VHL Magazine Power Poll - Forced Retirement

[Toast 887]

Earlier this week we heard that Remy LeBeau was planning on signing an extension with the Toronto Legion despite S38 being the last season that he was supposed to be a part of the league due to the retirement rule.

 

Players have eight seasons with the league before their player agents are required to look for a new client to enter the league, especially as their former player is becoming a shell of their former selves. There are players like LeBeau who are able to meet the higher requirement for training to keep up with the competition in the league, so why force them to leave the league after eight seasons? Is it to make room for the younger generation that is making their way in?

 

While it is handy for the younger generation of players making their way in to the league, it’s also disappointing to see legacies come to an end with the forced retirement. Would it beneficial to the league to allow players to go past the year they're supposed to leave the league?

 

It would allow players to continue on until they feel it was time to step back. Eventually depreciation would take its toll. On the other hand forcing players to step away makes room for the younger generation of players.

 

So what do you think? Should players be free to continue on until they feel it’s right to retire, or is this forced retirement good for the league?

 

Best comments get into the Mag!

[NotAVHLM-GM 1,858]

Honestly, I felt eight seasons was too short for my liking and I would be happy to fight regression for a while. I love LeBeau and I would have loved to take his career even further. But from a statistical point of view, it would be weird to change the way the game is played. HoF'ers and records are there for a reason and it would be jeopardized if we would change it.

 

Voted Yes with the heart (but would have voted no with the brain)

Edited May 15, 2014 by Green

[Guest]

Voted Yes, but only because I feel it would add a strange dimension to the landscape here.

[Victor 10,844]

No, fuck change.

[TheLastOlympian07 2,388]

I voted no, I have mentioned this before but Kendrick said this would be silly because he rather gets bored of some players. I think it would be cool to have but what about those players who were forced to retire before? Im sure kyle would live to have Ansgar Snjider still playing or squinty would like to still be playing with Leeroy Jenkins. It would be cool but its not fair to those who came before us right? But i guess we did expand so new changes arent that bad. 

[Fire Tortorella 2,653]

Nope. I think having to continue rotating players keeps things fresh. Only way I'd say yes is if there was extremely harsh depreciation after your 8th year. Something like 15-25%.

[Kyle 667]

No, it would change the record books.

[sherifflobo 137]

I wish I could have gone one more season (even half a season more) with Larsson, but I voted no because I think having 8 series careers adds a sort of freshness to the league.

[Corco 1,176]

Make the limit ten seasons, but make the regression percentage higher as well

[Mike 708]

If this league was young enough there could be a possible debate but after 37 Seasons of 8 years then forced retirement this is one can of worms that we can't open.

[JardyB10 4,865]

Voted Yes, but only because I feel it would add a strange dimension to the landscape here.

Voted no for pretty much the same reason.  Hall of Fame voting is subjective enough to vote on as is, having older players would be weird for me.  And like everyone else said, it's nice to keep things fresh.  When I was doing my nostalgia podcast, I couldn't believe how long it seemed guys like Rybak and A. Labatte were around.  Those guys feel like the current generation, yet their previous players, Feltersnatch and Bencharski, feel like aeons ago. And literally were.  I dunno, careers pretty much span a full real year as it is, I think it's good how it is.

[MapFreak 120]

Perhaps the option should be there.

 

Currently, there is NO option to do so. It would be an interesting strategy to see who would slug out the twilight years against increased regression. Keeping things fresh is good, but it could add another dimension to things.

 

But hey what do I know! Haven't even cracked the bigs yet.

[Da Trifecta 1,896]

I voted no. The whole thing about freshness is good. Some people can't even make it to 8 years and re-create. I was on the brink of it myself because I have no freshness for Davey Jones. Quite frankly, if I wasn't talked into it, I would be retired and re-created right now. I get the fact that some legacies should be carried on, but the current freshness when people re-create is awesome. I love seeing vets create new people and being able to compete with them. I want to stack up with the best of the best and showcase my skills. It comes a time where everyone must hang them up and 8 career years is by far a great number to have that as.

[scoop 3,384]

I voted no, but I mean, yes isn't a bad choice. I think we'd want depreciation to start beating the crap out of you at that point in order to discourage people from continuing.

 

Like, 13% in your 9th season, 20% in your 10th, ridiculous amounts more in following years.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Hustles

[RomanesEuntDomus 442]

We should keep the forced retirement, but extend the maximum career length to 10 seasons. Regression would kick in a bit later than it does now (in a players 7th or 8th season I'd say) but would also be harsher.

 

But I get that with how long the league has been using the 8 season system, this will probably be too impractical. Plus people don't want to lose their old record so some of them will be fighting this for largely selfish reasons as well.

 

I for one like to keep my players around as long as possible, but I also know that this isn't how the VHL works.

Edited May 16, 2014 by RomanesEuntDomus

[Guest]

I say allow it, lt them go as long as they want, but then they just get hit harder and harder in regression and carryover

[Molholt 2,185]

I've always been a fan of longer. I come from baseball leagues where there was no depreciation or cap, you retired when the sim started regressing your player due to age though, so I've seen both sides.

 

Yes, it changes the record books, but that happens in all sports. Basketball essentially have three ages of play, based on rule changes, you have to figure that stuff in when considering all time greats and stuff. It makes it harder, but if you understand the different times you can do it. Every sport has this, baseball used to have the dead ball era, the steroid era, etc. So I don't think the mindset of it messing up records or HOF is a very legitimate reason.

 

I also don't agree that you should count it out just because you get tired of your own player. That's kind of the point, some people do and some people don't. Green would like to keep LeBeau, Trifecta wants a new player - they each could have that decision for themselves, it doesn't take away your decision to play a shorter career. Larry Bird played half as many seasons as Kareem, we don't look at him vastly differently, we value what each of them gave the NBA for as long as they did. 

 

However, if you were to add it, I think you'd definitely need harsher regression in those final stages. With perhaps less TPE available in the future due to some recent changes, it would likely be pretty hard to fight it, but maybe a few would, just to have a couple of seasons of their player truly "aging" and not being able to cut it anymore, yet hanging on. It could add an interesting dimension. 

 

I've learned not to fight for realism much though, I'm typically in the minority of people who want a more realistic experience. I'd prefer to have a long career like Lidstrom, but I've come to the terms that it just won't happen in these leagues.

[Fire Tortorella 2,653]

I've learned not to fight for realism much though, I'm typically in the minority of people who want a more realistic experience. I'd prefer to have a long career like Lidstrom, but I've come to the terms that it just won't happen in these leagues.

 

Not to nitpick, but how is using Lidstrom's extremely long career being realistic? He was the exception, not the rule.

[Molholt 2,185]

Not to nitpick, but how is using Lidstrom's extremely long career being realistic? He was the exception, not the rule.

 

Because he had that option. He wasn't forced to retire after X amount of seasons.

[Higgins 3,618]

Gotta keep dem drafts all stocked up with recreates if ya knowhattam sayin.

[Victor 10,844]

Gotta keep dem drafts all stocked up with recreates if ya knowhattam sayin.

This is a point I hadn't considered but is probably the most important actually. We can't fuck with the cycles.

[Flames1848 11]

Ten Years

[STZ 5,339]

Let's bring it down for 5 years. #FerdaDrafts

[Devise 4,475]

I voted no because I think the integrity of stats, re stocking players for drafts and the changing of the top guard in the league are all too important.

 

However if we were to do it wouldn't be overnight anyway. Even if we were to hypothetically assume that we wanted to extend the amount of seasons a player could have before retiring, no player who would be forced to retire with S38 as their last season should be eligible. Because all the players who recently retired would get the screwjob. Hell you'd probably have to go as far as to say no current player in the sim should be eligible. Only players created after the date that we announce the thing. 

 

In regards to the stats the only real way to try to balance that would be to divide them up into records for players who played in an eight season max rule, and records for those who played in a ten. You could still compare the players between them after the fact in terms of numbers and use that accordingly. But it ultimately all seems like so much work when 8 season cycles have worked great for us since inception. I like change but to me the only real reason to do this is because a few members are clinging on to a legacy and want to keep it. Not exactly a "league" priority. 

[TheLastOlympian07 2,388]

With the way the league has evolved who in their right minds could think anyone can touch some of the old records? I mean honestly, we used 8 teams for 30 seasons and no one thought it was going to fuck with records from Season 1-30 when we expanded. In fact Campbells record amount of points probably wont ever be broken much like Wayne Gretzkys. No one thought Martin Brodeur could have caught both Roys record and Sawchuks recrod but he did. He did this with longevity. I think 10 seasons is good. and about the drafts, why do we need to stock up on drafts to have them good? wouldnt it be better to have first gens come in to go 1st overall or something? that would make us want to recruit more if more people came in, and if they see their player is going to have a good shot at going 1st then wouldnt he want to stick around instead of have some recreate with 75 TPE come up before him?