12-03-2021, 04:11 PMhockeyiscool Wrote:

12-03-2021, 03:13 PMTommySalami Wrote: I think it's been fairly clear a goal of ours has been to improve parity. We have done so with our build change which made it easier for lower-TPE players to be good.

When we were an STHS league, the scale of the league was effectively 800 - 1500. Yeah, you could go above 1500 TPE but the attributes you were improving had extremely little affect on your performance. Once you hit 1200 TPE in STHS, in the right situation you could be a star player

In FHM, you can increase valuable attributes well above any conceivable amount of TPE you can earn. Players who actively participated in the league at above 2000 TPE are getting full advantage of that 2000 TPE. That creates further disparity in the league so we wanted to bring the max TPE in the league down so there's less difference between a rookie and a max-earner. This is what moving regression up one season accomplishes.

S53s are feeling this the hardest because they are getting hit with the leveling out of the field and their first regression all at once but this isn't an "unfair" situation to S53s as we've accounted for the earning potential of earlier classes and added on to their regression as needed and all future classes will regress a season earlier lowering their earning potential.

The fact that you think S53 are feeling this the hardest is flat out incorrect...and makes me question your judgment.

Also the fact that they think regression is going to help parity. Top teams, as they always have, will find ways to replace that talent. Whether it’s via free agency, trades, or tampering, it’s going to happen. Regression may help parity short term, but long term it’s not changing anything.