Claimed: Blue Suede the Blue Suede the Blue Suede [1/2]

[.sniffuM 1,741]

1,080 words, for 6/4-6/10 and 6/11/6/17.

 

In this space I'm gonna be writing about a few flaws I feel there are in the VHL system. Calling them flaws probably isn't using the right word, as it implies that these are factual errors in the system when they are not. These things are highly subjective and I wasn't here for the discussion around a lot of them when they were implemented, so it's possible my opinions did come up and just didn't win out. A lot of my thought process comes from my being in the SBA for a few years now, as they do some things differently and I tend to prefer how they go over there. I understand that this might make it sound like I'm trying to turn the VHL into the SBA, but that's not my intention here. Anyway, let's get into it.

My main issue with the VHL is this: it feels like there's way too many concessions taken to make newer members feel like they're on an even playing field. There are some good things in place, mainly the 75 cap on carryover. But then there's the bad, like the fact that carryover is really only 45 and requires a decent amount of TPE to even get. This is because the initial 30 TPE players are given is part of your carryover. Although it appears on the surface that you must take either your carryover or your 30 TPE, any new players must now bank their carryover past 30 until they hit the VHL, so I feel like that's a fair statement. Although not much of a big deal, I find that rule to be terrible. I know from previous VHL players how much it sucks to have to bank TPE while in the VHLM. It can be hard to do your work and get your important stuff done when you have to wait to even make use of it when you're someone like me, who enjoys building a player more than anything in sim leagues. Having said that, I feel like the 175/200 cap for the VHLM is fine.

Getting back to my biggest issue is the whole thing with carryover versus 30 starting TPE. Forcing members to get absolutely nothing out of their 400 TPE player that they went inactive with because they don't hit 443 (to get the 7%) really diminishes the meaning of carryover to a returning semi-active member, at least in my experience. Sure, it's not difficult to get a ton of TPE, but people go inactive for a whole host of reasons. I understand that these rules are more in place to keep the most active of members from benefitting too much, but I believe they're likely to keep a semi-active returning member at their current expected level of activity, or lower.

So my solution on this front is one of two things: let members take both the initial 30 and carryover, or don't count the initial 30 as TPE. Now that the league has moved to the 12 weekly TPE system, allowing members an extra 30 TPE plus their carryover wouldn't be too detrimental. Maybe, with TPE totals expected to inflate anyway, the percentages can be made a bit more harsh for carryover, and/or the carryover cap can be lowered to 60 or so to compensate.

I know I've gone in on this already, but making members bank their carryover TPE after 30? Really? Who even asked for this? I'm of the opinion that there's nothing fun about having a wall between you and your TPE, which is why I tend not to try and stay in the minors to maximize my VHL TPE if possible (and when I'm actually active enough for that to be a factor). I don't know exactly how this works (and I don't even know if it's actually a rule; I just know I've seen some recreates with all carryover past 30 banked before). For example (assuming it is a rule), does this mean any player with more than 25 carryover past the free 30 can't get to 175 while staying below the 200 cap to stay in the VHLM? That's... actually pretty good, but overall I hate seeing forced banked TPE.

From my outsider point of view as someone that hasn't been truly active here in nearly half the league's lifespan, the league has made more and more concessions over the years to acommodate new members, and yet the league was at its bumpinest (real word look it up) before most of that stuff was put in. A lot of the policies seem to screw returning semi-active members more than help new members in my opinion. Also I'd love to see the VHL have an NCAA system because quite frankly, it works and is way, way more exciting than a minor/D-league, but I admit that there are many things that would have to be ironed out here and a lot of obstacles to adding this to an in-progress league.

 

NCAA Hockey could be the answer.

 

And now that I see I'm close to this being 1,000 words, I'll go into those obstacles. One definite one is that it takes some time to get off the ground, and could result in some weaker draft classes since players will want to play more seasons pre-draft. Plenty of VHL teams already have players in the VHLM that are inactivre with little hope of ever coming up, so those guys would have to be figured out. Things like scholarshio systems and such would have to be thought up as well, so that probably means some changes to the store.

But there's solutions to these issues. Maybe give players 3 years of eligibility rather than 4 to speed up the college to pro transition. For the players that are currently VHLM lifers, create a separate cap that allows the VHL teams to go in and sign some of these players. I know that at that point things become very similar to the SBA, but an unrealistic lack of depth has been an issue in the VHL since it started. I know I've seen members talk about realism as a reason they've chosen the SHL over the VHL before.

Now that the VHL has rooted out some of the factors that were keeping people away, I think the league's gonna see a comeback. However it never hurts to try and be proactive, and see if the league can really grow itself.

 

[Banackock 8,143]

Always thought this.. and agreed. Shouldn't count the initial 30 TPE. The carryover cap is 75. The starting 30 isn't "carryover". I also agree with the banking of the carryover TPE. Just let us apply it. 

[Beketov 9,104]

2 minutes ago, Banackock said:

Shouldn't count the initial 30 TPE. The carryover cap is 75. The starting 30 isn't "carryover".

Honestly I didn't even think about it until explaining to @evrydayimbyfuglien earlier but it is true. 75 was brought in as the cap at a time when you started with 0 so you really did start at 75. With players starting at 30 you only get a max advantage of 45 TPE which isn't really much.

 

3 minutes ago, Banackock said:

I also agree with the banking of the carryover TPE. Just let us apply it. 

This I don't agree with, I like this new rule. Realistically how much does it hurt the old guys? The answer is not much. Most if not all people with much carryover to bank don't care about the VHLM anyway so what's the harm in putting them on an even playing field there with new guys who do care about it and don't want to get stomped into oblivion. We aren't taking anything away, we're just saying that they need to wait on it. I have had 40 banked since I created and it has never bothered me. I know the carryover is there, I just need to wait to use it.

 

Ultimately retention is an issue in the league, as is recruitment. That's why we want to make things easier on newer guys to get their feet wet. It's easy for vets to say they want to have the advantages but from the eyes of a new member it's hell to come in with people stomping you from the get-go because the last player they made, which you weren't;t even around for, happened to be good. Rules like this even the playing field a bit while still giving some bonuses to old guys. Ultimately we can't cater completely one way or completely the other; we'll simply die out. We saw it happening when inflation from carryover started getting really bad and new guys simply didn't want to stick it out because they didn't stand a chance.

[Banackock 8,143]

Just now, Beketov said:

Honestly I didn't even think about it until explaining to @evrydayimbyfuglien earlier but it is true. 75 was brought in as the cap at a time when you started with 0 so you really did start at 75. With players starting at 30 you only get a max advantage of 45 TPE which isn't really much.

 

This I don't agree with, I like this new rule. Realistically how much does it hurt the old guys? The answer is not much. Most if not all people with much carryover to bank don't care about the VHLM anyway so what's the harm in putting them on an even playing field there with new guys who do care about it and don't want to get stomped into oblivion. We aren't taking anything away, we're just saying that they need to wait on it. I have had 40 banked since I created and it has never bothered me. I know the carryover is there, I just need to wait to use it.

 

Ultimately retention is an issue in the league, as is recruitment. That's why we want to make things easier on newer guys to get their feet wet. It's easy for vets to say they want to have the advantages but from the eyes of a new member it's hell to come in with people stomping you from the get-go because the last player they made, which you weren't;t even around for, happened to be good. Rules like this even the playing field a bit while still giving some bonuses to old guys. Ultimately we can't cater completely one way or completely the other; we'll simply die out. We saw it happening when inflation from carryover started getting really bad and new guys simply didn't want to stick it out because they didn't stand a chance.

Understandable for the second part. 

 

But we should change the above. Starting = 105 for max carryover, not 75. Let's truly make it 75 Carryover + 30 starting. 

[.sniffuM 1,741]

15 minutes ago, Beketov said:

Ultimately retention is an issue in the league, as is recruitment. That's why we want to make things easier on newer guys to get their feet wet. It's easy for vets to say they want to have the advantages but from the eyes of a new member it's hell to come in with people stomping you from the get-go because the last player they made, which you weren't;t even around for, happened to be good. Rules like this even the playing field a bit while still giving some bonuses to old guys. Ultimately we can't cater completely one way or completely the other; we'll simply die out. We saw it happening when inflation from carryover started getting really bad and new guys simply didn't want to stick it out because they didn't stand a chance.

 

I understand that but my counterpoint is that the VHL was doing fine without this stuff a few years ago. What I think drove members away was the contentious vibe on the boards but that's improved a lot. Obviously I haven't been here much so I could definitely be wrong there but in the SBA the most active members are getting 80-100 in carryover TPE and the league is going fine. That's mainly because it's not starting TPE for those players, it's applied when they uncap their players in the NCAA so the effect isn't as visible.

 

And I do feel that the carryover cap should be lowered some if it's going to be in conjunction with the initial 30. Having players start out at 105 TPE when the caps are 175/200 (not that they'd be able to hit 175 without going over 200 obviously) is a bit much imo. Either way though with the addition of TPE from the move to a 12 cap the carryover percentages can definitely be revisited.

[evrydayimbyfuglien 600]

@.sniffuM, what a timely article.

[.sniffuM 1,741]

16 minutes ago, evrydayimbyfuglien said:

@.sniffuM, what a timely article.

 

I've felt this for a long time but seeing your 380 TPE didn't result in carryover is what inspired me to write this.

[evrydayimbyfuglien 600]

56 minutes ago, .sniffuM said:

 

I've felt this for a long time but seeing your 380 TPE didn't result in carryover is what inspired me to write this.

I like how the SBA does it, everyone gets the 30 anyway so carryover is a bonus in addition to that.

[DollarAndADream 3,357]

Review:

I definitely agree that the 30 starting TPE shouldn't apply to carryover. If you get the max 75 carryover, it should mean you start with 105.

Good write-up.