Quote from: Pkbaldy on January 07, 2015, 11:01:26 AM
Quote from: T Dog on January 07, 2015, 10:58:12 AM
Quote from: Holz on January 07, 2015, 10:54:37 AM
Quote from: Pkbaldy on January 07, 2015, 10:50:48 AM
Quote from: Holz on January 07, 2015, 10:48:54 AM
Israel
Hibberd
Dahlous
Mcevoy
Chapman
J.Gibson
No stars but could all go in the 90s.
pls mate, 4 stars. And the best punching defender in the game, and somehow is fantasy relevant. This team should go well.
It's solid but not how it will fare against teams with monsters scoring 150 some weeks.
That's when the draw or "luck of the draw" kicks in ;)
Nek minute Macrae averages 80. BOOM!
Are we able to trade?
Quote from: Money Shot on January 07, 2015, 11:47:01 AM
Quote from: Holz on January 07, 2015, 11:18:38 AM
Are we able to trade?
Quote from: ossie85 on January 03, 2015, 10:25:10 AM
Also think will allow trading.... Every team needs to draft 16 players, but they can then trade however they want.
I.e.. trade 3 players for 1, doesn't matter if squad sizes aren't even
Im not a fan of that at all! Not even in the slightest, takes all the skill from drafting wisely in the first place and just means that some stupid coaches will trade for young and spuds even though you can only keep three at the end of the year. SO YOU WONT BE ABLE TO KEEP THOSE FIRST ROUND DRAFT PICKS YOU HAVE as you will need to keep pretty much your three best meaning highest scoring players. Not those kids with big upside
Trades should be very carefully assessed
I'm all for trading though as it will make it a bit more exciting, get to have players from more than just the three origin teams!
Quote from: tbagrocks on January 07, 2015, 12:06:36 PM
Im not a fan of that at all! Not even in the slightest, takes all the skill from drafting wisely in the first place and just means that some stupid coaches will trade for young and spuds even though you can only keep three at the end of the year. SO YOU WONT BE ABLE TO KEEP THOSE FIRST ROUND DRAFT PICKS YOU HAVE as you will need to keep pretty much your three best meaning highest scoring players. Not those kids with big upside
Trades should be very carefully assessed
I agree, it came up earlier that it should be like for like eg. 1 for 1 or 2 for 2 and this would work, for example someone may have v. strong starting 3 but but their 5th is very average and another could have solid players across the park so somebody could trade a gun (100 odd) and a spud for a couple of solid players (80/85 odd)...
Also could give people to pick up smokeys that they rate highly but others do not
You need to think of people from a weaker draft tho
Like the one with Port etc had no real premo mids also with weaker depth in their draft.
It will give people the chance to trade to try and better their 5 or their depth.
If we are going to be trading it should be 1 for 1 or 2 for 2 and so forth... And have to be an even trade otherwise there are going to be strong teams that could just get even stronger and make it a boring game :( I'd rather just not trade at all, just use the 16 players we got from the draft.
Quote from: Pkbaldy on January 07, 2015, 12:19:31 PM
If we are going to be trading it should be 1 for 1 or 2 for 2 and so forth... And have to be an even trade otherwise there are going to be strong teams that could just get even stronger and make it a boring game :( I'd rather just not trade at all, just use the 16 players we got from the draft.
I agree should be 1 for 1 etc
But trading is part of the fun of these comps even tho sometimes it can be a little frustrating haha
Quote from: LF on January 07, 2015, 12:20:53 PM
Quote from: Pkbaldy on January 07, 2015, 12:19:31 PM
If we are going to be trading it should be 1 for 1 or 2 for 2 and so forth... And have to be an even trade otherwise there are going to be strong teams that could just get even stronger and make it a boring game :( I'd rather just not trade at all, just use the 16 players we got from the draft.
I agree should be 1 for 1 etc
But trading is part of the fun of these comps even tho sometimes it can be a little frustrating haha
Seems unnecessary 1 for 1.
Trading 2 good players for 1 star is a legit strategy. 2 for 2 just means spuds are added to deals.
On that note hibberd dahlous mcevoy all up for trade. Looking for a 2 for 1 deal. Hibbo and Dahlous both young and should score in the 90s
No decision yet on trading yet
Is trading open? or do we wait until all drafts finished?
Trading has to be option. We all cant just have players from 3 teams - that would be boring
1-1 isn't necessary too. Perhaps we need a rule, say the minimum players you can have in your team is X and the maximum is X, that way someone wont do multiple 3 for 1 deals and just have a team of 7 super guns
Min 10 Max 20 or something like that?
Quote from: Holz on January 07, 2015, 12:23:49 PM
Quote from: LF on January 07, 2015, 12:20:53 PM
Quote from: Pkbaldy on January 07, 2015, 12:19:31 PM
If we are going to be trading it should be 1 for 1 or 2 for 2 and so forth... And have to be an even trade otherwise there are going to be strong teams that could just get even stronger and make it a boring game :( I'd rather just not trade at all, just use the 16 players we got from the draft.
I agree should be 1 for 1 etc
But trading is part of the fun of these comps even tho sometimes it can be a little frustrating haha
Seems unnecessary 1 for 1.
Trading 2 good players for 1 star is a legit strategy. 2 for 2 just means spuds are added to deals.
On that note hibberd dahlous mcevoy all up for trade. Looking for a 2 for 1 deal. Hibbo and Dahlous both young and should score in the 90s
Why is it unnecessary? Some teams have 20 players and others have 10 by trading 2 for 1. Yeah seems fun to me.
I like the idea of trading.
However, I don't like the idea of uneven trades 1 for 3, 2 for 1.
I think we're going to see some teams
We'll just have some guys offering 10 of their spuds for one gun in order to get super teams.
1 for 1 trading (or two for two) will ensure the trades stay fairer.
Alternatively how about this for a different/interesting trading system. Kind of in the IPL Auction style, kind of a completely new system I just thought up because work is boring me.
We have the one trade thread for the competition. Then we have 5 (for example - could be more, could be less) bidding periods.
In each period every team lists one player they are willing to trade and the player is posted in the opening post under their team name.
Then in the thread people make a post with their bid for a particular player. These are public and other clubs can also make an offer for the players and this continues. There's not beating bids but coaches can up their offer if they feel their original one has been trumped.
There's a certain amount of time for people to make bids (say a week) and then it closes. Then the next week the owners of the player decide which offer they want to take for their player. They could also choose not to accept any of the offers and keep the player.
If there's no offers for their player then they keep them.
Once everyone has made up their mind we go again with another player put up for auction from each club. And so on until we've done all 5 bidding periods.
PS - To make it more interesting we could make it so that any player put up for auction must be traded. As in the owner of the player must take the best offer for them.
Quote from: Pkbaldy on January 07, 2015, 12:28:53 PM
Why is it unnecessary? Some teams have 20 players and others have 10 by trading 2 for 1. Yeah seems fun to me.
We can only field 5 players a week, so whether you have 5 or 20 sitting on the bench doing sweet FA shouldn't really matter should it? I think setting a team min and max of players is the way to go
Trade approval? Cant have 47 coaches approve/decline each trade lol
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on January 07, 2015, 12:31:45 PM
Quote from: Pkbaldy on January 07, 2015, 12:28:53 PM
Why is it unnecessary? Some teams have 20 players and others have 10 by trading 2 for 1. Yeah seems fun to me.
We can only field 5 players a week, so whether you have 5 or 20 sitting on the bench doing sweet FA shouldn't really matter should it? I think setting a team min and max of players is the way to go
Trade approval? Cant have 47 coaches approve/decline each trade lol
It would be Os only I assume that would yay or nay the trades
Worlds is the only comp that does trade votes through the coaches all the other comps the admin do it
On the 10 spuds for one gun deal - This would never happen. No one would ever accept 10 spuds for a gun, because only 5 players play each week - So the spuds would never play anyway.
Quote from: Big Mac on January 07, 2015, 12:35:56 PM
On the 10 spuds for one gun deal - This would never happen. No one would ever accept 10 spuds for a gun, because only 5 players play each week - So the spuds would never play anyway.
See how many injuries came up last year? Final rounds when players start to get rested and finish the year because they're going into surgery. I reckon those spuds would come in handy, otherwise you might find yourself with stuff all available.
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on January 07, 2015, 12:31:45 PM
I think setting a team min and max of players is the way to go
+1
Perhaps instead of 2 for 2 etc. it can be +1....so 1 for 2, 4 for 5, 2 for 3...
Won't throw out the numbers too much but still leaves room to get a trade done
Hypothetically, if the team min was 10 and somebody decided to trade all out but 10 players and they somehow got 5 injuries/suspensions/non-selections that week, they mightn't have a team of 5 to field.
Yes, that's their fault but then I don't think it's fair if in that scenario, they have 4 vs the 5 of another team in that week.
I think it's better we keep team lists as is, because even if you have to field some KPD that scores 40 every week, that's better than being a player short in an extreme case. Plus, people in these comps are way to quick to dog and moan of the smallest things that are a non-issue and the moment something does suit them, they get pissy.
People should also remember that in this comp, teams are going to be eliminated after just 5 weeks. The drafts pools were luck of the draw. If you did well enough with the hand you were dealt along with a bit of luck, you'll go all the way. Not to mention, you only retain 3 players from these lists or something like that, so you'll get players from different clubs next year anyway.
Let people trade however they want I say. If someone makes a stupid decision then so be it.
Quote from: Mr.Craig on January 07, 2015, 12:47:10 PM
Let people trade however they want I say. If someone makes a stupid decision then so be it.
We don't care about the person losing. More the person with a stacked team.
I think we should keep the teams we have. We only get to keep 3 players at the end of the year... Unless you do a restriction where your first 3 draft picks cannot be traded. Only from picks round 4-16 can be traded.
yeah, no trading for mine. Long way off, but whats the plan for the reallocation next year? Will it be the same groups or something seeded by averages or ladder positions?
Quote from: Pkbaldy on January 07, 2015, 12:50:15 PM
Quote from: Mr.Craig on January 07, 2015, 12:47:10 PM
Let people trade however they want I say. If someone makes a stupid decision then so be it.
We don't care about the person losing. More the person with a stacked team.
I think we should keep the teams we have. We only get to keep 3 players at the end of the year... Unless you do a restriction where your first 3 draft picks cannot be traded. Only from picks round 4-16 can be traded.
I think if trading went ahead, the idea would be no retention of traded in players, I like the idea of not being able to trade your first few picks though.
Quote from: SydneyRox on January 07, 2015, 12:53:22 PM
yeah, no trading for mine. Long way off, but whats the plan for the reallocation next year? Will it be the same groups or something seeded by averages or ladder positions?
I'm currently discussing this with oss and nrich, I'm for randomly allocating pools again, it was luck of the draw the first time, I see no need for change.
-Firstly I really think the trading rules should have been worked out before drafting started.
-Drafting allocations next season has to be random teams again, can't just be drafting from the same three clubs every year.
-Not really a fan of trading in this comp., but if we do, I think the NO trading of your first 3 picks/or your 3 keepers should be allowed.
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 07, 2015, 01:50:06 PM
-Firstly I really think the trading rules should have been worked out before drafting started.
-Drafting allocations next season has to be random teams again, can't just be drafting from the same three clubs every year.
-Not really a fan of trading in this comp., but if we do, I think the NO trading of your first 3 picks/or your 3 keepers should be allowed.
In full agreement of this post.
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 07, 2015, 01:50:06 PM
-Firstly I really think the trading rules should have been worked out before drafting started.
-Drafting allocations next season has to be random teams again, can't just be drafting from the same three clubs every year.
-Not really a fan of trading in this comp., but if we do, I think the NO trading of your first 3 picks/or your 3 keepers should be allowed.
i personally like the fact it hasn't been worked out
if we had say a definite yes to trading and 1 for 1
etc i know for a fact people would already be pm'ing each other about who they should draft
i.e i pm you and say if you draft X player i will offer X,y,z etc
kind feels like draft tampering to me is all
Agree with Dazz here and have seen it in drafts where coaches work in collusion to get players they want either by direct drafting or arrangement with other coaches.
If we are to trade then I would be in favour of a minimum squad of 12 and maximum of 20 which I think would be fair and allowing for multiple trades if need be.
I too would like to see what the rules will be for draft allocations next year. Has to be random again to be fair to all.
Im in favour of a 48 team draft :o the 48 placed gets first and then forth! The Premier gets the 48th pick hen the last placed gets the 49th. Next year of course
will do two things
1. allow for equality after teams rape others via the trades
2. allow for equality with those drafts that maybe weren't as high a standard as others
3. keeps the competition even as teams draft and trade away, with the win/losses they get, the comp will remain fairly equal next year :)
Quote from: Ringo on January 07, 2015, 02:00:06 PM
Agree with Dazz here and have seen it in drafts where coaches work in collusion to get players they want either by direct drafting or arrangement with other coaches.
If we are to trade then I would be in favour of a minimum squad of 12 and maximum of 20 which I think would be fair and allowing for multiple trades if need be.
I too would like to see what the rules will be for draft allocations next year. Has to be random again to be fair to all.
Well if we can't trust Coaches not to cheat/collude, then that should be a good enough reason not to have trading at all.
Quote from: tbagrocks on January 07, 2015, 02:05:07 PM
Im in favour of a 48 team draft :o the 48 placed gets first and then forth! The Premier gets the 48th pick hen the last placed gets the 49th. Next year of course
will do two things
1. allow for equality after teams rape others via the trades
2. allow for equality with those drafts that maybe weren't as high a standard as others
3. keeps the competition even as teams draft and trade away, with the win/losses they get, the comp will remain fairly equal next year :)
The thing is though, that a 48 team draft would take forever.
Quote from: nrich102 on January 07, 2015, 02:06:46 PM
Quote from: tbagrocks on January 07, 2015, 02:05:07 PM
Im in favour of a 48 team draft :o the 48 placed gets first and then forth! The Premier gets the 48th pick hen the last placed gets the 49th. Next year of course
will do two things
1. allow for equality after teams rape others via the trades
2. allow for equality with those drafts that maybe weren't as high a standard as others
3. keeps the competition even as teams draft and trade away, with the win/losses they get, the comp will remain fairly equal next year :)
The thing is though, that a 48 team draft would take forever.
Haha Have you seen Draft#3? that's just 8 teams and it's as slow as slow.. 48 teams ::) bugger that
Yeah, based on how long some of these drafts are taking, I don't think a 48 team draft is ever gonna be an option.
We'll be dead and buried by the time it's done. :P
How do you think is the best way for Oz to organize the drafting for next season, including the 2015 AFL national draft?
Would have to lottery the teams to divisions or something?
The AFL ND players becomes even trickier, I wouldn't even have one, and those kids can enter into the 2016 player pool draft
Quote from: tbagrocks on January 07, 2015, 02:14:26 PM
How do you think is the best way for Oz to organize the drafting for next season, including the 2015 AFL national draft?
Would have to lottery the teams to divisions or something?
The AFL ND players becomes even trickier, I wouldn't even have one, and those kids can enter into the 2016 player pool draft
I think there will just be the one draft, with all the players in it.
You would have to wait until next years afl team lists are finalised before arranging the draft so the 2015 Nat and Rookie drafts are already done, players are on the lists.
It will be interesting once we get to the keeper stage, surely teams are unlikely to keep a heeney, brayshaw or petracca over a 90+scoring player? Unless they are trying to win the comp in 2020
Yeah, there probably won't be Nat drafts like XVs since we're only retaining 3 every year, they'll just go into the pool to be picked with everyone else.
Surely it will be the same as what we are doing now. Keep 3 players from your 2014 squad, then the rest go back into the player pool.
Next season we draft a new batch of 13 players from a different three AFL Clubs.
The drafting for next season could go back to the divisions. The last from Each Div gets the first pick, drafts from AFL club player pool go back to random?
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 07, 2015, 02:25:39 PM
Surely it will be the same as what we are doing now. Keep 3 players from your 2014 squad, then the rest go back into the player pool.
Next season we draft a new batch of 13 players from a different three AFL Clubs.
Agree, but do we seed the teams? So the people who get knocked out first have higher picks than the ones who make the finals?
The 2016 talent pool is dropping by the best 150 players in 2015(give or take), so giving the 'weaker' teams some help is probably better
Quote from: SydneyRox on January 07, 2015, 02:33:21 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 07, 2015, 02:25:39 PM
Surely it will be the same as what we are doing now. Keep 3 players from your 2014 squad, then the rest go back into the player pool.
Next season we draft a new batch of 13 players from a different three AFL Clubs.
Agree, but do we seed the teams? So the people who get knocked out first have higher picks than the ones who make the finals?
The 2016 talent pool is dropping by the best 150 players in 2015(give or take), so giving the 'weaker' teams some help is probably better
No I think it should just be random, not seeded. Each Season Squads will be different(barring the 3 we keep).
So there is no real need to Seed the teams every year.
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 07, 2015, 02:38:26 PM
Quote from: SydneyRox on January 07, 2015, 02:33:21 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 07, 2015, 02:25:39 PM
Surely it will be the same as what we are doing now. Keep 3 players from your 2014 squad, then the rest go back into the player pool.
Next season we draft a new batch of 13 players from a different three AFL Clubs.
Agree, but do we seed the teams? So the people who get knocked out first have higher picks than the ones who make the finals?
The 2016 talent pool is dropping by the best 150 players in 2015(give or take), so giving the 'weaker' teams some help is probably better
No I think it should just be random, not seeded. Each Season Squads will be different(barring the 3 we keep).
So there is no real need to Seed the teams every year.
the weak teams need some advantage.
for teams that have young 115+ players, how are teams with their best player being 95 ever supposed to close the gap?
for example
Hibberd 91
Dahlous 90
Mcevoy 90
271
v
Rocky 132
Shiel 95
Smith 91
318
Nah needs to be seeded otherwise no keepers allowed.
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on January 07, 2015, 02:40:48 PM
Nah needs to be seeded otherwise no keepers allowed.
I think this is the way to go
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 07, 2015, 02:38:26 PM
Quote from: SydneyRox on January 07, 2015, 02:33:21 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 07, 2015, 02:25:39 PM
Surely it will be the same as what we are doing now. Keep 3 players from your 2014 squad, then the rest go back into the player pool.
Next season we draft a new batch of 13 players from a different three AFL Clubs.
Agree, but do we seed the teams? So the people who get knocked out first have higher picks than the ones who make the finals?
The 2016 talent pool is dropping by the best 150 players in 2015(give or take), so giving the 'weaker' teams some help is probably better
No I think it should just be random, not seeded. Each Season Squads will be different(barring the 3 we keep).
So there is no real need to Seed the teams every year.
Seed based off the 3 players you keep maybe
Because Dahlhaus and McEvoy are better than Shiel and, which flogging Smith is this? Not that it matters
Cant do averages when players are better than you think they are
It shouldn't make any difference where in the draft you come, that's the idea behind a snake draft i.e. 1st+16th=8th+9th
The groups were uneven(that's the luck of the draw) next season you should be drafting from different clubs, so that will even it out.
If you had the NM/Port/STK group(bad luck), but you won't have them next year.
..You could have 3 gun players, they get early injuries(or you just get a bad run) and you lose straight away.
Next season you get seeded higher, but still have the 3 guns. That wont even out the Comp.
Quote from: Holz on January 07, 2015, 02:48:23 PM
Seed based off the 3 players you keep maybe
That's an idea. The three players you keep combined averages for the season is what the seeding is based on..
That could work, i.e. You keep 3 players with a combined avg. of 310 pts. and another team has 3 with 290 pts, they go higher in the following draft order.
So no matter where you actually finished in 2015, it's based on how good your core 3 are..
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 07, 2015, 02:58:24 PM
It shouldn't make any difference where in the draft you come, that's the idea behind a snake draft i.e. 1st+16th=8th+9th
The groups were uneven(that's the luck of the draw) next season you should be drafting from different clubs, so that will even it out.
If you had the NM/Port/STK group(bad luck), but you won't have them next year.
..You could have 3 gun players, they get early injuries(or you just get a bad run) and you lose straight away.
Next season you get seeded higher, but still have the 3 guns. That wont even out the Comp.
Wasn't that bad a draft
IMO my top 5 can all average 90+ so hopefully can be competitive.
Quote from: AaronKirk on January 07, 2015, 03:08:18 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 07, 2015, 02:58:24 PM
It shouldn't make any difference where in the draft you come, that's the idea behind a snake draft i.e. 1st+16th=8th+9th
The groups were uneven(that's the luck of the draw) next season you should be drafting from different clubs, so that will even it out.
If you had the NM/Port/STK group(bad luck), but you won't have them next year.
..You could have 3 gun players, they get early injuries(or you just get a bad run) and you lose straight away.
Next season you get seeded higher, but still have the 3 guns. That wont even out the Comp.
Wasn't that bad a draft
IMO my top 5 can all average 90+ so hopefully can be competitive.
Haha fair enough, it was really just an example. Pointing out that you will get different clubs next season.
Has the simple start all drafts again next season been looked at. Rather than a keeper league? Keep framework the same but let everyone go again? Would remove the seeding, who was in what team group etc issues. :-\
Quote from: tbagrocks on January 07, 2015, 02:56:04 PM
Because Dahlhaus and McEvoy are better than Shiel and, which flogging Smith is this? Not that it matters
Cant do averages when players are better than you think they are
Devon Smith and Dylan Shiel are better than Dahlous and McEvoy both in average and being better players.
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 07, 2015, 02:58:24 PM
It shouldn't make any difference where in the draft you come, that's the idea behind a snake draft i.e. 1st+16th=8th+9th
The groups were uneven(that's the luck of the draw) next season you should be drafting from different clubs, so that will even it out.
If you had the NM/Port/STK group(bad luck), but you won't have them next year.
..You could have 3 gun players, they get early injuries(or you just get a bad run) and you lose straight away.
Next season you get seeded higher, but still have the 3 guns. That wont even out the Comp.
I agree with what you are saying, but in general the teams who have been in a weaker draft, and esp the teams who had lower picks are going to struggle to catch up if we dont try and even it out.
Some sort of moderate equalisation attempt is better than random. each conference only has 8 teams, so seeding them, even if it is only based on the first round robin part would be better IMO.
Quote from: T Dog on January 07, 2015, 03:12:50 PM
Has the simple start all drafts again next season been looked at. Rather than a keeper league? Keep framework the same but let everyone go again? Would remove the seeding, who was in what team group etc issues. :-\
But people drafted on the assumption they will be keeping 3 players.
maybe we just draft, enjoy this season see how it pans out than worry about this next year.
I like lamps.
(http://www.ikea.com/au/en/images/products/skojig-table-lamp__0099515_PE241581_S4.JPG)
Quote from: SydneyRox on January 07, 2015, 03:17:14 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 07, 2015, 02:58:24 PM
It shouldn't make any difference where in the draft you come, that's the idea behind a snake draft i.e. 1st+16th=8th+9th
The groups were uneven(that's the luck of the draw) next season you should be drafting from different clubs, so that will even it out.
If you had the NM/Port/STK group(bad luck), but you won't have them next year.
..You could have 3 gun players, they get early injuries(or you just get a bad run) and you lose straight away.
Next season you get seeded higher, but still have the 3 guns. That wont even out the Comp.
I agree with what you are saying, but in general the teams who have been in a weaker draft, and esp the teams who had lower picks are going to struggle to catch up if we dont try and even it out.
Some sort of moderate equalisation attempt is better than random. each conference only has 8 teams, so seeding them, even if it is only based on the first round robin part would be better IMO.
As been mentioned before,, Seeding for next year could be based on the 3 keeper players combined averages.
That would help the teams with a weaker core.
Quote from: Holz on January 07, 2015, 03:18:31 PM
maybe we just draft, enjoy this season see how it pans out than worry about this next year.
^ this
Guys, not really a huge fan of trading for season 1.... Next year is a whole different ball game though.
Loving the passion btw.
Yes, luck of the draw is a thing... but there was always going to be luck involved :(
Quote from: Pkbaldy on January 07, 2015, 03:18:54 PM
I like lamps.
(http://www.ikea.com/au/en/images/products/skojig-table-lamp__0099515_PE241581_S4.JPG)
But do you love them as much as Brick?
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 07, 2015, 03:20:09 PM
Quote from: SydneyRox on January 07, 2015, 03:17:14 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 07, 2015, 02:58:24 PM
It shouldn't make any difference where in the draft you come, that's the idea behind a snake draft i.e. 1st+16th=8th+9th
The groups were uneven(that's the luck of the draw) next season you should be drafting from different clubs, so that will even it out.
If you had the NM/Port/STK group(bad luck), but you won't have them next year.
..You could have 3 gun players, they get early injuries(or you just get a bad run) and you lose straight away.
Next season you get seeded higher, but still have the 3 guns. That wont even out the Comp.
I agree with what you are saying, but in general the teams who have been in a weaker draft, and esp the teams who had lower picks are going to struggle to catch up if we dont try and even it out.
Some sort of moderate equalisation attempt is better than random. each conference only has 8 teams, so seeding them, even if it is only based on the first round robin part would be better IMO.
As been mentioned before,, Seeding for next year could be based on the 3 keeper players combined averages.
That would help the teams with a weaker core.
What happens if Rocky gets injured round 1 and scores 2 before bring subbed and ML ends ups winning the comp? He keeps Rocky and also gets first pick plus a chance of going back to back
Quote from: R.Griffen on January 07, 2015, 04:13:15 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 07, 2015, 03:20:09 PM
Quote from: SydneyRox on January 07, 2015, 03:17:14 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 07, 2015, 02:58:24 PM
It shouldn't make any difference where in the draft you come, that's the idea behind a snake draft i.e. 1st+16th=8th+9th
The groups were uneven(that's the luck of the draw) next season you should be drafting from different clubs, so that will even it out.
If you had the NM/Port/STK group(bad luck), but you won't have them next year.
..You could have 3 gun players, they get early injuries(or you just get a bad run) and you lose straight away.
Next season you get seeded higher, but still have the 3 guns. That wont even out the Comp.
I agree with what you are saying, but in general the teams who have been in a weaker draft, and esp the teams who had lower picks are going to struggle to catch up if we dont try and even it out.
Some sort of moderate equalisation attempt is better than random. each conference only has 8 teams, so seeding them, even if it is only based on the first round robin part would be better IMO.
As been mentioned before,, Seeding for next year could be based on the 3 keeper players combined averages.
That would help the teams with a weaker core.
What happens if Rocky gets injured round 1 and scores 2 before bring subbed and ML ends ups winning the comp? He keeps Rocky and also gets first pick plus a chance of going back to back
Then Ossie just doesn't include injury affected scores in the average. And if the player only plays one game for the season, and gets injured in that game for a score of 2, then the player's previous year's average is used.
Quote from: R.Griffen on January 07, 2015, 04:13:15 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 07, 2015, 03:20:09 PM
Quote from: SydneyRox on January 07, 2015, 03:17:14 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 07, 2015, 02:58:24 PM
It shouldn't make any difference where in the draft you come, that's the idea behind a snake draft i.e. 1st+16th=8th+9th
The groups were uneven(that's the luck of the draw) next season you should be drafting from different clubs, so that will even it out.
If you had the NM/Port/STK group(bad luck), but you won't have them next year.
..You could have 3 gun players, they get early injuries(or you just get a bad run) and you lose straight away.
Next season you get seeded higher, but still have the 3 guns. That wont even out the Comp.
I agree with what you are saying, but in general the teams who have been in a weaker draft, and esp the teams who had lower picks are going to struggle to catch up if we dont try and even it out.
Some sort of moderate equalisation attempt is better than random. each conference only has 8 teams, so seeding them, even if it is only based on the first round robin part would be better IMO.
As been mentioned before,, Seeding for next year could be based on the 3 keeper players combined averages.
That would help the teams with a weaker core.
What happens if Rocky gets injured round 1 and scores 2 before bring subbed and ML ends ups winning the comp? He keeps Rocky and also gets first pick plus a chance of going back to back
Yep that could happen also, though if Rocky gets injured and misses 3 games. It would be highly unlikely the team would get past the first stage.
The reason why these things need to be discussed, is so we can work out the best solution.
And as mentioned above, Ossie could just not include injury affected games.
Just a thought on next year and remember some will not be keeping 3 players either.
This may require help for Ossie though and throwing out there for comment.
1. delist all players not required.
2. List players averages and then group players by averages into 6 groups. Use snake eg 1-6 the 7 into group 6 etc, Players inluding new draftees who have not played a game are exhausted via alphabetical listing.
3. based on groups overall allocate groups eg Lowest scoring Group will get group one and so on and then within group lowest to highest with no snaking of subsequent drafts. Feel this will help even competition.
If worked out early you could even trade draft picks.
Quote from: Ringo on January 07, 2015, 04:40:11 PM
If worked out early you could even trade draft picks.
Oh God, not this can of worms.
Quote from: Nige on January 07, 2015, 05:09:30 PM
Quote from: Ringo on January 07, 2015, 04:40:11 PM
If worked out early you could even trade draft picks.
Oh God, not this can of worms.
(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/28781239.jpg)
my suggestion would be each group has a captain (probably whoever comes first in the group)
than you seed based on that groups top 3 players.
you than have each group get a seed based on the average of the 3 players. Each captain picks a team according to see so they draft from those 3 teams. That way the weaker groups can get stronger
Seems like we need a spot to talk all things i5 instead of derailing the existing threads :)
The hot topic right now is trading - Let's continue that discussion and all other general i5 related matters here :)
My 2c, I think we don't do any trades now. Everyone drafts their 16 players from the 3 teams assigned, and then at the end of the first season we can start trading, and see how the first season goes to make better decisions about what trade rules and guidelines will benefit the competition
The last part of that needs to be emphasised. :P
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on January 07, 2015, 06:31:12 PM
I think we don't do any trades now. Everyone drafts their 16 players from the 3 teams assigned, and then at the end of the first season we can start trading, and see how the first season goes to make better decisions about what trade rules and guidelines will benefit the competition
Quote from: Nige on January 07, 2015, 06:32:52 PM
The last part of that needs to be emphasised. :P
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on January 07, 2015, 06:31:12 PM
I think we don't do any trades now. Everyone drafts their 16 players from the 3 teams assigned, and then at the end of the first season we can start trading, and see how the first season goes to make better decisions about what trade rules and guidelines will benefit the competition
Agree with RD.
Yes my team will probably be shower but lets see how it goes for the 1st season
Yep RD
I said this earlier.
Let's see how this season pans out first.
I really don't think trading would be beneficial tbh.
We only get to keep 3 players from 2015 so who's going to trade any of their top 3 guns.
Plus we have no positional issues to recruit for.
Happy with the no trades.
I kinda thought it would be good to trade as it would give people (whatever their draft pool) to improve their lists. Also gives you a chance to get players from more than 3 teams which imo would be only a good thing!
But if Oz/the majority of people are against trading then I am happy to go with that as well :)
Quote from: Toga on January 07, 2015, 09:00:25 PM
I kinda thought it would be good to trade as it would give people (whatever their draft pool) to improve their lists. Also gives you a chance to get players from more than 3 teams which imo would be only a good thing!
But if Oz/the majority of people are against trading then I am happy to go with that as well :)
I definitely like the idea of being able to get players from more than 3 teams, but seeing as it's the inaugural season we are all on a pretty even level having selected our teams from 3 lists, so we can use this season to learn a lot and develop the competition
Believe me, I just love to trade lol so I want to trade now, but if we were going to trade I think there would need to be some strict restrictions and limitations. We don't want it getting out of control before the seasons even begun lol
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on January 07, 2015, 09:03:36 PM
Quote from: Toga on January 07, 2015, 09:00:25 PM
I kinda thought it would be good to trade as it would give people (whatever their draft pool) to improve their lists. Also gives you a chance to get players from more than 3 teams which imo would be only a good thing!
But if Oz/the majority of people are against trading then I am happy to go with that as well :)
I definitely like the idea of being able to get players from more than 3 teams, but seeing as it's the inaugural season we are all on a pretty even level having selected our teams from 3 lists, so we can use this season to learn a lot and develop the competition
Believe me, I just love to trade lol so I want to trade now, but if we were going to trade I think there would need to be some strict restrictions and limitations. We don't want it getting out of control before the seasons even begun lol
I don't know about banning trading all together but do think that there should be rules on it.
Who said anything about banning trades?
I want to trade, I have to many St Kilda players!
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on January 07, 2015, 09:31:30 PM
Who said anything about banning trades?
Sorry I didn't read it properly thought we were banning trades all together haha :P
my bad :-[
We didn't have one premium mid in our draft so surely we should be given the opportunity to atleast try and trade one in....
Quote from: picker_man on January 07, 2015, 09:58:08 PM
We didn't have one premium mid in our draft so surely we should be given the opportunity to atleast try and trade one in....
You did have numerous 100+ players, but yeah you got stooged on not having any elite mids available
Doubt you would have much of a chance getting someone to trade you one though :-[
With positions not being a factor in this comp, it's going to make it harder to get trades done because at the end of the day you just need the 5 highest scoring players from anywhere
We can atleast try :P
Trades or no trades, the Lightning Beliebers will triumph!
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on January 07, 2015, 10:10:08 PM
Quote from: picker_man on January 07, 2015, 09:58:08 PM
We didn't have one premium mid in our draft so surely we should be given the opportunity to atleast try and trade one in....
You did have numerous 100+ players, but yeah you got stooged on not having any elite mids available
Doubt you would have much of a chance getting someone to trade you one though :-[
With positions not being a factor in this comp, it's going to make it harder to get trades done because at the end of the day you just need the 5 highest scoring players from anywhere
That's all well and good but why take the fun of atleast trying away?? If you don't wanna trade you don't have too & if you think its going to be hard to make trades cause you only need top 5 ave players then there really isnt much to be worried about is there lol
All OPs should be up to date.
Quote from: Nige on January 07, 2015, 10:43:57 PM
All OPs should be up to date.
Thanks for that Nige
I've finally finished my team and some people aren't even half way through lol ::) :P
Quote from: Money Shot on January 08, 2015, 11:46:14 AM
I've finally finished my team and some people aren't even half way through lol ::) :P
Half way through! we wish,, there are some Coaches who don't have three players yet. ::)
Just an idea....
Trading, 1 for 1, but you can only trade players in the same Round.
Quote from: ossie85 on January 08, 2015, 12:25:11 PM
Just an idea....
Trading, 1 for 1, but you can only trade players in the same Round.
What do you mean!?
Quote from: Money Shot on January 08, 2015, 12:36:03 PM
Quote from: ossie85 on January 08, 2015, 12:25:11 PM
Just an idea....
Trading, 1 for 1, but you can only trade players in the same Round.
What do you mean!?
John Smith was picked in the 2nd Round in Draft 3, so you can only trade him with another player picked in the 2nd Round in any of the drafts.
Given differing quality of drafts, maybe allow a little leeway there. Maybe trade players in the same round, give or take a round (so a Round 3 draftee, can trade them for anybody drafted in Rounds 2-4). Allows for a little difference in the draft and could make it a bit easier but not allow for any huge differences in trades.
Just putting it out there incase trading is allowed.
Would be a nightmare having to always check every single team to see what players they have in the same round of the player you want to trade
Quote from: ossie85 on January 08, 2015, 12:38:34 PM
Quote from: Money Shot on January 08, 2015, 12:36:03 PM
Quote from: ossie85 on January 08, 2015, 12:25:11 PM
Just an idea....
Trading, 1 for 1, but you can only trade players in the same Round.
What do you mean!?
John Smith was picked in the 2nd Round in Draft 3, so you can only trade him with another player picked in the 2nd Round in any of the drafts.
I like The ideas :o
Thought you were talking about bye rounds lol
No trading I reckon. Just let it go for the first season and see how it works out.
Quote from: ossie85 on January 08, 2015, 12:25:11 PM
Just an idea....
Trading, 1 for 1, but you can only trade players in the same Round.
I like just trading 1 for 1.
Should limit trading enough - no-one will ever be able to agree in this scenario lol
Quote from: BB67th on January 08, 2015, 12:51:57 PM
No trading I reckon. Just let it go for the first season and see how it works out.
Only read the first few pages.
Imo bottom teams should get to choose their draft after groups are allocated.
Also if trading is allowed don't see why first 3 players should be locked. My best player is Andrew Swallow and I'd love to get an improvement on that but won't be able to with that rule in place.
I think we should allow trading.
If you don't want to trade you don't have to its as simple as that ::)
I for one would be open to trading any of my players if I see me getting a benefit out of it.
Ok, so here's the general consensus I'm hearing...
- No trading
- Separate teams by percentage
- Each team gets to choose 3 players to keep from this year.
As far as next year goes, this is how I'd see it working (very much open for discussion):
- Split into 6 drafts like before (trying to even out total points as much as I can, except I'd remove players already on people's lists)
- The 16 teams that eliminated after the first 5 rounds get priority access to next year's draft. The lowest scoring team gets 1st pick at which draft they want, the second lowest scoring team gets 2nd pick (but if the 2nd team is in the same group as the 1st team, they can't go into the same draft), etc....
- The 8 teams eliminated after round 9 get the next round of preferences like above, again split on total points scored
- The 14 teams eliminated after round 15 get the next round of preferences...
- The 6 teams eliminated after round 20 get the next...
- The 2 teams eliminated after the prelims get the next....
- The runner-up gets the next choice
- The winner gets the last spot.
As far as the draft order goes, it won't be a snake draft. (i.e. the lowest scoring team gets first pick in each round of the draft)
?? I'm not really sure trading has a place in this game to be honest
really hate having 6 drafts cant we have like 3 drafts or something
Looks like im getting the last spot next years draft :P welcome change for a tea Jaybag run team? :o
COME AT ME 8)
BTW I agree with the Oz, im not sure trading has its place either in this comp, we all have XVs and hundreds of teams each and we trade like rabbits. This comp is a little different, where you only keep three players and then we redraft everyone. I like it and it is something different to the XVs, a welcome change and a new strategy 8)
Nice one Oz!
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on January 08, 2015, 02:55:56 PM
really hate having 6 drafts cant we have like 3 drafts or something
Prefer the 6 & the time frame for this is a while, just imagine 3
Quote from: nas on January 08, 2015, 02:59:54 PM
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on January 08, 2015, 02:55:56 PM
really hate having 6 drafts cant we have like 3 drafts or something
Prefer the 6 & the time frame for this is a while, just imagine 3
next year we can start drafting earlier will have 5 months to draft
yeah, looks good Oss. Like it!
I don't think seeding should be based on lowest scoring, because teams will be different the following season.
A fairer option is to seed teams on how well their 3 keepers go over the course of the entire year.
An example would be.. Team Blue has 3 guns, but the rest of their team is weak/or they get injuries etc.
They get knocked out early and get seeded good the following season. They still have their 3 guns and get a better draft position. They will be unfairly strong in 2016.
Team Red has 3 weaker keepers, but has decent depth in their squad and do better than expected.
They still have their 3 weaker keepers, but are now getting a bad draft position for 2016.
Remember all of your depth players will be changed/gone every year. The only constant is the Keepers and that is how I think the seeding should be decided.
Fair enough with the no trading I see where you guys are coming from and my team is going to win with it without trading do it doesn't bother me!
I would like less drafts as you would get a better range of players to choose from and I know it would take a while but we'd have double the time to do it.
That's just my opinion.
So are we going to be keeping 3 players still?
Or will it depend on how next season will work
Quote from: LF on January 08, 2015, 03:47:39 PM
So are we going to be keeping 3 players still?
Or will it depend on how next season will work
If there's no trading then I think you should only get to keep 1 player.
Yea less drafts should make the drafts all more even and with more teams in each draft it would also make the snaking work better as the people who got pick 1 got a super premo and then 2 good premos with there next whereas the guys with 8/9 just got to good premos and then alot lesser quality with there 3rd pick.
Still think we should be able to trade, otherwise you can write off the weaker drafts already.
Seeding should be done on position finished, its not perfect but its as close to the AFL as we can simulate.
Quote from: LF on January 08, 2015, 03:47:39 PM
So are we going to be keeping 3 players still?
Or will it depend on how next season will work
Coaches picked on the assumption they were keeping three players, so don't think that should change.
Spot on Os,
Sounds good.
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 08, 2015, 04:00:00 PM
Quote from: LF on January 08, 2015, 03:47:39 PM
So are we going to be keeping 3 players still?
Or will it depend on how next season will work
Coaches picked on the assumption they were keeping three players, so don't think that should change.
+1
Quote from: Money Shot on January 08, 2015, 04:39:12 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 08, 2015, 04:00:00 PM
Quote from: LF on January 08, 2015, 03:47:39 PM
So are we going to be keeping 3 players still?
Or will it depend on how next season will work
Coaches picked on the assumption they were keeping three players, so don't think that should change.
+1
BTW I agree with the Oz, im not sure trading has its place either in this comp, we all have XVs and hundreds of teams each and we trade like rabbits. This comp is a little different, where you only keep three players and then we redraft everyone. I like it and it is something different to the XVs, a welcome change and a new strategyThis from Tbag as well as 3 players keeping
I have changed my opinion, we can traded in the other comps this is just abit of fun. No trading.
Quote from: Holz on January 08, 2015, 04:56:32 PM
I have changed my opinion, we can traded in the other comps this is just abit of fun. No trading.
+1
I agree for this season especially I think we shouldn't trade and depending on how this season goes we can re-evaluate whether or not trading is the way to go in future seasons.
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 08, 2015, 04:00:00 PM
Quote from: LF on January 08, 2015, 03:47:39 PM
So are we going to be keeping 3 players still?
Or will it depend on how next season will work
Coaches picked on the assumption they were keeping three players, so don't think that should change.
Well yeah this is why I would like it to stay as 3 keepers drafted who I thought I might keep.
Quote from: LF on January 08, 2015, 05:05:21 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 08, 2015, 04:00:00 PM
Quote from: LF on January 08, 2015, 03:47:39 PM
So are we going to be keeping 3 players still?
Or will it depend on how next season will work
Coaches picked on the assumption they were keeping three players, so don't think that should change.
Well yeah this is why I would like it to stay as 3 keepers drafted who I thought I might keep.
Which is why trading should be allowed because otherwise the best 150 players or thereabouts won't be able to be drafted and the teams who got the not-so-good drafts will struggle to improve.
Quote from: LF on January 08, 2015, 05:05:21 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 08, 2015, 04:00:00 PM
Quote from: LF on January 08, 2015, 03:47:39 PM
So are we going to be keeping 3 players still?
Or will it depend on how next season will work
Coaches picked on the assumption they were keeping three players, so don't think that should change.
Well yeah this is why I would like it to stay as 3 keepers drafted who I thought I might keep.
My understanding from the start was that you may keep
up to 3 players. Was not mandatory to keep 3 though.
So as that was the rule that was in place can not see how it can be changed now as you say coaches with their first 3 picks in most cases were drafting players they wish to keep.
My 2 cents worth as well we have not even had a season yet so lets see how it shakes down and then look at how we can improve. it is only the 2nd week in January and most drafts will be completed in the next week or two well before season start so can not see what the problem is.
I fully support the no trading as well as this is a fun competition and will rely on best 5 each week only. And with drafts each year can not see the need. How groups are decided is probably the only real discussion point and we have a fair amount of time to work on it.
Quote from: GoLions on January 08, 2015, 05:17:50 PM
Quote from: LF on January 08, 2015, 05:05:21 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 08, 2015, 04:00:00 PM
Quote from: LF on January 08, 2015, 03:47:39 PM
So are we going to be keeping 3 players still?
Or will it depend on how next season will work
Coaches picked on the assumption they were keeping three players, so don't think that should change.
Well yeah this is why I would like it to stay as 3 keepers drafted who I thought I might keep.
Which is why trading should be allowed because otherwise the best 150 players or thereabouts won't be able to be drafted and the teams who got the not-so-good drafts will struggle to improve.
This is why tho we will be drafting from different teams each season
Yea but the 150 best players wont be able to be drafted.
Quote from: GoLions on January 08, 2015, 05:17:50 PM
Quote from: LF on January 08, 2015, 05:05:21 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 08, 2015, 04:00:00 PM
Quote from: LF on January 08, 2015, 03:47:39 PM
So are we going to be keeping 3 players still?
Or will it depend on how next season will work
Coaches picked on the assumption they were keeping three players, so don't think that should change.
Well yeah this is why I would like it to stay as 3 keepers drafted who I thought I might keep.
Which is why trading should be allowed because otherwise the best 150 players or thereabouts won't be able to be drafted and the teams who got the not-so-good drafts will struggle to improve.
This is an excellent point, team that don't have multiple 105+ average players will have to draft incredibly well and have excellent depth compared to those that have a couple dead set guns to start with will have an advantage for the entirety of the competition, sure we draft again but them 150 or so top players will always be out of reach for those with a poor core group.
For instance, I can build my team around NicNat and Danger for the next 5 years and never have a particularly poor team in that time while there will be some in the exact opposite situation
Quote from: ADEZ on January 08, 2015, 05:58:38 PM
Quote from: GoLions on January 08, 2015, 05:17:50 PM
Quote from: LF on January 08, 2015, 05:05:21 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 08, 2015, 04:00:00 PM
Quote from: LF on January 08, 2015, 03:47:39 PM
So are we going to be keeping 3 players still?
Or will it depend on how next season will work
Coaches picked on the assumption they were keeping three players, so don't think that should change.
Well yeah this is why I would like it to stay as 3 keepers drafted who I thought I might keep.
Which is why trading should be allowed because otherwise the best 150 players or thereabouts won't be able to be drafted and the teams who got the not-so-good drafts will struggle to improve.
This is an excellent point, team that don't have multiple 105+ average players will have to draft incredibly well and have excellent depth compared to those that have a couple dead set guns to start with will have an advantage for the entirety of the competition, sure we draft again but them 150 or so top players will always be out of reach for those with a poor core group.
For instance, I can build my team around NicNat and Danger for the next 5 years and never have a particularly poor team in that time while there will be some in the exact opposite situation
But if seeded drafting next season is based of how strong your top 3 are, teams will even out.
If your keepers are weaker, you'll get a better draft position next year. And that will give you stronger depth then teams with 3 Guns.
For the 2016 Season you'll get three different clubs to draft from. There will be plenty of quality players to choose from.
It's also the best 24 players from those 3 clubs kept, not necessarily the best 150 kept.
Since groups are not even that will mean some non keepers from one team, will be better than some keepers from other teams.
If we end up doing trading you wouldn't be able to retain the players you traded in.
Saying that I don't really think that trading is really needed in this competition.
Either way I think there will still be up to 3 players retained between seasons.
To be honest I can not see all coaches keeping 3 players I for one probably will not.
Just look at this years draft admittedly based on last years scores
49 players with average 100+ and 52 players with average between 90 and 100
That is basically 101 players who average more than 90. Common sense dictates that none of these players will be available for trade as they will be keepers so any trading if allowed will be possible sideways moving so that is why I say trading may be futile.
Quote from: Ringo on January 08, 2015, 06:22:26 PM
To be honest I can not see all coaches keeping 3 players I for one probably will not.
Just look at this years draft admittedly based on last years scores
49 players with average 100+ and 52 players with average between 90 and 100
That is basically 101 players who average more than 90. Common sense dictates that none of these players will be available for trade as they will be keepers so any trading if allowed will be possible sideways moving so that is why I say trading may be futile.
Its not just super premiums that coaches will be retaining, alot of the players retained will be future stars (eg. Heeney).
Quote from: Ringo on January 08, 2015, 06:22:26 PM
To be honest I can not see all coaches keeping 3 players I for one probably will not.
Just look at this years draft admittedly based on last years scores
49 players with average 100+ and 52 players with average between 90 and 100
That is basically 101 players who average more than 90. Common sense dictates that none of these players will be available for trade as they will be keepers so any trading if allowed will be possible sideways moving so that is why I say trading may be futile.
If you don't keep 3 players, you could get 0 points for that player and that will place you better in next years draft.
That could be a good strategy for some to do. :)
Thoughts here.
Thinking so that some good players can fall into next years drafts.
Should people nominate there 3 keepers at the start of the season?
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on January 10, 2015, 06:59:55 PM
Thoughts here.
Thinking so that some good players can fall into next years drafts.
Should people nominate there 3 keepers at the start of the season?
any LTI could really hurt though like if one of your keeps does an ACL we could make exceptions for this though
That would just be part of the risk you take, cant make it too easy for everyone.
I think keepers should be selected at the end of the season.
All the drafts should be updated.
What about just 2 keepers? You still keep your favourite two and gives a bit more strength to the draft pool
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 08, 2015, 04:00:00 PM
Quote from: LF on January 08, 2015, 03:47:39 PM
So are we going to be keeping 3 players still?
Or will it depend on how next season will work
Coaches picked on the assumption they were keeping three players, so don't think that should change.
Quote from: Ricochet on January 11, 2015, 09:50:02 AM
What about just 2 keepers? You still keep your favourite two and gives a bit more strength to the draft pool
I think 2 could maybe work if there's no trading. 3 won't work. 1 or 2 keepers should be fine I think without trading.
I'd rather 2.
I like 3. It gives you more wriggle room, and lets you hold onto a player who may not be in your best 5, but will be in the future.
Quote from: nrich102 on January 11, 2015, 12:52:08 PM
I like 3. It gives you more wriggle room, and lets you hold onto a player who may not be in your best 5, but will be in the future.
Then how are the teams with poor top-end premos ever going to improve? You would pretty much have to tank for early draft picks, thus making the competition not enjoyable.
What about just 1?
That means that we will all get a chance to actually draft good players
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on January 11, 2015, 12:53:24 PM
What about just 1?
That means that we will all get a chance to actually draft good players
Yeah I'm fine with 1 or 2. My only concern with 1 is that it might make it a lot more difficult for teams to actually separate themselves from the rest, so maybe 2 would be best.
One makes it feel like a totally different team altogether. I think we should have up to 3, but with restrictions on who you can take (Say one 100+ player).
Dont think 1 would work, but I'd be open for 2.
What if age and or scoring was bought into it?
Say we keep 2, but one of them has to be 21 years old or less and 1 is your highest scorer
Probably over complicating it, but just throwing ideas out there :)
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 08, 2015, 04:00:00 PM
Coaches picked on the assumption they were keeping three players, so don't think that should change.
Yeah that's fair enough. Just keep 3 as originally planned
This comp should be simple and fun, we have XV for more in depth comps
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on January 11, 2015, 01:20:13 PM
Yeah that's fair enough. Just keep 3 as originally planned
This comp should be simple and fun, we have XV for more in depth comps
Preach. 8)
Quote from: Pkbaldy on January 11, 2015, 01:14:36 PM
Quote from: LF on January 11, 2015, 01:10:51 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 08, 2015, 04:00:00 PM
Coaches picked on the assumption they were keeping three players, so don't think that should change.
Cant keep using that excuse to cancel out any change in the competition. I also drafted on the assumption we would be able to trade but that hasnt come to fruition has it
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on January 11, 2015, 01:28:31 PM
Quote from: Pkbaldy on January 11, 2015, 01:14:36 PM
Quote from: LF on January 11, 2015, 01:10:51 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 08, 2015, 04:00:00 PM
Coaches picked on the assumption they were keeping three players, so don't think that should change.
Cant keep using that excuse to cancel out any change in the competition. I also drafted on the assumption we would be able to trade but that hasnt come to fruition has it
Keeping 3 players was in the original post,trading never was it was just suggested as something that might possibly happen.
I never drafted for trading because was not ever confirmed as happening was always based on who could be possible keepers as per what Os posted.
So not my problem you assumed that there would be trading when it was never fully confirmed.
It wasn't confirmed but trading was always a possibility so don't see how you can use it as a reason.
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on January 11, 2015, 01:28:31 PM
Cant keep using that excuse to cancel out any change in the competition. I also drafted on the assumption we would be able to trade but that hasnt come to fruition has it
Well, that's your fault for assuming then. That was never official or a sure thing unlike the retention of 3 players which was stated in the OP when Oss raised the idea of the comp.
Think it was a fair assumption.
Can't think of any other draft game off the top of my head that doesn't have trading.
Quote from: Mr.Craig on January 11, 2015, 05:33:45 PM
Think it was a fair assumption.
Can't think of any other draft game off the top of my head that doesn't have trading.
Whether or not there ends up being trading involved, that shouldn't influence whether we keep 3 players or not.
They are two different subjects. One was a rule the other was just a possibility.
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 11, 2015, 05:36:42 PM
Quote from: Mr.Craig on January 11, 2015, 05:33:45 PM
Think it was a fair assumption.
Can't think of any other draft game off the top of my head that doesn't have trading.
Whether or not there ends up being trading involved, that shouldn't influence whether we keep 3 players or not.
They are two different subjects. One was a rule the other was just a possibility.
???
I think you're reading lines in my comment that don't exist.
Quote from: Mr.Craig on January 11, 2015, 06:14:16 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 11, 2015, 05:36:42 PM
Quote from: Mr.Craig on January 11, 2015, 05:33:45 PM
Think it was a fair assumption.
Can't think of any other draft game off the top of my head that doesn't have trading.
Whether or not there ends up being trading involved, that shouldn't influence whether we keep 3 players or not.
They are two different subjects. One was a rule the other was just a possibility.
???
I think you're reading lines in my comment that don't exist.
Well it was following on from what others are saying about "if there is no trading we should only keep 1-2 players, but keeping 3 is fine if there is trading etc."
I shouldn't have quoted with my statement, since you didn't say that in yours.
This comp has had gradual input and will continue to evolve. So using you drafted to keep 3 players as an argument isnt fair. Especially considering you'll normally take the best player available in your top 3 picks anyway. And I don't think the gap between the strong pools and weak pools was fully realised.
Is it really much diff for stronger teams in a drop from 3 keepers to 2? its a massive difference for the poorer teams. As the pool next year will be stronger
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 11, 2015, 06:42:45 PM
Quote from: Mr.Craig on January 11, 2015, 06:14:16 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 11, 2015, 05:36:42 PM
Quote from: Mr.Craig on January 11, 2015, 05:33:45 PM
Think it was a fair assumption.
Can't think of any other draft game off the top of my head that doesn't have trading.
Whether or not there ends up being trading involved, that shouldn't influence whether we keep 3 players or not.
They are two different subjects. One was a rule the other was just a possibility.
???
I think you're reading lines in my comment that don't exist.
Well it was following on from what others are saying about "if there is no trading we should only keep 1-2 players, but keeping 3 is fine if there is trading etc."
I shouldn't have quoted with my statement, since you didn't say that in yours.
My opinions are purely those of the Japan Whalers, their board and members. :P
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 11, 2015, 05:36:42 PM
Quote from: Mr.Craig on January 11, 2015, 05:33:45 PM
Think it was a fair assumption.
Can't think of any other draft game off the top of my head that doesn't have trading.
Whether or not there ends up being trading involved, that shouldn't influence whether we keep 3 players or not.
They are two different subjects. One was a rule the other was just a possibility.
Why doesn't it? If we keep 3 players, then the top (almost) 150 players will be unavailable to draft each year, and the bottom teams can't improve. If less players are kept, then the bottom teams can actually draft a decent player and improve their team.
Quote from: Ricochet on January 11, 2015, 07:01:39 PM
This comp has had gradual input and will continue to evolve. So using you drafted to keep 3 players as an argument isnt fair. Especially considering you'll normally take the best player available in your top 3 picks anyway. And I don't think the gap between the strong pools and weak pools was fully realised.
Is it really much diff for stronger teams in a drop from 3 keepers to 2? its a massive difference for the poorer teams. As the pool next year will be stronger
regardless of discussion #draft2
Quote from: GoLions on January 11, 2015, 08:07:18 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 11, 2015, 05:36:42 PM
Whether or not there ends up being trading involved, that shouldn't influence whether we keep 3 players or not.
They are two different subjects. One was a rule the other was just a possibility.
Why doesn't it? If we keep 3 players, then the top (almost) 150 players will be unavailable to draft each year, and the bottom teams can't improve. If less players are kept, then the bottom teams can actually draft a decent player and improve their team.
That was the original concept that we drafted for. Trading is a different issue that shouldn't affect the keeper rule.
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 11, 2015, 08:56:52 PM
Quote from: GoLions on January 11, 2015, 08:07:18 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 11, 2015, 05:36:42 PM
Whether or not there ends up being trading involved, that shouldn't influence whether we keep 3 players or not.
They are two different subjects. One was a rule the other was just a possibility.
Why doesn't it? If we keep 3 players, then the top (almost) 150 players will be unavailable to draft each year, and the bottom teams can't improve. If less players are kept, then the bottom teams can actually draft a decent player and improve their team.
That was the original concept that we drafted for. Trading is a different issue that shouldn't affect the keeper rule.
How do you think teams are going to improve though if everyone is allowed 3 keepers then? Look at who every team has as their 4th best player, and that's who the bottom teams will be drafting to "improve". Here's probably the best 4th round picks, although granted some players taken later then your 4th round pick could be better:
Aish (will likely be kept if 3 keepers though)
Billings
Darling (will be kept though)
Breust (probably be kept)
Kelly (might retire)
Burgoyne (might retire)
Christensen
Jroo
Langford
Hurn
Leuey
Walters
Motlop
That's not a lot, and when you have top 3s of, for example using myself and Turkey, A Swallow, Ebert, Dunstan vs Rockliff, Shiel, D Smith, there is no chance of me ever scoring as well as him if we have 3 keepers and no trading.
Quote from: GoLions on January 11, 2015, 09:07:56 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 11, 2015, 08:56:52 PM
Quote from: GoLions on January 11, 2015, 08:07:18 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 11, 2015, 05:36:42 PM
Whether or not there ends up being trading involved, that shouldn't influence whether we keep 3 players or not.
They are two different subjects. One was a rule the other was just a possibility.
Why doesn't it? If we keep 3 players, then the top (almost) 150 players will be unavailable to draft each year, and the bottom teams can't improve. If less players are kept, then the bottom teams can actually draft a decent player and improve their team.
That was the original concept that we drafted for. Trading is a different issue that shouldn't affect the keeper rule.
How do you think teams are going to improve though if everyone is allowed 3 keepers then? Look at who every team has as their 4th best player, and that's who the bottom teams will be drafting to "improve". Here's probably the best 4th round picks, although granted some players taken later then your 4th round pick could be better:
Aish (will likely be kept if 3 keepers though)
Billings
Darling (will be kept though)
Breust (probably be kept)
Kelly (might retire)
Burgoyne (might retire)
Christensen
Jroo
Langford
Hurn
Leuey
Walters
Motlop
That's not a lot, and when you have top 3s of, for example using myself and Turkey, A Swallow, Ebert, Dunstan vs Rockliff, Shiel, D Smith, there is no chance of me ever scoring as well as him if we have 3 keepers and no trading.
The problem is though that argument for only two keepers, could be used for only having one keeper. Which in turn could be used for not having any keepers.
(Don't have keepers, next years draft will be even stronger) :P
If the decision to trade happens then so be it, but Coaches drafted under the three keepers rule.
And again I agree 100% with GL, he continues arguing very relevant, very accurate points. Surely everyone can see that 2 keepers and/or trading is the way too an equal competition and I honestly do not believe that people drafting w/ 3 keeps in mind would have drafted noticeably differently if 2 keepers were settled on
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 11, 2015, 09:25:05 PM
Quote from: GoLions on January 11, 2015, 09:07:56 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 11, 2015, 08:56:52 PM
Quote from: GoLions on January 11, 2015, 08:07:18 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 11, 2015, 05:36:42 PM
Whether or not there ends up being trading involved, that shouldn't influence whether we keep 3 players or not.
They are two different subjects. One was a rule the other was just a possibility.
Why doesn't it? If we keep 3 players, then the top (almost) 150 players will be unavailable to draft each year, and the bottom teams can't improve. If less players are kept, then the bottom teams can actually draft a decent player and improve their team.
That was the original concept that we drafted for. Trading is a different issue that shouldn't affect the keeper rule.
How do you think teams are going to improve though if everyone is allowed 3 keepers then? Look at who every team has as their 4th best player, and that's who the bottom teams will be drafting to "improve". Here's probably the best 4th round picks, although granted some players taken later then your 4th round pick could be better:
Aish (will likely be kept if 3 keepers though)
Billings
Darling (will be kept though)
Breust (probably be kept)
Kelly (might retire)
Burgoyne (might retire)
Christensen
Jroo
Langford
Hurn
Leuey
Walters
Motlop
That's not a lot, and when you have top 3s of, for example using myself and Turkey, A Swallow, Ebert, Dunstan vs Rockliff, Shiel, D Smith, there is no chance of me ever scoring as well as him if we have 3 keepers and no trading.
The problem is though that argument for only two keepers, could be used for only having one keeper. Which in turn could be used for not having any keepers.
(Don't have keepers, next years draft will be even stronger) :P
If the decision to trade happens then so be it, but Coaches drafted under the three keepers rule.
I don't think many people would be using that argument for 0 or 1 keepers :P
Honestly, if we have 3 keepers and no trading, there's not really any reason for me to continue with this comp. I joined under the assumption that we would be able to trade, as with every other fantasy comp. Surely you can see that the teams who are around the bottom early on will struggle to improve? People will just stop playing after the first or second season if those rules are in place, because why would you want to remain a shower team for years on end.
I think GL is right here. There is no real reason for weak teams to keep playing each year if they don't have a realistic chance to improve.
Trading hasn't been ruled out entirely though, I'd say it's highly likely trading will be brought in at the end of the first season.
I think a decent portion of the comp is just happy to see how year one of i5s plays out first and that way we'll be able to see what went wrong and what went right.
Quote from: Nige on January 11, 2015, 09:57:20 PM
Trading hasn't been ruled out entirely though, I'd say it's highly likely trading will be brought in at the end of the first season.
I think a decent portion of the comp is just happy to see how year one of i5s plays out first and that way we'll be able to see what went wrong and what went right.
I'm 100% ok with trading not happening until the end of the first season. But, and trying not to sound like a little dog (damn you and your new filter HP :P) here, if we get to the end of the first season, have 3 keepers, and no trading, it's likely that it will also be my last season. Just wouldn't be anything to keep me interested in the comp tbh.
Quote from: GoLions on January 11, 2015, 10:03:17 PM
Quote from: Nige on January 11, 2015, 09:57:20 PM
Trading hasn't been ruled out entirely though, I'd say it's highly likely trading will be brought in at the end of the first season.
I think a decent portion of the comp is just happy to see how year one of i5s plays out first and that way we'll be able to see what went wrong and what went right.
I'm 100% ok with trading not happening until the end of the first season. But, and trying not to sound like a little dog (damn you and your new filter HP :P) here, if we get to the end of the first season, have 3 keepers, and no trading, it's likely that it will also be my last season. Just wouldn't be anything to keep me interested in the comp tbh.
Without knowing for sure, I'd be fairly confident in saying that won't be the case.
What's the point of the competition if we got 3 keepers and no trading?
Top teams continue to dominate, bottom teams continue to get destroyed. Dave is right, don't see how there is any motive for a bottom team.
Quote from: Vinny on January 11, 2015, 10:05:44 PM
What's the point of the competition if we got 3 keepers and no trading?
Top teams continue to dominate, bottom teams continue to get destroyed. Dave is right, don't see how there is any motive for a bottom team.
Keep 1 player only.
I would of thought having a perceived weaker team would be considered a challenge. "Can't win so I'll quit" attitude didn't enter my mind.
Premiums change from year to year, if there is seeded drafts in the future, squads will even out.
Can we just agree to settle down and let this competition run for the season and then look at what we need to do to enhance the comp after analysing what was good and what was bad.
Trading (and only have ezipc here in the states to verify) has only been ruled out for the beginning of this season which is fair enough.
A number of the scorers people have selected may not be around next year as well, Personally I am in favour of the three keeper rule as that is the basis of drafting, In my case I drafted 3 players who I thought I could build a strong team around for next year onwards.
Team can even up with a seeded draft next year as well as trading,
So finally just chill and try not to take the fun out of the competition. May lose traction before it starts if we keep arguing the way we are, I for one am getting tired of the same old arguments being put up day after day. It is obvious that there is not consensus on some issues and yet we have not had a ball kicked in the competition.
How about this? If you finish in the bottom half this year you get to keep a fourth player? That player can be a young gun or something?
Quote from: Ringo on January 11, 2015, 10:36:42 PM
Can we just agree to settle down and let this competition run for the season and then look at what we need to do to enhance the comp after analysing what was good and what was bad.
Trading (and only have ezipc here in the states to verify) has only been ruled out for the beginning of this season which is fair enough.
A number of the scorers people have selected may not be around next year as well, Personally I am in favour of the three keeper rule as that is the basis of drafting, In my case I drafted 3 players who I thought I could build a strong team around for next year onwards.
Team can even up with a seeded draft next year as well as trading,
So finally just chill and try not to take the fun out of the competition. May lose traction before it starts if we keep arguing the way we are, I for one am getting tired of the same old arguments being put up day after day. It is obvious that there is not consensus on some issues and yet we have not had a ball kicked in the competition.
Well said Ringo ,
Still working on your holiday, lol.
Hope it has started well mate.
Quote from: tbagrocks on January 11, 2015, 10:39:51 PM
How about this? If you finish in the bottom half this year you get to keep a fourth player? That player can be a young gun or something?
Must mark thie one on the wll Tbag has said something noteworthy.
Actually do not mind this idea but will need to ensure no tanking takes place.
Stop thinking on your holidays ringo lol. Hope you're having a good time :).
Quote from: tbagrocks on January 11, 2015, 10:39:51 PM
How about this? If you finish in the bottom half this year you get to keep a fourth player? That player can be a young gun or something?
I think it would have to work on a 2-3 basis rather than 3-4, but I think we'll look at making it more complicated after season 1.
Quote from: Ringo on January 11, 2015, 10:51:41 PM
Quote from: tbagrocks on January 11, 2015, 10:39:51 PM
How about this? If you finish in the bottom half this year you get to keep a fourth player? That player can be a young gun or something?
Must mark thie one on the wll Tbag has said something noteworthy.
Actually do not mind this idea but will need to ensure no tanking takes place.
I like tbags idea.
get around this guys........well worth a look
http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php?topic=100108.0
I also drafted under the assumption we would be able to keep 3 players.
If not I wouldn't have taken Josh Kelly third and picked other players who have upside or could be that third keeper - I'd have just gone the players I thought would score the highest in order to have a better chance of winning this season if there was only 2 or 1 keeper.
What happened to Koop? :o
Looks like we need a new coach.
Quote from: nrich102 on January 24, 2015, 01:02:59 PM
What happened to Koop? :o
Looks like we need a new coach.
Pretty sure we had this last year in Elxam, when kk disappeared
Might enquire on Facebook.
Quote from: nas on January 24, 2015, 01:56:59 PM
Quote from: nrich102 on January 24, 2015, 01:02:59 PM
What happened to Koop? :o
Looks like we need a new coach.
Pretty sure we had this last year in Elxam, when kk disappeared
Yeah, but he never deactivated his account in that time.
Never understood why people do that tbh.
Quote from: Mr.Craig on January 25, 2015, 02:10:23 AM
Never understood why people do that tbh.
me neither seems a bit dramatic
Quote from: GoLions on January 11, 2015, 10:03:17 PM
I'm 100% ok with trading not happening until the end of the first season. But, and trying not to sound like a little dog (damn you and your new filter HP :P) here, if we get to the end of the first season, have 3 keepers, and no trading, it's likely that it will also be my last season. Just wouldn't be anything to keep me interested in the comp tbh.
I like screwing with people, and find it funny with the new filters :P.
As for all these changes to the rules and stuff, I've stayed out of it cause happy with the way Oss had originally planned, it's meant to be for some fun so I'm down with anything the head honcho says for it :).
Hey guys,
Over the last few months I've found I have had less and less time to even log onto fanfooty. Work is heating up, and with a second kid coming, I just don't see this changing anytime soon.
Because I'm a 'all or nothing' kinda guy, I'm looking at stepping back from fanfooty. I'll still be around, and I'll still be participating, but I don't think I can admin anymore.
So I'll be stepping back from elxam, WXVs and i5s (yes, I know I just created it). I'll still be helping out, particularly at the beginning, but the week-to-week stuff is too much for me anymore.
Purple 77 has agree to take over the Admin side of WXVs. Check his scores for the Brewers though, I'm not sure how impartial he can be. Purps has asked me to help with trade decisions though, and I've stupidly said yes.
I've asked Nige and nrich102 to take over from the i5s, they are yet to reply, but am more than happy to help set up fixtures/stats etc to whoever does take over.
Will be hoping to grab 3 elxam volunteers (one for each comp) to take over also. So PM me if interested. It is a tough job, and takes significant time each week, so be careful when volunteering! I'll make sure to have as much as I can set up to help the incumbent though.
Oz
So, with Koop leaving we have an open position, at the Philippine Mangoes (Team name can change). We would like to give it to a user who doesn't all ready have a team in this comp, but if we can't find one soonish we might need someone to take on a 2nd team (Can't all ready have a team in SE Asia though).
For rules see this thread (http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,99816.0.html). Any more questions either PM Nige or myself.
Current Squad
1. Kieran Jack
2. Luke Shuey
3. Josh J Kennedy
4. Chris Masten
5. Matt Wright
6. Mark Hutchings
7. Brent Reilly
8. Kyle Cheney
9. James Podsiadly
10. Bradley Sheppard
11. Kyle Hartigan
12. Tom Derickx
13. Mitch Brown
14. Corey Adamson
15. Tom Barass
16. Paddy Brophy
So Kellogscrunchynut is the newest coach guys, taking over in the Philippines.
We decided to apply the first in best dressed principle rather than prolonging the process as we're looking to get some of the admin work sorted now so that we're ready for the season sooner rather than later given nrich has already started school for the year and I have Uni beginning again in just over two weeks.
For all intensive purposes The Philippines team will be renamed the Thailand Surgeons.
Nige approved.
Quote from: Kellogscrunchynut on February 07, 2015, 12:17:39 AM
For all intensive purposes The Philippines team will be renamed the Thailand Surgeons.
Nige approved.
hahaha
intensive purposes.
Hey guys, just thought I'd make a post about another coaching vacancy. The vacated team is Nepal, formerly coached by Spinking who recently deactivated his FanFooty account.
The plan is to find a new coach for the position. There will be no formal applications but we'll probably be sending PMs to people who we think may be interested in the role. If they are interested, they'll be given the role. It will be first in, best dressed.
If this fails to find a new coach, we'll open up the team to be coached by somebody who already has a team and is willing to coach the currently vacated team as well as the one they already have.
If you have any suggestions for somebody who isn't already a coach that you think may be interested in the role, PM myself and/or nrich and put their name forward.
Reading article about Farren Ray being injured - bugger, well at least I've got Savage there to help out (Scrolls down page further)...Savage injured too. ::)
Pick #2 in Draft 5 is scrubbed out for the entire year! Thank god for Jackson Macrae. No injury yet haha.
Happy to announce that SinnerZ is the new coach of Nepal taking over from Spinking who deactivated his FF account.
Please join me in welcoming SinnerZ to the community and the competition. :)
Welcome Sin - happy to have you on board
Looking forward to beating you sin! Welcome aboard 8)
Welcome sin
Welcome SinnerZ
Welcome SinnerZ
Welcome to the game SinnerZ.
Prepare to Beliebe.
Quote from: Hellopplz on March 09, 2015, 03:37:27 PM
Welcome to the game SinnerZ.
Prepare to Beliebe.
I am your 3 worst enemies in 1... I will beat you.
(http://i59.tinypic.com/algfpy.jpg)
Really had to lol at these, oh lordy ;D
So you're a bad boy teen blonde going through puberty Purps? Bring it.
Don't hate on me
You know I'm right,
Don't be so cold,
I could set you on fire
Tonight we go,
Let's fight right now
You know what it's all about
*dusts off team*
We're about to get serious!
Yup! Reminder PM to be sent out later today.
Flower da haters, the Beliebers have got this in the bag 8).
Quote from: Nige on March 27, 2015, 08:53:55 AM
Yup! Reminder PM to be sent out later today.
Didn't get a PM :'(
I see how it is Nige
Yeah guys, didn't get a chance to send them yesterday, had some stuff to do. They'll definitely be sent tonight by the latest.
How we handling teams who don't submit? Just the first 5 players picked + 6th as emergency?
Quote from: ossie85 on March 30, 2015, 12:42:40 PM
How we handling teams who don't submit? Just the first 5 players picked + 6th as emergency?
That's the plan, yes. :)
What about if we want to change our team (prior to lockout).
Edit the original post or make a new post?
The more I think about it, for rounds such as this, a rolling lockout is okay as long as the original post is edited or a new post is made but the old one is deleted.
For normal rounds, straight lockout.
Putting 288 names into a spreadsheet will take me a while, but I'm doing it as they're posted so that I know who has and hasn't done their submission.
Quote from: Nige on March 30, 2015, 12:57:59 PM
Putting 288 names into a spreadsheet
Purple77 would be able to give you all the names in the spreadsheet already
Quote from: ossie85 on March 30, 2015, 12:59:32 PM
Quote from: Nige on March 30, 2015, 12:57:59 PM
Putting 288 names into a spreadsheet
Purple77 would be able to give you all the names in the spreadsheet already
Nah, it's all good. I've got it sorted. Got it set up in a way I understand and even though I have to manually 6 names per team and scores each week, it's no biggie. Richo is helping with the scores so we've got it covered pretty well I think.
Quote from: Nige on March 30, 2015, 12:45:54 PM
Quote from: ossie85 on March 30, 2015, 12:42:40 PM
How we handling teams who don't submit? Just the first 5 players picked + 6th as emergency?
That's the plan, yes. :)
The doesn't really put any accountability on the coaches.
I think if you don't name your team each week, you should get the 5 lowest scores from your complete list that played that week :P
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on March 30, 2015, 01:33:51 PM
Quote from: Nige on March 30, 2015, 12:45:54 PM
Quote from: ossie85 on March 30, 2015, 12:42:40 PM
How we handling teams who don't submit? Just the first 5 players picked + 6th as emergency?
That's the plan, yes. :)
The doesn't really put any accountability on the coaches.
I think if you don't name your team each week, you should get the 5 lowest scores from your complete list that played that week :P
You're right, but I'm not really gonna punish anybody. If coaches don't want to put effort in, we can't force them. I will send a PM warning to any coach that doesn't submit their team any given week. :)
Also updated the Week 1 lodgement thread with rules set out neatly, I think everything is covered.
Please raise issues here if there are any.
Quote from: ossie85 on March 30, 2015, 12:59:32 PM
Quote from: Nige on March 30, 2015, 12:57:59 PM
Putting 288 names into a spreadsheet
Purple77 would be able to give you all the names in the spreadsheet already
This is true... but completely understand having your own system (ossie85's was a mess :P)
I'll also be recording every SC score so I'd be more than willing to pass you on those at any point in the year :)
Quote from: Purple 77 on March 30, 2015, 05:12:06 PM
Quote from: ossie85 on March 30, 2015, 12:59:32 PM
Quote from: Nige on March 30, 2015, 12:57:59 PM
Putting 288 names into a spreadsheet
Purple77 would be able to give you all the names in the spreadsheet already
This is true... but completely understand having your own system (ossie85's was a mess :P)
I'll also be recording every SC score so I'd be more than willing to pass you on those at any point in the year :)
I'll hit you up if I need anything.
i5's needs more hype
Feels like everyone is just going through the motions and no one really cares too much
Weekly banter threads prob don't help either - Should just be one ongoing thread
I dunno, just needs more hype
we use SC scoring?!?!
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on June 05, 2015, 01:53:31 PM
i5's needs more hype
Feels like everyone is just going through the motions and no one really cares too much
Weekly banter threads prob don't help either - Should just be one ongoing thread
I dunno, just needs more hype
I daresay it's more active than Euros and AXVs tbh.
Get hyped :)
Happy to combine the threads though.... why not, Nige?
Quote from: ossie85 on June 05, 2015, 03:05:39 PM
Get hyped :)
Happy to combine the threads though.... why not, Nige?
Combining is fine.
We needs some kind of comp for the knocked out teams.
I lost interest after the group stage and rarely come back to see who's doing what.
Quote from: Memphistopheles on June 11, 2015, 01:06:37 AM
We needs some kind of comp for the knocked out teams.
I lost interest after the group stage and rarely come back to see who's doing what.
yeah fair point
Should there be a rd.13 thread or is there no games this round? (Only completion of round 12 matches?)
Quote from: Rusty00 on June 25, 2015, 07:50:35 AM
Should there be a rd.13 thread or is there no games this round? (Only completion of round 12 matches?)
yeah enjoy the week off :)
I know its only just finished and you're probably enjoying the break ;D
Just want to know if this comp is continuing on next year and if it is any idea if we will keep players or re-draft all new ones ?
Thanks OZ :)
Quote from: FOOTBALL FACTORY on September 08, 2015, 01:48:16 PM
I know its only just finished and you're probably enjoying the break ;D
Just want to know if this comp is continuing on next year and if it is any idea if we will keep players or re-draft all new ones ?
Thanks OZ :)
I think the plan was if the comp continues that every team keeps 3 players then we redraft?
Quote from: Ziplock on September 08, 2015, 05:02:43 PM
Quote from: FOOTBALL FACTORY on September 08, 2015, 01:48:16 PM
I know its only just finished and you're probably enjoying the break ;D
Just want to know if this comp is continuing on next year and if it is any idea if we will keep players or re-draft all new ones ?
Thanks OZ :)
I think the plan was if the comp continues that every team keeps 3 players then we redraft?
Yep pretty sure that was it.
Yeah it was mate .. but wasn't sure if it was set in concrete or not ..sounds really hard to get to work but i could be wrong ? :)
How would the other players be selected ? don't think it could be groups of 3 AFL teams again as it would depend on how many players got kept from each team. Some teams will be massacred :o
Quote from: FOOTBALL FACTORY on September 08, 2015, 06:02:11 PM
Yeah it was mate .. but wasn't sure if it was set in concrete or not ..sounds really hard to get to work but i could be wrong ? :)
How would the other players be selected ? don't think it could be groups of 3 AFL teams again as it would depend on how many players got kept from each team. Some teams will be massacred :o
Just rank everyone. Like if there's 6 drafts, go from the highest averaging SC player down and rank 1-6, then 7th becomes group 1, 8 group 2 etc. etc.
So, what's happening with this?
At this stage, I'm not sure how committed I'll be to running this as I really struggled with it at about the halfway point. I know nrich was also quite busy and couldn't devote as much time to the admin work as he would have liked too. In the end, Oss had to pick up the slack and he's even more busy than he was then as far as I know.
As far as the coaches go, we still need like 48 coaches or whatever the number was (can't remember off the top of my head) and that's a huge commitment, we had slackers and some coaches have since moved on or already informed of their desire not to continue.
I think I'll send a PM in the new year to gauge interest in season two of i5s but I can't promise anything.
Its a lot of work for the mods involved, not easy to keep the motivation going through the whole year updating stuff with everything else going on. I wasn't too keen on the i5 concept at the start but I really liked the group format, kept me interested right till the end.
I have enough on my plate next year , so I will have to give
I5's a miss in 2016.
Thanks for your hard work.