Set The Record Straight: Full Parity - Yes or No?

[Devise 4,475]

It's no secret that the VHLM is probably going to lose another team this off-season. @Higgins has been proudly calling for the end of the Bratislava Watchmen franchise, and it appears as if the VHLM is going to get cut down to 6 teams starting next season. 

 

This brings about an interesting question, and it's not the only example of said question either. Recently we've seen conversations about spending extra time in the VHLM due to your VHL club rebuilding. I wanted to see where people lied on some of this stuff. I think there is a general rule that people think that if we had a full league of competing teams it'd be great. I don't think that is entirely true, and I don't think people recognize that not every team wants to compete. 

 

Rebuilds are apart of sports. Even in leagues with more parity. I'm not saying we shouldn't have better parity. Absolutely we should have more than 3 legitimate contenders this season out of 10 teams. But when people push for parity I think some of them assume everyone is on board for 10 teams none in rebuild. Those same people also think that we could then start pushing the limits of what a competing team looks like and begin adding third and fourth lines one day. 

 

I say this to those people. WE DO NOT ALL WANT THAT! 

 

Sorry to have to be the bearer of bad news, but there is a large contingent of members in this league who like two line teams. We like how we define success in that system. More importantly, we like dynasties and breaking league history. These are all things contingent on less parity, not more. And again, I'm not advocating for zero parity here. I think you can look late 30's early 40's as a time when it was more in line with what I think some people here enjoy or expect. But in an ideal world with a 10 team league I'd much rather have 8 competing teams with two lines of forwards, 4 D and a goalie (or around that) with 2 rebuilding teams than I would have 10 teams with 3 lines of players each and zero teams rebuilding. I never want zero teams rebuilding. Because it means the league is not ebb and flowing. It means it's just going one direction, and at some point when the pendulum swings we'll probably hit 4, 5, 6 hell even more rebuilding. I get that the argument is to increase member size to the point that 10 teams with 3 lines of forwards and the like is sustainable. But in that situation I'd rather we expand. Again, I want rebuilding clubs. It keeps things interesting. You know at some point that club if they are managed right can be better than you. They'll have the youth and benefit of better picks that you don't get on a non rebuilding club. 

 

Anyway what is peoples thoughts on this as a whole? I know some, but how attached are people to the idea that the league needs to have extreme parity? How many of us actually enjoy seeing a few clubs rebuild at key times and watch as franchises build their own narratives around that? 

[Higgins 3,618]

The more players the better.

[Da Trifecta 1,899]

If you get rid of the Watchmen @Higgins, you better start praying.

[Higgins 3,618]

1 minute ago, Da Trifecta said:

If you get rid of the Watchmen @Higgins, you better start praying.

 

sacrifices have to be made for the VHLM

[Da Trifecta 1,899]

4 minutes ago, Higgins said:

 

sacrifices have to be made for the VHLM

 

[Tagger 2,722]

I don't necessarily mind the concept of a team rebuilding and can understand why that can in some situations be a necessity, I just don't like the VHL's typical brand of rebuilding of becoming as actively shit as possible and then signing the dirt worst VHLM players until you make the cap. If those are the rebuilding team's you're talking about, then I'd much rather have 10 competing teams than eight competing teams and 2 rebuilding teams. 

[Devise 4,475]

40 minutes ago, Salt said:

I don't necessarily mind the concept of a team rebuilding and can understand why that can in some situations be a necessity, I just don't like the VHL's typical brand of rebuilding of becoming as actively shit as possible and then signing the dirt worst VHLM players until you make the cap. If those are the rebuilding team's you're talking about, then I'd much rather have 10 competing teams than eight competing teams and 2 rebuilding teams. 

 

Those are not the rebuilds I'm talking about. Teams like Helsinki this season would be considered a rebuilding team in one of our more active eras. I think you can look at a team like Quebec this season as an example of what I'm talking about. Some good young active players, some good drafts, but not really old or ready enough to be a legit threat yet, but most likely so in a season or two. 

 

I get the push for more parity and obviously with the league how it is now of course it is needed. Also as stated earlier more players is always better. Mostly just arguing that more players here doesn't always mean teams stay the same. We expanded to ten teams probably a bit hastily in the 30's, but we had a solid balance until the last little while honestly. 30's and 40's had a bunch of competitive teams, we had no repeats until the recent Helsinki and then Toronto dominance. It was lots of different competing teams and cup winners, and I think @boubabi Stockholm run is kind of proof of the parity. Player was great, team was great, but couldn't get it done due to the number of competing teams. But there certainly was some unpredictability in some of those era's, a bit more so than now. 

 

But at the same time I don't think we should force the system to remove the type of thing your talking about. While I may not be advocating for those rebuilding teams that literally have no players as you mentioned and have a harsh season. It's still important to recognize the why in some of those situations. And that is because some GM's make bad moves and some make better ones. If the system is designed so that people and franchises don't face consequences for the deals they make then count me out. It's an unfortunate side effect to the competition aspect of something like this, but I'd still rather take a world where X GM makes a good move to get a player that forces X GM to rebuild because even with more players the player pool is still tight enough that mistakes matter. Which is why I'm so resistant to the larger scale parity movement. I don't want a league wher every team has the exact same number of players. This isn't the NHL. A player with 600 TPE can outperform a player with 800 TPE, so if every team had the exact same number of players and we assumed elite talent was spread out more around the league, more similar to the NHL what are GM's doing other than setting lines at that point? I don't mean to imply it'd be completely random, but I think it'd be far too random for what people like. 

And it kind of spits in the face of the franchises that worked so hard to develop their reputations over the seasons. In an ideal world I'd always love to see 6-8 competing teams honestly. You have playoff and races for spots, and enough competing teams to keep things interesting. But you still have teams that are clearly not going to make the playoffs and that is okay. Obviously if our player base to to grow like we all want it to those numbers could/should change with the addition of more teams as needed. 

Edited March 15, 2017 by Devise

[Kesler 1,514]

Iam down for less teams. It seems the league even struggles to find 10 qualified GMs. Let alone players for those 10.

[ASIANBOUBABI 173]

THats settled. Calgary to be sacrificed for the good of the vhl