Water in Ottawa and parity within the VHLM

[PadStack 48]

Something is up with the water in Ottawa. The Lynx were predicted to be a front runner this season after their strong draft, but their current record of 22-3 seems very alien, especially to a team that just managed to limp into the playoffs last year. Something definitely seems off, but when you put into contrast Saskatoon's season last year, and the fact that Ottawa isn't even in first place at the moment it seems like this might just be the way of the league, massive swings season to season and low parity.

Minnesota is currently leading the way with an extra win over Ottawa, but all the top 5 teams are having stellar seasons before we seem to hit a massive cliff.

Philly sitting in 5th with a 17-8-0 record still has a staggering 2 wins for every loss. 

Past Philly you drop all the way to losing records the rest of the way, so it seems like there is some parity in the league, but it's split into 2 distinct groups of performers - the current top 5, and then the bottom 6.

There has been a lot of talk about tweaks to the playoff format to lower the down time between players being knocked out and activity splurges like the draft or the start to the season. Maybe this continued phenomenon could be the catalyst that sparks a change? More teams involved? Less teams involved? separate tournament for non qualifying teams?

[Gustav 6,407]

7 hours ago, PadStack said:

Past Philly you drop all the way to losing records the rest of the way, so it seems like there is some parity in the league, but it's split into 2 distinct groups of performers - the current top 5, and then the bottom 6.

 

One thing I don't love about the VHLM is the fact that either you're tanking or you're getting rid of all the picks you've got to build a stacked roster. If you're not doing one of those two things in any given season you're not going to win a cup.

 

Granted, we should see this changing (a little, at least) very soon--with the increase of the VHLM cap to 250 rather than 200, it might not be the best idea to sell off your entire roster as a GM, as really anyone who isn't a TPE whore will likely spend two seasons in the minors. I'm hoping some team strategy gets built around this, but at the same time the league should keep an eye open for players being encouraged to stay down and slow their earning, which is highly unethical if done by the VHLM GM.

[Doomsday 4,130]

I have always maintained that the primary role of the VHLM GM is not to win the Founder's Cup, but to encourage activity and retain members. Encouraging players to not update in order to stay in the VHLM or benching active players for higher TPE inactives is against the spirit of what the VHLM is for in my opinion. 

 

Additionally, I'm of the opinion that with the TPE cap for the VHLM going up, prospects should be able to get the year of their VHL draft in the VHLM if they do not qualify for the VHL without it counting against their career clock. I get some players will lose a year of eligibility, but if an active player is spending two years in the VHLM, that's a drastically shorter VHL career, especially when you factor in regression. 

[TheFlash 317]

On ‎2‎/‎5‎/‎2020 at 10:50 AM, Doomsday said:

I have always maintained that the primary role of the VHLM GM is not to win the Founder's Cup, but to encourage activity and retain members. Encouraging players to not update in order to stay in the VHLM or benching active players for higher TPE inactives is against the spirit of what the VHLM is for in my opinion. 

 

Additionally, I'm of the opinion that with the TPE cap for the VHLM going up, prospects should be able to get the year of their VHL draft in the VHLM if they do not qualify for the VHL without it counting against their career clock. I get some players will lose a year of eligibility, but if an active player is spending two years in the VHLM, that's a drastically shorter VHL career, especially when you factor in regression. 

 

Bingo