Bringing Back Player 2 (PP2.5)

[Devise 4,475]

1 hour ago, Molholt said:

Last thing, because it seemed there might have been some confusion earlier - the SBA doesn't allow 2 players at the pro level, you're just allowed to have a 2nd player at the college level, which can become your main player when your pro one retires - shortening the time you have to spend in the development league (another thing the VHL should be doing). The EFL does allow 2 players, but its limited to one offensive and one defensive, given the two distinct sides of the ball. 

 

This I'm not opposed to. My issue with Project Two was less the double point task system and more seeing members double up in the league and seeing a lot of them basically treat both members as one commodity. Several times we saw notable members with both of their players on the same team. I never really liked that aspect of it, and I prefer the mindset that your have one player on a main club to be cheering for. Having an early start to your next player pre-retirement of your first one while he's in the VHLM doesn't really ruin that at all. 

[.sniffuM 1,741]

Alright, I've floated the idea before, Molholt kinda brought it up too. If the issue is we don't want to see people driven away because of top earners with two dominant players, what about PP2 with a filler system? Limit their growth (50 TPE a season) and their cap (200-300 TPE) so that they present depth and get us looking like real hockey. Our current system for rosters works, but I don't have to be the most knowledgeable hockey guy in the world to know it's not realistic.

 

I've seen newer members talk in discord before about how VHL rosters are unrealistically thin so it's not something that goes unnoticed. We're the only hockey league out there that doesn't run at least 3 lines deep leaguewide, and this is a way to do that while not adding dominant players into the mix. I do think it is worth it though to see how the growth of the league from the last couple seasons and presumed continued growth impact lines before we institute something like this though.

[Beaviss 4,958]

13 minutes ago, .sniffuM said:

Alright, I've floated the idea before, Molholt kinda brought it up too. If the issue is we don't want to see people driven away because of top earners with two dominant players, what about PP2 with a filler system? Limit their growth (50 TPE a season) and their cap (200-300 TPE) so that they present depth and get us looking like real hockey. Our current system for rosters works, but I don't have to be the most knowledgeable hockey guy in the world to know it's not realistic.

 

I've seen newer members talk in discord before about how VHL rosters are unrealistically thin so it's not something that goes unnoticed. We're the only hockey league out there that doesn't run at least 3 lines deep leaguewide, and this is a way to do that while not adding dominant players into the mix. I do think it is worth it though to see how the growth of the league from the last couple seasons and presumed continued growth impact lines before we institute something like this though.

 

I like the 50 TPE a season Cap but not a max cap so then they could get up to 400-500 tpe by the end of there season which would make good tier 2 players. It would also open up teams to having real depth on there lines and defensive player builds checkers etc. 

Edited November 1, 2018 by Beaviss

[.sniffuM 1,741]

1 hour ago, Beaviss said:

 

I like the 50 TPE a season Cap but not a max cap so then they could get up to 400-500 tpe by the end of there season which would make good tier 2 players. It would also open up teams to having real depth on there lines and defensive player builds checkers etc. 

 

I misworded that, I meant TPA for the limit, so once they regress they can add on 50 a season back (or they just regress to shit like fillers in the SBA do).

 

As far as making the TPE limit more like 400-500, I think that's too high. We want these guys to be depth players, not viable second liners for a contender up against the cap.

[TheLastOlympian07 2,388]

I like the filler idea for sure. 50 tpe a season. and so they max out at 400 tpe even as they hit regression 400 tpe career earned no matter tpa says imo is the way to go.

[Beaviss 4,958]

6 minutes ago, TheLastOlympian07 said:

I like the filler idea for sure. 50 tpe a season. and so they max out at 400 tpe even as they hit regression 400 tpe career earned no matter tpa says imo is the way to go.

 

We would have to bring back Vasteras!

[Quik 4,113]

2 hours ago, .sniffuM said:

Alright, I've floated the idea before, Molholt kinda brought it up too. If the issue is we don't want to see people driven away because of top earners with two dominant players, what about PP2 with a filler system? Limit their growth (50 TPE a season) and their cap (200-300 TPE) so that they present depth and get us looking like real hockey. Our current system for rosters works, but I don't have to be the most knowledgeable hockey guy in the world to know it's not realistic.

  

 I've seen newer members talk in discord before about how VHL rosters are unrealistically thin so it's not something that goes unnoticed. We're the only hockey league out there that doesn't run at least 3 lines deep leaguewide, and this is a way to do that while not adding dominant players into the mix. I do think it is worth it though to see how the growth of the league from the last couple seasons and presumed continued growth impact lines before we institute something like this though.

The league is already closing in on being a 3-line league. It's taken some time, and we've certainly limped there with the issues that we had in the past, but we're on that path as it is.

 

I think there's what, 4 S56 Players left right now, who are retiring at season's end? About 11 from S57, with I think 2 or 3 inactives. Around 10 or 11 S58 players kicking around, with the vast majority being inactives? S59 only has like 5 players still in the league. Let's call it 30 players who will be forced into retirement in the next 4 seasons.

 

This season alone has 21 rookies. Next season there will be at least 16, with a high likelihood of reaching 20 again. Add another 15 between S64 draftees graduating in S65, S65 draftees, and S66 Draftees (that's being fairly conservative), and that's a net gain of 25 players compared to what the league has today. More than 3 per team.

 

The league isn't hurting for depth, it's there, and it's coming. All re-introducing P2 would do is create artificial inflation, for the sake of...having fillers on the bottom lines? It just seems superfluous to me. I'd rather we focus on growing organically, as we have been for about 6 months now, and worry about team depth when the issue starts to arise, shortly.

 

The best thing about being one conference now is that we don't have to expand 2 teams at a time, so if we get to a point where rosters are getting too full up, we can re-introduce a 9th team to alleviate some of that pressure, without worrying about going too fast. Pushing P2 again means that expansion becomes a must, and creates so many more logistical issues than leauge-issues that it solves (which I don't see what it actually solves?)...

[.sniffuM 1,741]

Like I said, it's worth waiting to see how well the growth takes before thinking of implementing fillers. Many things can of course change as far as the activity levels of new members or the success of recruiting goes.

 

Also the day the league goes to 9 teams is the day I leave. Odd numbers in sports leagues are gross.

[Quik 4,113]

5 minutes ago, .sniffuM said:

Also the day the league goes to 9 teams is the day I leave. Odd numbers in sports leagues are gross.

Oh, it's definitely ugly, but I'd rather have 9 teams that are healthy than the clusterfuck that was a 10-team VHL. Even then, it'd probably be part of staggering the expansions by a few seasons, just to keep from growing too fast and having issues because of it.