Board of Governors Updates

[McWolf 3,115]

8 minutes ago, Plate said:

Well sounds like my suggestions is dead to rights. 

 

Was it always the same??

Since like S64-S65, or somewhere around there, yes.

[Plate 386]

[Fire Tortorella 2,653]

Also, just want to point out this isnt about this season in particular and Las Vegas - you could swap a different team in there each season. 

 

Before catch up TPE, this was a bigger concern, but with catch up TPE and the limited amount of time these recreates have to earn TPE, I dont see this as an issue anymore. No recreate is going move the needle as far as star power in a contending team.

[DMaximus 1,046]

39 minutes ago, flyersfan1453 said:

Before catch up TPE, this was a bigger concern, but with catch up TPE and the limited amount of time these recreates have to earn TPE, I dont see this as an issue anymore. No recreate is going move the needle as far as star power in a contending team.

 

I agree that the catch up TPE helps alleviate an issue, but a slightly different one. That issue being GMs would only attempt to sign waiver players in the first week or two of the season because it was too difficult to compete if you signed 30 TPE players in the later half of the season. Catch up TPE does a great job of making the signing of waiver players throughout the season worthwhile.

 

The in season recreate date still has a problem in that the catch up TPE gets reset on that date. The means the recreates get their carryover while new creates start at 30. If there's a recruitment drive to align with the TDL, resetting the carry-over on the TDL creates additional incentive for GMs to target recreates over new players, which isn't ideal if we're using that date as the target for our recruitment efforts.

 

The thought of pushing back the recreate date (or new season date, whatever we want to call it) to the start of the playoffs is that recreates already have a player and don't need to play the last 1/3rd of the season plus playoffs in the VHLM. So why incentivize them to create a new player and join a team in the middle of the season, taking up spaces meant for new players?

 

I see the complexities around changing this, but I think there's a solution that exists here outside of hard limits on recreate signing that was mentioned in the BoG update. Maybe still having a recruitment drive targeted at the TDL (with players getting the catch up TPE) but have the recreate date at the start of the playoffs? Maybe have the recreate date the 1st day of the off-season instead of the playoff to lessen the downtime? Maybe have off-season games for new players so they don't go multiple weeks without a game(like a lottery tournament or training camp games with random teams made up from players in the draft pool or something)? Maybe have separate new season dates for new creates vs. recreates?

[fonziGG 1,068]

11 hours ago, okochastar said:

 

Heh, what a coincidence. I know zero of the other players on Las Vegas, so this was definitely not premeditated on my end. 

oko wtf i'm on the aces

[okochastar 97]

10 hours ago, McWolf said:

tbf, it's not always a premeditated movement, sometimes it's just that it's the move that makes the most sense. Top teams are too stacked and it doesn't make any sense to purposefully join a bottom dwelling team when you know you can be 120+ TPE by the playoffs and actually help. There always seems to be one team that strikes that perfect balance. They have the potential to do some damage in the playoffs, and they holes for these recreates. This season it's Las Vegas, two seasons ago it was Houston.

 

Oh yeah, for sure. I understand it's being problematic, but it's damaging if you make the decision when educated on the matter. I personally just asked a VHL user about the current VHLM GMs and I was suggested Spartan and another two. Whoever played on the team held no weight to me, neither did their record or my playing time. Even now it's 10 hours later and I know that Bayley plays in Las Vegas, and fonz plays in Las Vegas lol  That was just my perspective in case any were needed in this discussion.

 

8 hours ago, Poptart said:

 

wtf, I am a nobody now?

 

I thought you were an assistant GM, not going to lie.

[fonziGG 1,068]

1 hour ago, okochastar said:

 

Oh yeah, for sure. I understand it's being problematic, but it's damaging if you make the decision when educated on the matter. I personally just asked a VHL user about the current VHLM GMs and I was suggested Spartan and another two. Whoever played on the team held no weight to me, neither did their record or my playing time. Even now it's 10 hours later and I know that Bayley plays in Las Vegas, and fonz plays in Las Vegas lol  That was just my perspective in case any were needed in this discussion.

 

 

I thought you were an assistant GM, not going to lie.

fair, however i'm DC AGM. im in for the hits with vegas lmao

[Spartan 4,399]

5 hours ago, flyersfan1453 said:

Also, just want to point out this isnt about this season in particular and Las Vegas - you could swap a different team in there each season. 

 

Before catch up TPE, this was a bigger concern, but with catch up TPE and the limited amount of time these recreates have to earn TPE, I dont see this as an issue anymore. No recreate is going move the needle as far as star power in a contending team.

I think that this last point hits home here. If you look at the game log, Las Vegas is trending in the opposite direction than we were going before the TDL. Let's look at why. Before I inherited the team, LVA was basically running a 6-4-1 with multiple IA's taking up top 6 minutes. The 1st line was getting double shifted onto the 3rd line, and the 4th line was a random mess of barely active first-gens. To me, if this team shouldn't have had this many IA's or holes going into the TDL, it should have been brought up well before the recreate day. If a VHLM GM is clearly prioritizing competition over players to the extent that new members are being harmed, this should be a matter handled by the commissioners to gently remind a GM that their priority is to continue to pitch, assist and mentor new players.

 

I attempted to combat that issue by offering on waivers at positions of need, which got my my current 2nd line center who I communicate with daily, and try to foster his interest and passion for the league. Due to the point in the season I joined the team, the TDL occurred shortly. Instead of continuing to play 200+ TPE forwards on multiple lines, I decided to pitch active players who are significantly lower TPE, but for two reasons. 1, they're active players and it was a moment for me to practice my pitches on players who are experienced in this league, and 2, a few of them are people I truly enjoy in the VHL. I had no idea that a group would choose to package themselves together, but my first wave can attest that I pitched them purely on the merits of the team and the LR, and told all that they would receive 3rd line or lower minutes. If LVA had picked up only 3 recreates, I could still have double shifted my 1st line and let recreates replace my barely earning "actives" on the 4th line, but instead, the entire bottom 9 got shaken up through signings and trades with other teams. If this is truly a problem, it should have been blocked by commissioners or admins, but absolutely no new member or recreate was harmed. Las Vegas is performing mediocrely, but the LR is having a great time, and that's what matters to me. 

 

I highly doubt that people can say that recreates truly make a team a contender when they're making up most of your bottom 6, when other teams are double shifting their 200+ TPE forwards. In addition, I strongly oppose the cap of recreates signing on a team, simply because it's one of the few times users can choose which team they'd like to go to, which allows them to play with friends for very brief periods of time. As I've proven above, some ~130 TPE players come playoff time won't make that much of a dent against contending teams who have drafted and retained players who are at 200+ TPE. There simply isn't that much of an impact recreates have on success to limit recreate signings and change the recreate deadline.

 

4 hours ago, DMaximus said:

The in season recreate date still has a problem in that the catch up TPE gets reset on that date. The means the recreates get their carryover while new creates start at 30. If there's a recruitment drive to align with the TDL, resetting the carry-over on the TDL creates additional incentive for GMs to target recreates over new players, which isn't ideal if we're using that date as the target for our recruitment efforts.

On this point, I think the whole part of carry-over TPE is to reward users for committing to that extent with their players. Sure, first-gens have a disadvantage, but it's not that extreme. As a first-gen who joined right before the VHLM Dispersal Draft, I recognized that I didn't join at the optimal time, but with the right mentoring and support from fellow VHL members, I ended up being a first round pick, and I credit @McWolf and @Poptart greatly for that. Even McWolf is dominating in terms of earning in the S72 class, but that's because he puts in the effort to get to that level. Having the recreate advantage shouldn't be disheartening for a first-gen or new member, but rather an accomplishment or badge of honor that they should aim to work towards. However, I totally agree that a recruitment drive shouldn't happen at the same time, as that's totally counterproductive and disadvantageous to new members on the TDL itself. Plus we really need to make it clear that we're not a NHL20 sim league, because 95% of the new recruits simply don't get that. 

 

Anyways, that's my 2 cents, and thanks for coming to my Ted Talk . I should be able to claim this for a media spot lol.

[Garsh 1,189]

41 minutes ago, Spartan said:

  a lot of words

[McWolf 3,115]

3 hours ago, okochastar said:

I personally just asked a VHL user about the current VHLM GMs and I was suggested Spartan and another two.

I guess the real question here is: did they suggest me?

[McWolf 3,115]

1 hour ago, Spartan said:

On this point, I think the whole part of carry-over TPE is to reward users for committing to that extent with their players. Sure, first-gens have a disadvantage, but it's not that extreme. As a first-gen who joined right before the VHLM Dispersal Draft, I recognized that I didn't join at the optimal time, but with the right mentoring and support from fellow VHL members, I ended up being a first round pick, and I credit @McWolf and @Poptart greatly for that. Even McWolf is dominating in terms of earning in the S72 class, but that's because he puts in the effort to get to that level. Having the recreate advantage shouldn't be disheartening for a first-gen or new member, but rather an accomplishment or badge of honor that they should aim to work towards.

Amen to that. Plus, when all is said and done, carryover gives a 29-TPE advantage vs first-gen exclusive stuff. High-end players will usually reach 1000+ TPE in their careers, 29 is nothing. It might seem like a lot because they create at 80, vs 30 for newcomers, but in the end it's really not much of a difference maker.

[Quik 4,113]

12 hours ago, McWolf said:

Amen to that. Plus, when all is said and done, carryover gives a 29-TPE advantage vs first-gen exclusive stuff. High-end players will usually reach 1000+ TPE in their careers, 29 is nothing. It might seem like a lot because they create at 80, vs 30 for newcomers, but in the end it's really not much of a difference maker.

 

Pretty much this. I don't think recreates are as much an issue as most think. I don't think a Playing Time limit from deadline to the end of the playoffs would be the end of the world, either, as recreates aren't going to live or die on how their VHLM experience is, but I don't think it's necessary. This point was more so from a conversation with MGMs as a possible solution to their issue with recreates grouping together, and I do think that FG deadline creates should be prioritized over recreates, but that's a perfect world view and things won't always fall that way, which is fine.

 

The bigger issue is definitely closer to what @Spartan was saying, that GMs should be prioritizing actives over inacs. You're BoG, so you'll know the specifics of the conversation, but for public consumption: we are looking at reform for how these things are handled. The VHLM Commissioners can only do so much, in-season, without having an adverse affect on things. But the VHLM is very much a focal point of discussions lately.

[McWolf 3,115]

1 hour ago, Quik said:

The bigger issue is definitely closer to what @Spartan was saying, that GMs should be prioritizing actives over inacs. You're BoG, so you'll know the specifics of the conversation, but for public consumption: we are looking at reform for how these things are handled. The VHLM Commissioners can only do so much, in-season, without having an adverse affect on things. But the VHLM is very much a focal point of discussions lately.

 

Yeah, I most definitely agree. I have been prioritizing actives over inactives in Halifax in the mid-60s - @Dil can testify - I'm doing it again in Saskatoon now, and I've been pushing for others to do the same. I talked with the Commissioners - past and present - about it a lot too. I think it should be clear for VHLM GMs that they are basically the most important roles for retention. What they say to their players and the way they set their lineup will directly impact some of them and will play a role in deciding if they stay to play a full career, or if they go inactive after half a season. It's baffling to me that some still don't get it, so I'm looking forward to the reform, really.

[Advantage 2,891]

Hello everyone, I do apologize for the delay but with discussion regarding mainly HOF voting and Awards lately, there hasn't been much to share honestly.  The only new discussion centered around a clearer rule around backup goalie usage and the continued discussion of HOF voting reform and the VHLM and Deadline Recruit topics.

 

ACTIVE DISCUSSION

 

Topic - Hall of Fame Voting Reform (Discussion started June 22)

 

Since Last Update: There hasnt been much discussion on this regard and I could see this being a fully closed topic soon.  Since the last update the only new discussion has been continued skepticism of making the change to the way we vote for the Hall of Fame.  

 

Most of the people commenting seem to feel that while the proposed system is fine, that the current system still works for what we look to accomplish when voting on the Hall of Fame.  In addition, it is simple and easy to adapt for the future as well.

 

One person did say that we could add an option to abstain from voting if they feel that no one deserves to be in which as someone already pointed out it is technically allowed.

 

 

Topic - VHLM and Deadline Recreates (Discussion started June 16)

 

Since Last Update: Discussion will likely close soon unless more issues arise, as the majority of discussion has been brought to the VHLM GM Forum.

 

With that being said, in the couple days of discussion since, the main thing that has been discussed is a continued focus on ridding teams of the non-actives that sit around 250 TPE and leave to have a VHLM career player.  

 

As has been stated, its one thing if you are around and interacting with your team and the league but its another issue when the member no longer is here and their player is taking the roles that an active could have instead.

 

CLOSED DISCUSSION

 

Topic - Maximum Backup Games Rule (Discussion started June 28 Closed on June 29)

 

The Issue: The Board of Governors and Administrators were made aware of an incident of potential intentional tanking by playing more backup games than required despite having another goalie on the team.  While the rules do indicate a minimum amount of games, the idea of intentionally tanking has always been an unwritten rule, but not something officially in the rulebook.

 

The Result: Discussion went back and forth on whether it was intentional or not, whether or not there should be severe punishment, do we need to add this a rule, etc.  

 

Ultimately we took it to a vote which saw the individual and team not punished as while we saw it as intentional, the majority of the Board of Governors felt it would be unfair to punish based on something that isnt even in the rulebook.  

 

However, we did decide to officially make this a rule in THIS THREAD which will serve as official legislation to avoid intentional tanking issues again.

 

The Board of Governors was certainly not unanimous in regards to the individual with some calling for the team to receive some pretty severe lunishments while others felt a tap on the wrist is fair given the lack of legislation.  Ultimately there were enough who saw it as unfair if we were to punish so the league moved on in that regard.

 

@Members

[Advantage 2,891]

2 minutes ago, twists said:

 

I feel like this didn't mention deadline recreates...at all?

It didn't.  Much of the discussion in the thread has centered towards how we can find more space for them and actives in general.

 

So its indirectly related because one of our issues is teams signing guys who aren't here anymore but have great VHLM players.

[Gooningitup 1,290]

what about say i join a team next year im 250 TPE im active but the starter ahead of me is 800 but inactive. The team decided because im active and the other guy is not an we wont be contenders how would that fall with the new rule?

 

@BOG

@Commissioner

[Advantage 2,891]

11 minutes ago, Gooningitup said:

what about say i join a team next year im 250 TPE im active but the starter ahead of me is 800 but inactive. The team decided because im active and the other guy is not an we wont be contenders how would that fall with the new rule?

 

@BOG

@Commissioner

The Spirit of Competition is more concerned regarding intentional tanking.  

 

That being said, giving your actives more icetime than inactives wouldn't violate the rule.

 

The league is more concerned with playing inferior inactives over active players.  IE: Playing a BOT goalie over an actual player.

 

It will be case by case but the situation you brought forth wouldn't be punishable nor would it the other way around.

[Beketov 9,021]

24 minutes ago, Gooningitup said:

what about say i join a team next year im 250 TPE im active but the starter ahead of me is 800 but inactive. The team decided because im active and the other guy is not an we wont be contenders how would that fall with the new rule?

 

@BOG

@Commissioner

Like @Advantage said it’s more about teams not playing an intentionally crippled roster of bots for example to tank. Obviously if we see a 250 TPE goalie in ahead of an 800 TPE goalie we would take a look at it to understand the situation but we aren’t going to punish a team for playing an active over an inactive. If the team, however, played a bit goalie over yourself that would be cause for concern.

[Mr_Hatter 1,608]

I just wanted to take one more second to mention how I appreciate this being a thing @Advantage. Great to see some insight on the inner workings, and thanks for the update!

[Jubis 1,347]

Love the transparency. Thanks BOG 

[.sniffuM 1,741]

I hate this. Let's go back to having a running spreadsheet with issues being discussed where you have to remember to go back and look at it if you wanna stay up to speed on the discussions.

[Victor 10,937]

8 minutes ago, .sniffuM said:

I hate this. Let's go back to having a running spreadsheet with issues being discussed where you have to remember to go back and look at it if you wanna stay up to speed on the discussions.

1 vote was all we needed, done. Thank you for your time Advantage but it's time to stop telling people what we do.

[Advantage 2,891]

43 minutes ago, Mr_Hatter said:

I just wanted to take one more second to mention how I appreciate this being a thing @Advantage. Great to see some insight on the inner workings, and thanks for the update!

I did this one on my phone while on my lunch at work too 

 

Not the easiest.

[McWolf 3,115]

1 hour ago, Victor said:

1 vote was all we needed, done. Thank you for your time Advantage but it's time to stop telling people what we do.

Wait, we do stuff?

[mattyIceman 1,212]

Another concern sirs:

 

I was told that the time to claim training camp expires after a deadline.

 

I cannot claim the 10 tpe for tc because I will surpass the 249 cap.  I was planning on banking this easy tpe that's accessible to all.

 

For max earners this is not a big deal.

 

For us regular folk that stumble into this situation, I think it's a bogus rule that it expires.

 

Any insights or workarounds?

 

Cheers