I believe that some will.

• The average VHL roster, now, contains 6.1 forwards, 3.6 defensemen, and 1.6 goalers. I believe that 6-4-1 (or 2) is the best possible lineup for everyone--every player needs ice time, and everyone would benefit from linemates. So, this works to the benefit of quite a few teams.
• I don't know if I'd recommend any of the "kill the E straight away" options without any changes to career length. I'm fine with the other numbers involved in either case, but both of these cases would give us more forwards per roster than we want (almost 8). I think that, to an extent, this is an issue that could be addressed with some who are willing choosing to go with position changes, but I'd rather not introduce a situation where that's necessary.
• I think that either situation where we move back to 8-season careers is workable. Teams gain an average of less than one forward each, and the other positions remain well within the boundaries of realism (6.8 F, 4.1 D and 1.8 G per team with 8-season careers/250 TPE cap, and marginally less for 300). And yes, I'll concede that this might increase after 3 seasons or so because the numbers are cut down by a double retirement, but there's nothing to suggest that recruitment can't work with this in advance to try to keep draft classes about the same. 
• The VHLM is fine in any case--it's a little bit borderline for our 300-TPE-cap situations, but simply flipping back to the way things used to happen wouldn't blow up rosters. Additionally...we used to have 12 teams before Minnesota and Yukon became Oslo and Geneva. Move those two back, and 250-TPE rosters actually decrease below where they're filled to today. 
• Cap should be fine as is. The 8-season adjustment would save some teams some money with whatever early retirements come in, and when some of our rosters "flex" with a good draft class down the road (which, again, hopefully recruitment has worked to mitigate. I wouldn't imagine it would be difficult to recruit less for a season), earlier depreciation brought about by the lack of an E league will cut down on where players can cap out. I don't see any issues popping up here, and I think I can conclude that just from our current numbers.

 

So, should we nuke the E, I would be most in favor of doing so in a way that brings things back to where they were--a cap of 250 TPE, 8-season careers, and give us our two teams back.

 

 

 

Finally, please notice that my conclusions do not include a conclusion that we should nuke the E. Even though I'd do that in a second, that is a separate discussion from this and remains a matter of opinion--let the people speak on that one. However, I do think what I've done here is to get things to where they can be a matter of opinion. It's fair to say that many who don't like the E have never done the counting that's necessary to find out whether we can. Now I have, and at least for the time being, I think some of those opinions that mostly just amount to "I do/I don't like the E and would/wouldn't rather have it taken out" are worth listening to. Rosters are fine as is--but if they can be fine without an E, then whether it should exist is a fair opinion and a fair debate based on lived experience. 

 

Since this is theme week, and we're talking about being commissioners for a day, though?

 

Delete the E.

[Subject056 858]

That spreadsheet is

[Pifferfish 345]

Imagine being a dirty commie. L moment.

[Pifferfish 345]

Sorry my last message was involuntary and fueled by my hunger. Good article Gus

[Triller 1,385]

This is some hardcore nerd stuff and I love it!  I need to dig in deeper but you've made it clear the possibility of removing the E definitively, to the point where the decision could be made and this plan could be enacted.  Very interesting!

[Beketov 8,646]

6 hours ago, Gustav said:

I believe that it IS realistically possible that, if the VHL wanted to, it could delete the VHLE today with practically no major damage.

I don’t remotely have time to read all this, let alone the spreadsheet that I’m sure is very impressive. I just wanted to say that this has always been the greatest strength the VHLE has. As odd as it sounds nuking the league has a whole is far easier, by design, than nuking teams post-expansion. That is a messy situation and always is; especially when in S80 we would have needed to expand each league by like 4 teams or more, it would be a nightmare. Because it sits in the middle the VHLE, by design, means players have both a VHLM and a VHL team; with a few exceptions at least. This means that folding the VHLE doesn’t require an expansion draft or anything like folding teams would, you just move the players to where they already belong based off their TPE level.

 

I will say that personally I enjoyed both the VHLE teams I played for last season and didn’t feel any of the “I’m being ignored”-ness that apparently exists but results may vary I suppose. I found the path enjoyable and have definitely liked that I actually feel competitive when hitting the VHL instead of being a useless lump for at least a season.

[Masu Chan 429]

As long as I'm still in charge of the Redwolves I'll be happy. Doesn't matter which league I'm in, I'll make sure the Redwolves are the best they can be. What I'm saying is don't delete my team please XD

[Will3 415]

Increase the TPE cap for the VHLE to 500 TPE. Increase the VHLM graduation bonus by at least 10 TPE. Make the VHLE an official farm league of the VHL with two VHL teams supplying one VHLE team with players. That is how I would fix the E.

[Grape 528]

Too long didn't read but I agree.

[Victor 10,549]

16 hours ago, Gustav said:

I'm VHL Commissioner for a Day! I have to think critically!

Lol since when 

[JCarson 590]

@Gustav , I always enjoy reading your media spots, your long drawn out discussions that are backed with some level of actual factual information or at least a level of modelling that could imply some level of analytical rigor.  You came to a conclusion that was as obvious as your article was long.  Beketov put it best in noting the VHLE didn't always exist and as part of its design was always positioned so that it could be eliminated if that became necessary.

 

What I would really like you to take on is the analytical perspective of how do we take the VHLE as it is today and model A VHLE that doesn't have the inherent issues that exist today and then look for options to get from current state to ideal state.  I truly believe the VHLE has significant ability to add value to the VHL overall structure if it was solidified within the overall organization and operated effectively

 

@Beketovyou noted that the VHLE was designed such that it could be nuked more easily than eliminating expansion teams.  Maybe this is part of the reason people are calling for it to be nuked.  If it was only to ever be temporary then at some point it is designed to end.  If it is going to be nuked at some point it might as well be now.  Yet I would argue if we removed the safety net, if the VHLE was solidified into the overall structure such that removing it would be like removing a person's lung (sure it could still be done but only at severe personal harm) then the conversation turns to how do we make the VHLE healthy and thriving.  Exactly what it should be.  Then maybe people would see the benefits it gives both the VHLM and the VHLE.  It can be a benefit and I am pretty sure Gustav could prove that with his model as well.

[Beketov 8,646]

1 hour ago, JCarson said:

If it was only to ever be temporary then at some point it is designed to end.

I never said it was designed to be temporary. I said it was easier to kill than killing multiple expansion teams.

[JCarson 590]

2 hours ago, Beketov said:

I never said it was designed to be temporary. I said it was easier to kill than killing multiple expansion teams.

True you never used the word temporary, that was my interpretation of the statement you made.

"As odd as it sounds nuking the league has a whole is far easier, by design, than nuking teams post-expansion."

 

  As humans we tend to think of things in relation to time.  Those things that we deem temporary we tend to design in a manner that allows them to be easily removed, stored and potentially used later.  Things that are permanent we don't design with the ability to easily remove.  The fact that those who designed the VHLE to be easier to nuke tells me that those who chose to put it in place knew there may be a time it was no longer needed, it had a temporary use.

 

As I learn more about the league I become more aware of the wisdom that those in leadership have used to guide the league.  To allow for the existence of the VHLE to deal with a large influx of recruits and the eventual dismantling of it when the proper time came took great wisdom.  To accept an answer that took more work, more guidance, more of themselves when the easiest answer would have been to simply add a team or two took significant forethought, dedication and wisdom in looking at the issue they faced.

 

So no you didn't use temporary in your statement, I will reword for you.  By great wisdom the VHLE was designed knowing that an end to its existence may be required and based on this design, people have clung to that aspect and so keep calling for it to reach  its natural conclusion, as was designed.  

 

As such I would suggest that redesigning the VHLE as a fully functional and integral part of the entire VHL experience would allow for the sum of the 3 parts to be more valuable and a greater experience than the 2 pieces that would remain if the VHLE was dismantled.  I am even more convinced that Gustav's analytics could be used to prove this point to a greater degree than he has concluded that the VHLE could and should be dismantled and put away for a time when it might be used again.

[Gustav 6,124]

2 hours ago, JCarson said:

As such I would suggest that redesigning the VHLE as a fully functional and integral part of the entire VHL experience would allow for the sum of the 3 parts to be more valuable and a greater experience than the 2 pieces that would remain if the VHLE was dismantled.  I am even more convinced that Gustav's analytics could be used to prove this point to a greater degree than he has concluded that the VHLE could and should be dismantled and put away for a time when it might be used again.

 

I'm genuinely curious why you would be more in favor of this over a 2-league system. Obviously you know my opinions on the E but I'm not not open to talking about it.

 

The way I see it is that the E has benefits from an administrative standpoint. I'd agree that it lets us take on a larger community while avoiding massive expansion of a 2-league system--which I also think would have been unsustainable past the point we had it. If your interest is in designing a community that is, purely based on numbers, more capable of standing up to change, the 3-league system is it. 

 

But I genuinely think the harm done to the player experience outweighs the administrative benefit and that if we realistically can switch back, we should do it. I hope I've shown that we realistically can here. You're proposing that we work to improve the E--and while it's around, I'm absolutely in favor of that--but you'd have a very hard time convincing me that any system that presents a higher barrier to entering the VHL is worth it. That's fundamentally what the E is and there really isn't a way to make it not that with some systemic change. I found multiple players, sometimes multiple players per team, with half a career or more after being drafted spent...not in the VHL. Davos has an active player in their 9th season who's a rookie--that's over a year spent without ever making it, and retirement coming up the second they do. I don't think that does a service for lower earners at all (and if you had access to the BoG thread where the E was created, you'd see plenty of things along the lines of how this is wonderful for "clickers" and whatnot). 

 

There are things that I don't like about the E that maybe we can improve upon. For example, the way our depreciation system works (while harsher depreciation is necessary to keep some of the numbers down) more or less encourages people to not play in the VHL. I don't think there's any world where any player should purposely avoid their own development because it carries an advantage, but here we are living in it. Plus, the "there are lots of IAs in the E" thing goes without saying. But, those are things that we can control. While I have a problem with them, I don't believe they're inherently tied to the E's existence and I do believe that they're things that can be worked on.

 

But in total, I'm still against the E's existence because of the really big thing I don't believe we can control about it. It's just harder to make it up to the VHL, and especially as VHLM commish I like to think our development league's greatest success and sole objective is to put people in the VHL. It's not something that should take half a career or more for a lower earner. Another thing you'd see if you had the same BoG access I mention above is that there was a decent amount of pushback against the proposal because of this alone, before those other issues were even known. This isn't a new argument against it, and in fact it was the original one. If you can think of a way around that, I'd love to hear it, but I'm not sure one exists that can't also be achieved by doing the simple thing and hitting delete.

[v.2 1,260]

you popped off with this one

[JCarson 590]

@Gustav  I am not sure I am decided one way or the other.  What I do know is we need to make a decision and stop the discussion about if it should be done.  We either do it now or do it never and focus on establishing the E as an integrated and valuable part of the league structure.  The fact you reference the BOG conversation and the planning that took place to allow for the E to be removed when necessary kind of proves my point that the E has always been seen as temporary since it was established.  The continual call to remove it is by nature what it was designed for.

 

Now the other side of the argument.  The VHLE could have significant potential if we wanted it to.

 

1) It has the ability to help increase the competitiveness in the VHL.  In my opinion a two league system allows to large a spread between top ranking players and low level players in the VHL.  If you get rid of the E and increase the VHLM cap to 350 that still means you have the potential TPA range of 351 to 1350ish in the VHL.  The bottom players don't have a chance to complete at those levels.  If the VHL is meant to be the elite league it should be looking at levels closer to 650-1350.  Yes this creates an entire issue with Cap room, and filling in the lower level players (but that could be addressed)

 

2) VHLE has some of its issues because it hasn't been managed in a way to stimulate retention.  As the VHLM did a couple seasons ago I think the VHLE needs to take a hard stance on the GM of the teams and set expectations.  retention should be a goal, good player scouting should be a goal, player engagement in locker rooms should be a goal, assisting players to continue growing should be a goal.  That said the league needs to make those goals attainable.  Which may mean taking a hard stance on inactive players and removing them from teams so that active players can shine.

 

3) If a structure something like VHLM 0-350 TPE, VHLE 351-650 TPE and VHL 650+ were established it will create an issue in that many people now don't hit the 650 threshold.  Why is that, potentially it is a result of the VHL creating very stringent TPE earning opportunities.  So why not fix that.  Honestly a player who only does welfare weekly should be able to achieve a TPE of 650 within 4-5 years, top players would be able to earn more based on added activity.  If we restructure TPE point systems in that manner by adding additional tasks/increasing compensation for tasks with limits obviously.  But if a player could earn 15 TPE per week capped and up to 5-10 uncapped.  We may have some of the super active get slightly higher TPE than usual but it would be manageable.  This quicker rise to being a stronger player may even add to the retention as people will feel they are accomplishing something.

 

Those are just some initial thoughts, I know there would be plenty to work out but I don't have the time to finish restructuring everything while I should be working.  My point is there is an ability to put together something with 3 leagues that can't be done with two that will increase retention, increase engagement and increase the competitive levels at each stage.  And will work regardless of someone being a welfare earner or a max earner.  I am not overly concerned about keeping a system that supports and encourages inactivity.

[Gustav 6,124]

11 hours ago, JCarson said:

1) It has the ability to help increase the competitiveness in the VHL.  In my opinion a two league system allows to large a spread between top ranking players and low level players in the VHL.  If you get rid of the E and increase the VHLM cap to 350 that still means you have the potential TPA range of 351 to 1350ish in the VHL.  The bottom players don't have a chance to complete at those levels.  If the VHL is meant to be the elite league it should be looking at levels closer to 650-1350.  Yes this creates an entire issue with Cap room, and filling in the lower level players (but that could be addressed)

 

The "cap" in terms of the old TPE scale is actually a good bit lower than it used to be pre-hybrid, so I actually wouldn't worry much about that. It's true that there's a skill gap, but do we need there to not be one? It's perfectly normal to see new NHLers take a couple seasons to develop, even the good ones. I'd hardly think that solving the issue of needing development to succeed in the VHL is something that should be done by making it more difficult to get to in the first place.

 

11 hours ago, JCarson said:

2) VHLE has some of its issues because it hasn't been managed in a way to stimulate retention.  As the VHLM did a couple seasons ago I think the VHLE needs to take a hard stance on the GM of the teams and set expectations.  retention should be a goal, good player scouting should be a goal, player engagement in locker rooms should be a goal, assisting players to continue growing should be a goal.  That said the league needs to make those goals attainable.  Which may mean taking a hard stance on inactive players and removing them from teams so that active players can shine.

 

100% agreed.

 

I think the E at the very least needs some sort of limits or incentives to prioritize actives. I'm not sure there are enough actives to fill team rosters as is (I wonder why I'd rather just get rid of it) but with nothing in place that would push a GM toward maximizing use of actives and working for retention, things will stay the way they are.

 

11 hours ago, JCarson said:

3) If a structure something like VHLM 0-350 TPE, VHLE 351-650 TPE and VHL 650+ were established it will create an issue in that many people now don't hit the 650 threshold.  Why is that, potentially it is a result of the VHL creating very stringent TPE earning opportunities.  So why not fix that.  Honestly a player who only does welfare weekly should be able to achieve a TPE of 650 within 4-5 years, top players would be able to earn more based on added activity.  If we restructure TPE point systems in that manner by adding additional tasks/increasing compensation for tasks with limits obviously.  But if a player could earn 15 TPE per week capped and up to 5-10 uncapped.  We may have some of the super active get slightly higher TPE than usual but it would be manageable.  This quicker rise to being a stronger player may even add to the retention as people will feel they are accomplishing something.

 

We would have some of the super active get a lot more TPE than usual and that's what forced our depreciation system into the less-than-ideal setup it's in right now. 

 

I'd like you to consider as well that someone taking 4-5 seasons to get up to the VHL is approximately 8-10 real-life months. That's a lot more development time than really anyone needs. 

 

Making it so welfare players have it harder, and the top end earns more, only widens the gap and creates more of that skill difference you talk about in your first point. Besides, if we're increasing the minimum while increasing the amount of TPE available, isn't that effectively keeping it the same? I'm not sure I understand.

 

 

All in all I think I fail to see where this creates a better, simpler solution than just getting rid of it. A cap of 650 with 15 TPE available is far less reachable than a cap of 250 with 12, and that point alone brings us to my #1 point against the E--the VHL is for everyone, and we need to make it so everyone can get there.

 

 

To circle back:

11 hours ago, JCarson said:

@Gustav  I am not sure I am decided one way or the other.  What I do know is we need to make a decision and stop the discussion about if it should be done.  We either do it now or do it never and focus on establishing the E as an integrated and valuable part of the league structure.  The fact you reference the BOG conversation and the planning that took place to allow for the E to be removed when necessary kind of proves my point that the E has always been seen as temporary since it was established.  The continual call to remove it is by nature what it was designed for.

 

I don't think it's likely that, given what I know about VHL bureaucracy, the E will be deleted unless someone shows that it is clearly, objectively, worse in every way than any other alternative. I have not done that here--all I have done is debunk the perception that it continues to be absolutely necessary for the league to function. 

 

I don't think that means that my opinion cannot be that we should roll it back. After all, we had to prove that it was at the time it was created absolutely necessary to put it through everything (and I have to say that pushing anything at all through BoG can be a nightmare sometimes). If the league had the numbers it did now and someone came along suggesting that we add a third one, they'd be laughed at, because it's not needed. I disagree that we should "make a decision and stop the discussion"--if we have it, we should think about whether we need it. If we don't, we should think about whether we do. It's OK to have dissenting opinions on this, and speaking from experience I really wish "just make a decision" is how things worked. There's stuff sitting in there right now that I think we should have just made a decision on close to a full year ago.

 

And yes, there are mechanisms by which we can easily get rid of it if we ever want to. I've brought this up before and received replies from various individuals along the lines of "how dare you suggest that we would ever consider this", but they exist and anyone telling you otherwise probably also believes that being in BoG means you have to agree with everything that happens in BoG. 

[Gustav 6,124]

Week 2 of E deleting

[Gustav 6,124]

Week 3 of E deleting

[Gustav 6,124]

Week 4 of E deleting

[Daniel Janser 1,983]