Does the league still suck?

[Arthur 133]

Have the mentality changed since i left 5 years ago? Do we have new rules to exclude active members of playoff games or anything stupid like this? any reason worth coming back?

[Daniel Janser 1,981]

6 minutes ago, Arthur said:

Have the mentality changed since i left 5 years ago? Do we have new rules to exclude active members of playoff games or anything stupid like this? any reason worth coming back?

Well, Quebec has still no franchise, but we got a whole new league and it is more difficult to build meta players. And the VHL has now 16 teams (D.C. Dragons, Prague Phantoms, Chicago Phoenix, LA Stars, London United and Warsaw Predators were added since Iseult retired).

In the M, Miami Marauders were added while the Yukon Rush went into nothingness (well technically they were moved to the VHLE and relabeled Geneva Rush, but are now discontinued).

In the VHLE we had Geneva and Istanbul Red Wolves (both disbanded), Oslo Storm (former Minnesota Storm of the VHLM), Vasteras Iron Eagles (I think not related to the Vasteras of old with legendary Scotty Campbell), Stockholm Vikings (who existed before as a successor of the aforementioned Vasteras), Bratislava Watchmen (who previously existed in the VHLM), Cologne Express (who existed previously in the VHL) and the Rome Gladiators (which I believe are not related to the Minot Gladiators, a former VHLM team)

[Baozi 1,635]

1 hour ago, Arthur said:

Have the mentality changed since i left 5 years ago? Do we have new rules to exclude active members of playoff games or anything stupid like this? any reason worth coming back?

 

Never heard of a rule that excludes active players from playoffs in particular.

[JCarson 588]

No the league doesn't suck, yes there are reasons to come back.  We have some really cool people here.

[Banackock 7,642]

35 minutes ago, JCarson said:

No the league doesn't suck, yes there are reasons to come back.  We have some really cool people here.

Never has, never will.

[STZ 5,280]

[Triller 1,373]

I'm here now but wasn't 5 years ago...

[Tetricide 567]

I'd say it's pretty chill.

[Enorama 1,980]

17 hours ago, Baozi said:

 

Never heard of a rule that excludes active players from playoffs in particular.

 

He's referring to when Beaviss underplayed his backup in a season and therefore had to bench his starter (Iseult) in playoffs to make up the difference in games. Yes, that rule still exists.

 

17 hours ago, Daniel Janser said:

Well, Quebec has still no franchise

 

The last time he was around, Quebec actually did have a team and he was their goalie!

[Enorama 1,980]

To give people a little more context, Iseult actually started ALL 72 games in S63, so the Meute owed 8 backup starts. This should have been made up in playoffs by our current rules, where they won the wildcard round but were trounced in 5 games by Riga in semis. However, Iseult played all 7 games there as well. Their punishment therefore should have been levied in the following season but I honestly don't think they were punished at all. Rather, this was used as a good time to formalize what these punishments would be going forward.

 

Then Beaviss went and played Iseult too many games once again in S64, this time only 67, so 3 starts over the limit. This punishment was properly applied, with Iseult benched for the wildcard series. Iseult played 0 total minutes as the Meute were swept 2-0 in the series. 

 

Arthur here was unhappy about this, and got mad at the league for enforcing the rule rather than the GM for slipping up and missing a total of 11 backup starts across two seasons. Fun little popcorn read in the linked thread.

[Daniel Janser 1,981]

31 minutes ago, Enorama said:

The last time he was around, Quebec actually did have a team and he was their goalie!

I know, but he was also the first goalie of the Vancouver Wolves, which were the Quebec Meute before (S64/65). So he was in the middle of the storm when Quebec was moved to Vancouver and this is why I mentioned it

 

[Daniel Janser 1,981]

2 minutes ago, Enorama said:

To give people a little more context, Iseult actually started ALL 72 games in S63, so the Meute owed 8 backup starts. This should have been made up in playoffs by our current rules, where they won the wildcard round but were trounced in 5 games by Riga in semis. However, Iseult played all 7 games there as well. Their punishment therefore should have been levied in the following season but I honestly don't think they were punished at all. Rather, this was used as a good time to formalize what these punishments would be going forward.

 

Then Beaviss went and played Iseult too many games once again in S64, this time only 67, so 3 starts over the limit. This punishment was properly applied, with Iseult benched for the wildcard series. Iseult played 0 total minutes as the Meute were swept 2-0 in the series. 

 

Arthur here was unhappy about this, and got mad at the league for enforcing the rule rather than the GM for slipping up and missing a total of 11 backup starts across two seasons. Fun little popcorn read in the linked thread.

Must suck to have a restricting rule be named after you (deservedly)... The infamous Keaton Louth (aka Beaviss) rule...

[Baozi 1,635]

1 hour ago, Enorama said:

He's referring to when Beaviss underplayed his backup in a season and therefore had to bench his starter (Iseult) in playoffs to make up the difference in games. Yes, that rule still exists.

 

Ah ok so its not specifically a rule that excludes active players. It was a rule punishing a team that was cheating. So I'm correct, there is no rule that specifically excludes active players. 

[Baozi 1,635]

58 minutes ago, Daniel Janser said:

Must suck to have a restricting rule be named after you (deservedly)... The infamous Keaton Louth (aka Beaviss) rule...

 

Suck or good, if you're into notoriety.