Hey all :D
The majority has revealed itself with 10-6 (Pacific & PNL yet to vote) voting in favour of a rules discussion, so lets get stuck into it :o
ANYONE can nominate a rule change, and it will be voted on. However, be sure there is adequate explanation to validate your proposed change.
Every now and then throughout the year, someone has brought up something they'd like Worlds to do differently. Now is the time to bring that up, and it WILL be voted on. We only have 3 weeks of the year to discuss rules and change them, so use this time wisely. Once the rules have been voted on, THAT IS IT for the next 12 months! (except for the review on the trade voting process that is held after the trade period).
We need all rule changes approved/rejected by Monday the 27th of August, which probably means I'll leave the final PM no later than the 24th.
Personally - unlike previous years - this year I don't really have a clear focus on any given rule. Except, as always...
THERE WILL BE A SALARY CAP! It is the only thing that I will enforce, even if against the majority. The only thing I'll entertain is what kind of cap system we implement. It will not go away whilst I'm admin, so suggestions to get rid of it entirely are fruitless.
So with the above in mind, I'll leave the floor open for rule suggestions :)
Actually, I lied.
I miss the Leadership Group :( I WANT IT BACK!
And Rolling Lockout loopholing should be allowed. Maybe not partial lockout loopholing, but I think there is merit in Rolling Lockout loopholing, as because as we saw earlier in the year, you might innocently have to do it just to name your preferred team.
Mid season trade period ill float that.
Injuries to one line or injuries in general can cause some real issues.
Some very minor fix ups could really fix alot of bad luck
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 04, 2018, 12:18:01 PM
Actually, I lied.
I miss the Leadership Group :( I WANT IT BACK!
And Rolling Lockout loopholing should be allowed. Maybe not partial lockout loopholing, but I think there is merit in Rolling Lockout loopholing, as because as we saw earlier in the year, you might innocently have to do it just to name your preferred team.
Also, partial lockout loopholing can be perceived as dodgy, because it advantages those with players in Thursday night games.
Rolling lockout loopholing doesn't advantage any team with a particular set of players, so yeah, I think there is merit.
Don't mind the idea of Mid Season trade, but I think it needs to be capped
Eg you can only do X amount of trades
I would think 2 or 3 should be max
Rivalry round? no HGA
Toronto vs Dublin
NY vs pacific
ect
Thoughts?
I think the cap needs a tweak. Should be based on the total value of players actually playing that year, not the year before. There's lots of cap cheats who are actually more than 5% over the max.
Also SUPER FLOOD! Using 2 of the 5 in one hit. Make it possible to play a D8 if people want to use 4 at once.
Quote from: meow meow on August 04, 2018, 01:09:35 PM
I think the cap needs a tweak. Should be based on the total value of players actually playing that year, not the year before. There's lots of cap cheats who are actually more than 5% over the max.
Also SUPER FLOOD! Using 2 of the 5 in one hit. Make it possible to play a D8 if people want to use 4 at once.
So how do you plan to value all the guys who will play next year who didnt play this year?
Rule suggestion: If you delete your account you forfeit your team :P
we discussed it and i thought HP had pm'd our yes vote like 4-5 days ago??
Quote from: DazBurg on August 04, 2018, 02:52:49 PM
we discussed it and i thought HP had pm'd our yes vote like 4-5 days ago??
Didn't get it, but no dramas :)
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 04, 2018, 02:54:26 PM
Quote from: DazBurg on August 04, 2018, 02:52:49 PM
we discussed it and i thought HP had pm'd our yes vote like 4-5 days ago??
Didn't get it, but no dramas :)
just sent through to finish the process ;)
Classic PNL
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 04, 2018, 03:09:09 PM
Classic PNL
haha this one wasn't us leaving to last minute, this was us thinking the other was responding
ahh well didn't change anything at all anyways
Quote from: DazBurg on August 04, 2018, 03:11:39 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 04, 2018, 03:09:09 PM
Classic PNL
haha this one wasn't us leaving to last minute, this was us thinking the other was responding
And both of those are classic PNL :P
So, Salary Cap!
To quote from the rulebook:
Quote
Cap
12. Before each season's final list lodgement, each club most be below the salary cap.
How to value each player:
Average of the 22 H&A games from the last 3 years (66 games max), multiplied by 2000 (just a magic number to look good)
Multiplied by a 'Premium factor', i.e. 1 + percentage of times that player has scored over 100
Multiplied by a 'Durability factor', i.e. 1 + games played/66 games
Multiplied by a "Age discount', i.e. 1 - [0.03 x the number of years born before 29 years of the current year (i.e. in 2017 ---> 1988, so a player born in 1985 will receive a 9% (3 x 0.03) discount)]
Players with less than 10 games over the previous 3 years are discounted to $100,000.
Minimum price is $100,000
The average salary for each team is then worked out.
The maximum salary cap is 105% of the average team salary, rounded up to the nearest $100,000. If the players on your list are worth more than the MAX cap in the season prior to the next list lodgement, you must trade or delist players to get under the MAX cap, also taking into account the total salary of your empty list spots.
The total salary of your empty list spots are calculated as being [(44 - current list size) x $100,000]. For list lodgement purposes, you cannot submit a list size of more than 44 players in total.
The minimum salary cap is 85% of the average team salary, rounded down to the nearest $100,000. If the players on your list are worth less than the MIN cap in the season prior to the next list lodgement, then you must ensure that your overall list changes (i.e. trades, delistings and the total salary of your empty list spots) will be equal to or greater than your initial end-of-season total salary.
I've calculated your team salary! Yay!
However, it comes with an asterisk, that they have only been calculated up until Round 19, so they WILL change over the last 4 games. I also haven't included the last 4 games of 2015 to make it a nice even 3 years, so yeah, it has been currently done over 62 games, rather than 66. If anything, caps will probably go up a little from here.
AVERAGE Team Salary: $10,087,500
MAX Cap: $10,600,000
MIN Cap: $8,500,000
Team Caps| WXV Club | Cap | Over Cap |
| Beijing Thunder | $10,982,000 | $382,000 |
| Berlin Brewers | $10,476,000 | |
| Buenos Aires Armadillos | $9,070,000 | |
| Cairo Sands | $9,983,000 | |
| Cape Town Cobras | $9,418,000 | |
| Christchurch Saints | $10,025,000 | |
| Dublin Destroyers | $10,685,000 | $85,000 |
| London Royals | $9,399,000 | |
| Mexico City Suns | $9,144,000 | |
| Moscow Spetsnaz | $10,853,000 | $253,000 |
| New Delhi Tigers | $10,811,000 | $211,000 |
| New York Revolution | $9,882,000 | |
| Pacific Islanders | $11,036,000 | $436,000 |
| PNL Reindeers | $8,877,000 | |
| Rio de Janeiro Jaguars | $9,529,000 | |
| Seoul Magpies | $10,989,000 | $389,000 |
| Tokyo Samurai | $10,053,000 | |
| Toronto Wolves | $10,363,000 |
No one is under the minimum cap :)
Player Cap Top 20| Full Name | WXV Club | Salary |
| Patrick Dangerfield | Seoul Magpies | $942,000 |
| Tom Mitchell | Pacific Islanders | $824,000 |
| Lachie Neale | Beijing Thunder | $738,000 |
| Dustin Martin | Dublin Destroyers | $693,000 |
| Zach Merrett | PNL Reindeers | $691,000 |
| Max Gawn | Berlin Brewers | $675,000 |
| Luke Parker | Christchurch Saints | $668,000 |
| Dayne Zorko | Beijing Thunder | $668,000 |
| Adam Treloar | Moscow Spetsnaz | $651,000 |
| Scott Pendlebury | Toronto Wolves | $644,000 |
| Brodie Grundy | Beijing Thunder | $644,000 |
| Callan Ward | Beijing Thunder | $638,000 |
| Patrick Cripps | Rio de Janeiro Jaguars | $634,000 |
| Josh P Kennedy | Berlin Brewers | $628,000 |
| Jack Macrae | Toronto Wolves | $622,000 |
| Joel Selwood | Dublin Destroyers | $621,000 |
| Marcus Bontempelli | Pacific Islanders | $621,000 |
| Mitch Duncan | Cape Town Cobras | $620,000 |
| Bryce Gibbs | Christchurch Saints | $617,000 |
| Steele Sidebottom | New Delhi Tigers | $601,000 |
I'm aware this will generate discussion about the cap, but my intention of this post is really for those that are curious at what their cap is, and what it means for how they might conduct their trade period.
So yeah, there you have it :)
For a full breakdown of how the cap has been calculated, feel free to check my spreadsheet out:
WXV Salaries (https://jumpshare.com/v/RmoMD1hVXauhKCzqnjhJ)
(I've assumed all the 110 new players are less than 30 years old, I'll input their DOBs later)
Nek Minnit every AFL player retires, meaning we'll each have 44 100k players on our lists, but the minimum cap will be more than double everyone's total since retried players salary remain in the cap for the next season. Everyone will get their first round pick stripped.
Resting Bonus:
To get an adequate resting bonus currently a player would have to score 150 to yield a measly 15 points. Players capable of scoring 150 are few and far between and usually are some of your best players. Often the player you play the week you rest someone will lose you the same amount of points if not more than what you would gain next week. Resting needs to be more worth it I recon.
I propose that resting be changed from a 10% bonus to a 20% bonus.
Quote from: Levi434 on August 06, 2018, 01:45:18 AM
Resting Bonus:
To get an adequate resting bonus currently a play would have to score 150 to yield a measly 15 points. Players capable of scoring 150 are few and far between and usually are some of your best players. Often the player you play the week you rest someone will lose you the same amount of points if not more than what you would gain next week. Resting needs to be more worth it I recon.
I propose that resting be changed from a 10% bonus to a 20% bonus.
I like it.
You're right - 10% isn't really much considering the types of players who are actually viable options to rest
Do you think similar to flood attack that resting needs to be limited to 5 times or something similar, if it was to now net 20%?
We need to get rid of the rookie draft, and rookies altogether. If they don't need to be upgraded then there's absolutely no difference between them and a senior listed player. Keep the main draft as is, then lists completed with the PSD - which will still be first crack at AFL listed rookies.
Quote from: Holz on August 04, 2018, 01:12:06 PM
Quote from: meow meow on August 04, 2018, 01:09:35 PM
I think the cap needs a tweak. Should be based on the total value of players actually playing that year, not the year before. There's lots of cap cheats who are actually more than 5% over the max.
Also SUPER FLOOD! Using 2 of the 5 in one hit. Make it possible to play a D8 if people want to use 4 at once.
So how do you plan to value all the guys who will play next year who didnt play this year?
Rookies will be 100k, all the other players already have a cap value assigned to them so nothing will change there. It'll just eliminate the Sam Mitchell's and the like who were included in this years cap total/average.
Quote from: Levi434 on August 06, 2018, 01:45:18 AM
Resting Bonus:
To get an adequate resting bonus currently a player would have to score 150 to yield a measly 15 points. Players capable of scoring 150 are few and far between and usually are some of your best players. Often the player you play the week you rest someone will lose you the same amount of points if not more than what you would gain next week. Resting needs to be more worth it I recon.
I propose that resting be changed from a 10% bonus to a 20% bonus.
Full support of this, really opens up the opportunity of resting a premium to get the full benefits and thus, can be used more strategically.
Quote from: meow meow on August 06, 2018, 07:27:35 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 04, 2018, 01:12:06 PM
Quote from: meow meow on August 04, 2018, 01:09:35 PM
I think the cap needs a tweak. Should be based on the total value of players actually playing that year, not the year before. There's lots of cap cheats who are actually more than 5% over the max.
Also SUPER FLOOD! Using 2 of the 5 in one hit. Make it possible to play a D8 if people want to use 4 at once.
So how do you plan to value all the guys who will play next year who didnt play this year?
Rookies will be 100k, all the other players already have a cap value assigned to them so nothing will change there. It'll just eliminate the Sam Mitchell's and the like who were included in this years cap total/average.
The rookies counting as 100k compensates the retiring.
Tim Kelly is valued as nothing in the cap that balances out mitchell
Quote from: meow meow on August 06, 2018, 07:25:28 PM
We need to get rid of the rookie draft, and rookies altogether. If they don't need to be upgraded then there's absolutely no difference between them and a senior listed player. Keep the main draft as is, then lists completed with the PSD - which will still be first crack at AFL listed rookies.
Then we can make teams who do not have enough players on their lists and get free picks allocated done after PSD and rookies etc when it is actually the last of the last
That's an interesting thought actually. The 'top-up' picks to be allocated from players available after the natural order of the rookie draft.
Quote from: Torpedo10 on August 06, 2018, 07:55:27 PM
Quote from: Levi434 on August 06, 2018, 01:45:18 AM
Resting Bonus:
To get an adequate resting bonus currently a player would have to score 150 to yield a measly 15 points. Players capable of scoring 150 are few and far between and usually are some of your best players. Often the player you play the week you rest someone will lose you the same amount of points if not more than what you would gain next week. Resting needs to be more worth it I recon.
I propose that resting be changed from a 10% bonus to a 20% bonus.
Full support of this, really opens up the opportunity of resting a premium to get the full benefits and thus, can be used more strategically.
I like it at the moment its probably not worth it gaining 8-9 points
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 07, 2018, 08:48:09 AM
That's an interesting thought actually. The 'top-up' picks to be allocated from players available after the natural order of the rookie draft.
Reckon this should be implemented
Let's leave drafting as is. I love the current format.
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 04, 2018, 12:18:01 PM
And Rolling Lockout loopholing should be allowed. Maybe not partial lockout loopholing, but I think there is merit in Rolling Lockout loopholing, as because as we saw earlier in the year, you might innocently have to do it just to name your preferred team.
For reference:
I named the following team in WXV Rd 12 (AFL Rd 12 + AFL Round 13 scores from Carlton, Hawthorn, West Coast, Western Bulldogs, Port Adelaide + Gold Coast).
D: Thompson, Witherden, ________, ________ (Robertson E3)
M: Pendlebury, Kelly, Blakely, ________ (Hopper E1)
U: ________, ________
R: Bellchambers
F: Hogan, Boak, Mundy, Apeness (Melksham E2)
Quote from: Adamant on June 07, 2018, 10:33:40 PM
@Purple77, a question regarding non-loopholing. I intend to name Macrae at M4, Naitanui at U1 and Redden at U2 next week, however if E1 Hopper scores 120+ this weekend and any of those aforementioned players are unavailable for selection next week, would I be forced to name an inferior player to avoid getting his score as it would be seen as loopholing (when in reality he would have been the next player selected anyway)?
Conversely, if Hopper scores 37 this weekend and one of Macrae/Naitanui/Redden are unavailable for selection, but Dion Prestia becomes available for selection next week (a player that I would have selected ahead of Hopper if fit), would I be prevented from naming him as it would be seen as avoiding Hopper's score?
This is why I was absolutely baffled to see loopholing scrapped. Seems like far too much grey area to me!
I also believe partial lockout loopholing should be allowed as the situation above applies to it too. I really don't see any downside to it - people might argue it's an unfair advantage if you have three players playing on Thursday night and your opponent has none, but that would be forgetting that it can also work the opposite way. How many times in SC or DT have you taken a VC loophole score only for the player you were originally going to captain outscore them anyway (losing you points)? I'd argue that the overall difference is negligible. It adds an element of coaching skill which can make Thursday night games a bit more entertaining.
Quote from: Adamant on August 07, 2018, 04:08:24 PM
I also believe partial lockout loopholing should be allowed as the situation above applies to it too. I really don't see any downside to it - people might argue it's an unfair advantage if you have three players playing on Thursday night and your opponent has none, but that would be forgetting that it can also work the opposite way. How many times in SC or DT have you taken a VC loophole score only for the player you were originally going to captain outscore them anyway (losing you points)? I'd argue that the overall difference is negligible. It adds an element of coaching skill which can make Thursday night games a bit more entertaining.
to answer that question.
Id say it works out positive or neutral for me in about 8/10 times.
the reason for emergency and VC is to avoid an unlucky injury or late out, not to take a second bite of the cherry.
(https://reflectingenglish.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/cherry.jpg)
I've always liked the fact that we just don't have any form of loopholing allowed at all.
Personally, for a bunch of these ideas (probably the more controversial but also significant ones), I think that unless it's blatantly obvious that a strong majority wants them, or that it's unanimous, we shouldn't implement them.
If half or less really don't want something like a mid-season trade period or partial lockout loophling, then they'll do it, get their advantage and abuse it while the others who wanted no part of it suffer because they're on the receiving end, didn't ask for it and don't use it.
Basically i think we need to decide between two things to make it fair.
1. No Loopholes ever
2. Rolling Lockout every week, every game: While this would be fun I think its unfair to ask Purp to do it as it increases his workload.
Quote from: Adamant on August 07, 2018, 04:08:24 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 04, 2018, 12:18:01 PM
And Rolling Lockout loopholing should be allowed. Maybe not partial lockout loopholing, but I think there is merit in Rolling Lockout loopholing, as because as we saw earlier in the year, you might innocently have to do it just to name your preferred team.
For reference:
I named the following team in WXV Rd 12 (AFL Rd 12 + AFL Round 13 scores from Carlton, Hawthorn, West Coast, Western Bulldogs, Port Adelaide + Gold Coast).
D: Thompson, Witherden, ________, ________ (Robertson E3)
M: Pendlebury, Kelly, Blakely, ________ (Hopper E1)
U: ________, ________
R: Bellchambers
F: Hogan, Boak, Mundy, Apeness (Melksham E2)
Quote from: Adamant on June 07, 2018, 10:33:40 PM
@Purple77, a question regarding non-loopholing. I intend to name Macrae at M4, Naitanui at U1 and Redden at U2 next week, however if E1 Hopper scores 120+ this weekend and any of those aforementioned players are unavailable for selection next week, would I be forced to name an inferior player to avoid getting his score as it would be seen as loopholing (when in reality he would have been the next player selected anyway)?
Conversely, if Hopper scores 37 this weekend and one of Macrae/Naitanui/Redden are unavailable for selection, but Dion Prestia becomes available for selection next week (a player that I would have selected ahead of Hopper if fit), would I be prevented from naming him as it would be seen as avoiding Hopper's score?
This is why I was absolutely baffled to see loopholing scrapped. Seems like far too much grey area to me!
I also believe partial lockout loopholing should be allowed as the situation above applies to it too. I really don't see any downside to it - people might argue it's an unfair advantage if you have three players playing on Thursday night and your opponent has none, but that would be forgetting that it can also work the opposite way. How many times in SC or DT have you taken a VC loophole score only for the player you were originally going to captain outscore them anyway (losing you points)? I'd argue that the overall difference is negligible. It adds an element of coaching skill which can make Thursday night games a bit more entertaining.
People also argue that loopholing advantages those that can be online all weekend to make changes on the fly, whereas the inactive will be disadvantaged.
Now I am all for this as the more active 'better' coaches should have an advantage as they are willing to put in the extra work.
Also will allow for more activity in match threads.
Quote from: Nige on August 07, 2018, 04:33:37 PM
I've always liked the fact that we just don't have any form of loopholing allowed at all.
Personally, for a bunch of these ideas (probably the more controversial but also significant ones), I think that unless it's blatantly obvious that a strong majority wants them, or that it's unanimous, we shouldn't implement them.
If half or less really don't want something like a mid-season trade period or partial lockout loophling, then they'll do it, get their advantage and abuse it while the others who wanted no part of it suffer because they're on the receiving end, didn't ask for it and don't use it.
I don't think you can compare loopholing to something as radical as a mid-season trade period. We have had it for every single season of Worlds apart from this year have we not? Do we actually have any evidence where having the ability to loophole has proven to be a consistent advantage?
Tom Mitchell, Jack Macrae, Patrick Cripps, Josh Kelly, Nat Fyfe, Patrick Dangerfield, Steele Sidebottom, Nick Holman. Imagine they are the 8 midfielders on your list. Collingwood play on Thursday night and Sidebottom isn't in your top 6 midfielders so you name him at E1 as he is clearly the next best player from your remaining midfielders. He scores 138.
It's now Friday and the final Sunday teams have been released. Josh Kelly has been withdrawn from the Giants squad due to calf tightness. You now need to name a player for the final utility spot. Sidebottom is clearly the next best player on your list and would usually be named in this instance but you can't name a non-playing player to collect his score as that would be loopholing and loopholing is forbidden. You are forced to name the 69-averaging Nicholas Holman. He scores 33 and you lose your matchup by 11 points.
How is that fair?
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 07, 2018, 04:37:43 PM
People also argue that loopholing advantages those that can be online all weekend to make changes on the fly, whereas the inactive will be disadvantaged.
Now I am all for this as the more active 'better' coaches should have an advantage as they are willing to put in the extra work.
Also will allow for more activity in match threads.
Couldn't agree more.
Quote from: Adamant on August 07, 2018, 05:11:37 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 07, 2018, 04:33:37 PM
I've always liked the fact that we just don't have any form of loopholing allowed at all.
Personally, for a bunch of these ideas (probably the more controversial but also significant ones), I think that unless it's blatantly obvious that a strong majority wants them, or that it's unanimous, we shouldn't implement them.
If half or less really don't want something like a mid-season trade period or partial lockout loophling, then they'll do it, get their advantage and abuse it while the others who wanted no part of it suffer because they're on the receiving end, didn't ask for it and don't use it.
I don't think you can compare loopholing to something as radical as a mid-season trade period. We have had it for every single season of Worlds apart from this year have we not? Do we actually have any evidence where having the ability to loophole has proven to be a consistent advantage?
Tom Mitchell, Jack Macrae, Patrick Cripps, Josh Kelly, Nat Fyfe, Patrick Dangerfield, Steele Sidebottom, Nick Holman. Imagine they are the 8 midfielders on your list. Collingwood play on Thursday night and Sidebottom isn't in your top 6 midfielders so you name him at E1 as he is clearly the next best player from your remaining midfielders. He scores 138.
It's now Friday and the final Sunday teams have been released. Josh Kelly has been withdrawn from the Giants squad due to calf tightness. You now need to name a player for the final utility spot. Sidebottom is clearly the next best player on your list and would usually be named in this instance but you can't name a non-playing player to collect his score as that would be loopholing and loopholing is forbidden. You are forced to name the 69-averaging Nicholas Holman. He scores 33 and you lose your matchup by 11 points.
How is that fair?
on the flip side say you had Tom Mitchell, Jack Macrae, Patrick Cripps, Josh Kelly, Nat Fyfe, Connor Blakely, Nick Holman
Holman plays Thursday night and drop 122.
You see this and you name a non playing guy and pick up the 122 instead of the 80ish from Blakely.
or you put the VC on Kelly instead of just going for Titch and Kelly drop 200 so you lock him in.
How is that fair to the other team?
In my instance your hands are tied, you are forbidden from naming a certain player. In your instance you still have a choice.
That's exactly my point - it works both ways. So why not just remove the grey area altogether when you can't say for certain that it gives the team loopholing a deceitful advantage?
Also Holman would never score 122 in Australia so that's a moot point.
Quote from: Holz on August 07, 2018, 05:20:53 PM
Quote from: Adamant on August 07, 2018, 05:11:37 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 07, 2018, 04:33:37 PM
I've always liked the fact that we just don't have any form of loopholing allowed at all.
Personally, for a bunch of these ideas (probably the more controversial but also significant ones), I think that unless it's blatantly obvious that a strong majority wants them, or that it's unanimous, we shouldn't implement them.
If half or less really don't want something like a mid-season trade period or partial lockout loophling, then they'll do it, get their advantage and abuse it while the others who wanted no part of it suffer because they're on the receiving end, didn't ask for it and don't use it.
I don't think you can compare loopholing to something as radical as a mid-season trade period. We have had it for every single season of Worlds apart from this year have we not? Do we actually have any evidence where having the ability to loophole has proven to be a consistent advantage?
Tom Mitchell, Jack Macrae, Patrick Cripps, Josh Kelly, Nat Fyfe, Patrick Dangerfield, Steele Sidebottom, Nick Holman. Imagine they are the 8 midfielders on your list. Collingwood play on Thursday night and Sidebottom isn't in your top 6 midfielders so you name him at E1 as he is clearly the next best player from your remaining midfielders. He scores 138.
It's now Friday and the final Sunday teams have been released. Josh Kelly has been withdrawn from the Giants squad due to calf tightness. You now need to name a player for the final utility spot. Sidebottom is clearly the next best player on your list and would usually be named in this instance but you can't name a non-playing player to collect his score as that would be loopholing and loopholing is forbidden. You are forced to name the 69-averaging Nicholas Holman. He scores 33 and you lose your matchup by 11 points.
How is that fair?
on the flip side say you had Tom Mitchell, Jack Macrae, Patrick Cripps, Josh Kelly, Nat Fyfe, Connor Blakely, Nick Holman
Holman plays Thursday night and drop 122.
You see this and you name a non playing guy and pick up the 122 instead of the 80ish from Blakely.
or you put the VC on Kelly instead of just going for Titch and Kelly drop 200 so you lock him in.
How is that fair to the other team?
Team 1s captain scores 150
Teams 2s captains scores 60
How is that fair to the other team?
Won't somebody think of Purps workload!
If we're bringing back VC loop then it's any players any time, not that restricted to Thurs crap
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 07, 2018, 05:34:12 PM
Team 1s captain scores 150
Teams 2s captains scores 60
How is that fair to the other team?
its fair if both teams had 1 shot to pick both captains.
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 07, 2018, 05:35:15 PM
Won't somebody think of Purps workload!
Being considerate? Not even once.
Quote from: Holz on August 07, 2018, 05:37:30 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 07, 2018, 05:34:12 PM
Team 1s captain scores 150
Teams 2s captains scores 60
How is that fair to the other team?
its fair if both teams had 1 shot to pick both captains.
Both teams can loophole
How is it fair that one team has to upgrade a pick to trade a 80+ forward?
There is an easy way we can loophole and all of that but it would probably involve not using FF.
Not a fan of loopholing keep it as it is
How about full lockouts on normal rounds but rolling lock outs for games that Start Thursday and Anzac Day round. Would have meant 7 games full rolling lock outs this year.
Really do not like the split round with the byes so probably need to investigate if there is an easier way of doing the draw to miss the byes.
Quote from: Ringo on August 08, 2018, 09:10:22 AM
How about full lockouts on normal rounds but rolling lock outs for games that Start Thursday and Anzac Day round. Would have meant 7 games full rolling lock outs this year.
Really do not like the split round with the byes so probably need to investigate if there is an easier way of doing the draw to miss the byes.
I agree.
It's all well and good arguing that you can counter the effects of a completely rolling lockout by being more active on FF but as soon as anyone has work commitments or sporting commitments on a Saturday or Sunday you're at a massive disadvantage. Plus massive increase in workload for Purps which I don't think is fair.
The point is warranted, as it would bring more activity and banter on matchday threads but I'm not sure it would work practically.
Interesting thought Ringo!
And don't worry about my work load, though the concern is appreciated :) I'll sing out if I see something that has a material effect on me
I think we should up the workload TBH. Purps has been slacking off a bit lately with the match previews and such, really needs a kick up the butt.
How about being able to rest more than one player per week.
How about (like with flood/Attack) we are able to not name a Ruck a few times a year.
Or get a smaller penalty for an OOP Ruck, instead of half points maybe 10-20%. Which can be used X amount of times per season.
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 08, 2018, 07:49:17 PM
How about (like with flood/Attack) we are able to not name a Ruck a few times a year.
Or get a smaller penalty for an OOP Ruck, instead of half points maybe 10-20%. Which can be used X amount of times per season.
Don't really like it.
If any changes to the ruck rules I think it needs to be the previously suggested multiplier based on the player's height (e.g. 80% for 200cm+, 60% for 190cm+, 40% for <190cm) as this is more realistic.
How about we scrap the captains
Quote from: Toga on August 08, 2018, 07:51:24 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 08, 2018, 07:49:17 PM
How about (like with flood/Attack) we are able to not name a Ruck a few times a year.
Or get a smaller penalty for an OOP Ruck, instead of half points maybe 10-20%. Which can be used X amount of times per season.
Don't really like it.
If any changes to the ruck rules I think it needs to be the previously suggested multiplier based on the player's height (e.g. 80% for 200cm+, 60% for 190cm+, 40% for <190cm) as this is more realistic.
Yeah but we just didn't nominate a ruck :) seen that a number of times this season.
Quote from: Toga on August 08, 2018, 07:51:24 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 08, 2018, 07:49:17 PM
How about (like with flood/Attack) we are able to not name a Ruck a few times a year.
Or get a smaller penalty for an OOP Ruck, instead of half points maybe 10-20%. Which can be used X amount of times per season.
Don't really like it.
If any changes to the ruck rules I think it needs to be the previously suggested multiplier based on the player's height (e.g. 80% for 200cm+, 60% for 190cm+, 40% for <190cm) as this is more realistic.
I actually think instead of height, just go by what the player averages in hit outs. More than 3 or 4 a game and he gets a penalty reduction.
How about you just get a ruckman.
no ruck rules.
I almost had an OOP with daw and henry as actual defenders.
No special rules for rucks
Quote from: Holz on August 08, 2018, 08:57:23 PM
no ruck rules.
I almost had an OOP with daw and henry as actual defenders.
No special rules for rucks
LOL Holz, you can't compare two players playing a new position this year to not having a ruck
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 08, 2018, 09:05:50 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 08, 2018, 08:57:23 PM
no ruck rules.
I almost had an OOP with daw and henry as actual defenders.
No special rules for rucks
LOL Holz, you can't compare two players playing a new position this year to not having a ruck
Whats the difference in an OOP defender and an OOP ruck?
You almost had OOP because your depth was shower
You can't go claiming players that changed position during the year
And you can attack too. You're just flowered when your ruck goes down, which is the issue I've always had
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 08, 2018, 09:35:47 PM
You almost had OOP because your depth was shower
You can't go claiming players that changed position during the year
And you can attack too. You're just flowered when your ruck goes down, which is the issue I've always had
Then get all the ryder back ups then. Only issur when thr back ups arent rucks in CD
Just continuing on with what I mentioned
We've had this discussion in previous years, but I genuinely think this idea has merit
This year we've had 130 defenders play 10+ games and 154 forwards play 10+ games
Only 22 rucks have played 10+ games
The math says that works out to be 7.2 defenders per team, 8.5 forwards per team and only 1.2 rucks per team
We need to name 4 defenders and 4 forwards, when on average teams should have 7+ to choose from most weeks, but when they don't, we get a pass with the ability to flood or attack
On the other hand, with only 1 ruck per team on average, we get penalised to the extent of copping a 50% hit, which in most cases will result in a loss
There's two ways I would like to recommend
1. We scrap Flood/Attack
2. Instead of height/less% or any other suggestion we've previously had, we implement a third tactic to utilise alongside Flood and Attack. Perhaps we can call it "Pace" or "Speed" or anything else, but essentially we have the ability to name 5 mids and no ruck
Right now Flood/Attack can be used at any time - you don't need literally only have 3 players available, you can use freely. The same would also be available for this new option too
We currently have a cap of 5 times a year for Flood/Attack being used. We would need to keep a cap, but whether we stick at 5 or increase/reduce can be up for discussion
Once you've used up your 5 or however many for the year, then OOP at 50% applies as per normal
Just get a complete ruck set for a team.
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 08, 2018, 11:25:46 PM
Just get a complete ruck set for a team.
Yeah and how does that work out when CD doesn't give multiple rucks per team?
Dawson Simpson was the only GWS ruck this year, whilst Lobb was FWD only
We have Ryder - didn't see Frampton or Hayes get a game this year
The fact of the matter is that it's a situation that impacts more teams than others, and therefor is not even and fair
If you can't field 4 def/fwd when there are so many more available then why should you get a free pass by using flood/attack, but when you only have 1 ruck, and no back up - nor does the team even have a listed back up ruck who plays - you get penalised?
It's completely flawed and needs to be fixed once and for all
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 08, 2018, 11:34:04 PM
The fact of the matter is that it's a situation that impacts more teams than others, and therefor is not even and fair
If you can't field 4 def/fwd when there are so many more available then why should you get a free pass by using flood/attack, but when you only have 1 ruck, and no back up - nor does the team even have a listed back up ruck who plays - you get penalised?
It's completely flawed and needs to be fixed once and for all
How do I heart react on FF?
Tom Boyd on the table for a forward significantly better than my rock in the ruck.
Quote from: meow meow on August 08, 2018, 11:43:10 PM
Tom Boyd on the table for a forward significantly better than my rock in the ruck.
That's an odd rule suggestion
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 08, 2018, 11:27:16 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 08, 2018, 11:25:46 PM
Just get a complete ruck set for a team.
Yeah and how does that work out when CD doesn't give multiple rucks per team?
Dawson Simpson was the only GWS ruck this year, whilst Lobb was FWD only
We have Ryder - didn't see Frampton or Hayes get a game this year
Maybe you will have better luck if you write a letter to Hinkley asking him not to waste Big Charlie in the ruck.
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 09, 2018, 12:04:22 AM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 08, 2018, 11:27:16 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 08, 2018, 11:25:46 PM
Just get a complete ruck set for a team.
Yeah and how does that work out when CD doesn't give multiple rucks per team?
Dawson Simpson was the only GWS ruck this year, whilst Lobb was FWD only
We have Ryder - didn't see Frampton or Hayes get a game this year
Maybe you will have better luck if you write a letter to Hinkley asking him not to waste Big Charlie in the ruck.
Give me medium Charlie.
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 08, 2018, 11:25:46 PM
Just get a complete ruck set for a team.
Pretty good advice.
You might want to get Pittonent of whoever has him.
Quote from: Holz on August 09, 2018, 12:23:38 AM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 08, 2018, 11:25:46 PM
Just get a complete ruck set for a team.
Pretty good advice.
You might want to get Pittonent of whoever has him.
I don't need no pie!
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 09, 2018, 01:02:41 AM
Quote from: Holz on August 09, 2018, 12:23:38 AM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 08, 2018, 11:25:46 PM
Just get a complete ruck set for a team.
Pretty good advice.
You might want to get Pittonent of whoever has him.
I don't need no pie!
Good he isn't for sale for anything that would pass the trade panel.
Going alright in the VFL though
60 Hit outs, 14 disposals, 2 marks (1 contested) 4 tackles and a goal.
53 Hit outs, 19 disposals, 7 mars (4 contested) 7 tackles.
wouldn't it be grand to see his actually play this week, he is an outside chance.
Bright Future at Dublin in the Ruck Division
(http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Marc+Pittonet+North+Melbourne+v+Hawthorn+2017+nqE7egWZx7zl.jpg)
I like how you used that particular pic Holz. Pitto got spanked so bad that game it got posted on PH.
Quote from: GoLions on August 09, 2018, 10:45:30 AM
I like how you used that particular pic Holz. Pitto got spanked so bad that game it got posted on PH.
Over a year and a half ago, they played recently and Preuss got him again.
Preuss 48 Hit outs 17 touches 5 marks (2 contested) 2 tackles
Pitto 30 Hitouts 12 touches 2 marks
Preuss is a pretty tough match up though, the man is a beast. He also beat Mcevoy last year while he was sharing the ruck duty with Goldy while Mcevoy was largely rucking Solo.
Keep bragging about spuds who'll never play consistent AFL
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 09, 2018, 11:31:19 AM
Keep bragging about spuds who'll never play consistent AFL
name the rucks who will be the future #1s at their team.
Quote from: Holz on August 09, 2018, 11:59:03 AM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 09, 2018, 11:31:19 AM
Keep bragging about spuds who'll never play consistent AFL
name the rucks who will be the future #1s at their team.
Definitely not Pietonet, and Preuss won't get games while Goldy is around
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 09, 2018, 01:03:06 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 09, 2018, 11:59:03 AM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 09, 2018, 11:31:19 AM
Keep bragging about spuds who'll never play consistent AFL
name the rucks who will be the future #1s at their team.
Definitely not Pietonet, and Preuss won't get games while Goldy is around
Debatable
Quote from: GoLions on August 09, 2018, 01:05:55 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 09, 2018, 01:03:06 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 09, 2018, 11:59:03 AM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 09, 2018, 11:31:19 AM
Keep bragging about spuds who'll never play consistent AFL
name the rucks who will be the future #1s at their team.
Definitely not Pietonet, and Preuss won't get games while Goldy is around
Debatable
So yours saying the 22 year old , clear number 1 ruck of Box Hill is no chance of taking over the Hawks long term?
I wonder who will then.
Quote from: Holz on August 09, 2018, 01:41:33 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 09, 2018, 01:05:55 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 09, 2018, 01:03:06 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 09, 2018, 11:59:03 AM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 09, 2018, 11:31:19 AM
Keep bragging about spuds who'll never play consistent AFL
name the rucks who will be the future #1s at their team.
Definitely not Pietonet, and Preuss won't get games while Goldy is around
Debatable
So yours saying the 22 year old , clear number 1 ruck of Box Hill is no chance of taking over the Hawks long term?
I wonder who will then.
You responding to me or RD? :p
Quote from: GoLions on August 09, 2018, 01:45:57 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 09, 2018, 01:41:33 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 09, 2018, 01:05:55 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 09, 2018, 01:03:06 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 09, 2018, 11:59:03 AM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 09, 2018, 11:31:19 AM
Keep bragging about spuds who'll never play consistent AFL
name the rucks who will be the future #1s at their team.
Definitely not Pietonet, and Preuss won't get games while Goldy is around
Debatable
So yours saying the 22 year old , clear number 1 ruck of Box Hill is no chance of taking over the Hawks long term?
I wonder who will then.
You responding to me or RD? :p
RD i thought id keep the train going rather then break it. Have totally derailed the rules thread though so should probably stop.
Quote from: Holz on August 09, 2018, 01:41:33 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 09, 2018, 01:05:55 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 09, 2018, 01:03:06 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 09, 2018, 11:59:03 AM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 09, 2018, 11:31:19 AM
Keep bragging about spuds who'll never play consistent AFL
name the rucks who will be the future #1s at their team.
Definitely not Pietonet, and Preuss won't get games while Goldy is around
Debatable
So yours saying the 22 year old , clear number 1 ruck of Box Hill is no chance of taking over the Hawks long term?
I wonder who will then.
Clarko will let someone else develop, then snag.
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 08, 2018, 11:22:31 PM
Just continuing on with what I mentioned
We've had this discussion in previous years, but I genuinely think this idea has merit
This year we've had 130 defenders play 10+ games and 154 forwards play 10+ games
Only 22 rucks have played 10+ games
The math says that works out to be 7.2 defenders per team, 8.5 forwards per team and only 1.2 rucks per team
We need to name 4 defenders and 4 forwards, when on average teams should have 7+ to choose from most weeks, but when they don't, we get a pass with the ability to flood or attack
On the other hand, with only 1 ruck per team on average, we get penalised to the extent of copping a 50% hit, which in most cases will result in a loss
There's two ways I would like to recommend
1. We scrap Flood/Attack
2. Instead of height/less% or any other suggestion we've previously had, we implement a third tactic to utilise alongside Flood and Attack. Perhaps we can call it "Pace" or "Speed" or anything else, but essentially we have the ability to name 5 mids and no ruck
Right now Flood/Attack can be used at any time - you don't need literally only have 3 players available, you can use freely. The same would also be available for this new option too
We currently have a cap of 5 times a year for Flood/Attack being used. We would need to keep a cap, but whether we stick at 5 or increase/reduce can be up for discussion
Once you've used up your 5 or however many for the year, then OOP at 50% applies as per normal
In years prior I have voted against a height ruling even to our own detriment
Not saying I am. convinced yet
But
I do agree most on RD’s list of this post that
If no ruling done though I don’t think attack or flood is fair if no ruck rule
Quote from: DazBurg on August 09, 2018, 04:09:33 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 08, 2018, 11:22:31 PM
Just continuing on with what I mentioned
We've had this discussion in previous years, but I genuinely think this idea has merit
This year we've had 130 defenders play 10+ games and 154 forwards play 10+ games
Only 22 rucks have played 10+ games
The math says that works out to be 7.2 defenders per team, 8.5 forwards per team and only 1.2 rucks per team
We need to name 4 defenders and 4 forwards, when on average teams should have 7+ to choose from most weeks, but when they don't, we get a pass with the ability to flood or attack
On the other hand, with only 1 ruck per team on average, we get penalised to the extent of copping a 50% hit, which in most cases will result in a loss
There's two ways I would like to recommend
1. We scrap Flood/Attack
2. Instead of height/less% or any other suggestion we've previously had, we implement a third tactic to utilise alongside Flood and Attack. Perhaps we can call it "Pace" or "Speed" or anything else, but essentially we have the ability to name 5 mids and no ruck
Right now Flood/Attack can be used at any time - you don't need literally only have 3 players available, you can use freely. The same would also be available for this new option too
We currently have a cap of 5 times a year for Flood/Attack being used. We would need to keep a cap, but whether we stick at 5 or increase/reduce can be up for discussion
Once you've used up your 5 or however many for the year, then OOP at 50% applies as per normal
In years prior I have voted against a height ruling even to our own detriment
Not saying I am. convinced yet
But
I do agree most on RD’s list of this post that
If no ruling done though I don’t think attack or flood is fair if no ruck rule
Some really good points made but im still not a fan of "flood/attack" for rucks or the height rule
Simple solution if playing an oop ruck based on height then you can not use fllood or attack.
Quote from: Ringo on August 09, 2018, 04:35:11 PM
Simple solution if playing an oop ruck based on height then you can not use fllood or attack.
What is this a solution to?
Quote from: GoLions on August 09, 2018, 04:44:49 PM
Quote from: Ringo on August 09, 2018, 04:35:11 PM
Simple solution if playing an oop ruck based on height then you can not use fllood or attack.
What is this a solution to?
teams who dont want to pay for coverage so they can have a way to get around the rules that we have been working with since inception over 6 years ago.
Quote from: Holz on August 09, 2018, 04:54:37 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 09, 2018, 04:44:49 PM
Quote from: Ringo on August 09, 2018, 04:35:11 PM
Simple solution if playing an oop ruck based on height then you can not use fllood or attack.
What is this a solution to?
teams who dont want to pay for coverage so they can have a way to get around the rules that we have been working with since inception over 6 years ago.
i actually am thinking the opposite
leave OOP ruck
but if we do that like RD said easier to have def or fwds
so why can we flood or attack, reckon we have used it maybe 2 times the whole time we have ever been able too (not sure if purps has those stats for all seasons kept etc)
so my point is maybe leave Ruck rule but if so it is unfair to be able to attack or flood when there are clearly more fwds and defs then rucks
or leave attack & flood and make another one for helping with ruck rulings etc
Exactly what I've said Daz
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 08, 2018, 11:22:31 PM
There's two ways I would like to recommend
1. We scrap Flood/Attack
2. Instead of height/less% or any other suggestion we've previously had, we implement a third tactic to utilise alongside Flood and Attack. Perhaps we can call it "Pace" or "Speed" or anything else, but essentially we have the ability to name 5 mids and no ruck
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 09, 2018, 05:22:50 PM
Exactly what I've said Daz
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 08, 2018, 11:22:31 PM
There's two ways I would like to recommend
1. We scrap Flood/Attack
2. Instead of height/less% or any other suggestion we've previously had, we implement a third tactic to utilise alongside Flood and Attack. Perhaps we can call it "Pace" or "Speed" or anything else, but essentially we have the ability to name 5 mids and no ruck
yup never actually honestly thought of why we can attack or flood but no ruck till you brought it up
now after you pointed it out strongly agree is either all allowed or none
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 08, 2018, 07:49:17 PM
How about (like with flood/Attack) we are able to not name a Ruck a few times a year.
Or get a smaller penalty for an OOP Ruck, instead of half points maybe 10-20%. Which can be used X amount of times per season.
Cough Cough
I still reckon it'd be better that if you played an OOP ruck, he doesn't get penalised, but the oppositon ruck gets a 50% bonus
.... Now pretend I didn't say that as the owner of Gawn :-X
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 09, 2018, 05:36:22 PM
I still reckon it'd be better that if you played an OOP ruck, he doesn't get penalised, but the oppositon ruck gets a 50% bonus
.... Now pretend I didn't say that as the owner of Gawn :-X
What about both; 50% penalty for OOP and 50% bonus for oppo ruck. OOP ruck would get smashed against an actual ruck irl, hence the 50% penalty, and actual ruck would destroy, hence the 50% bonus.
Quote from: DazBurg on August 07, 2018, 02:41:05 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 07, 2018, 08:48:09 AM
That's an interesting thought actually. The 'top-up' picks to be allocated from players available after the natural order of the rookie draft.
Reckon this should be implemented
so to add further information on this
the loophole atm is you can trade all your picks as sweetners and half your team knowing you can get "free picks" at the end of the international draft to fill out your list
the list of these players are
2014
Tayte Pears
Daniel Nielson
Jacob Townsend
Ted Richards
James Podsiadly
Josh Cowan
Kyle Cheney
Dustin Fletcher
2015
Liam Hulett
Lincoln McCarthy
Tim O'Brien
Sam Skinner
Joel Patfull
Jordan Dawson
Daniel Butler
Matthew Allen
2016
Sam Rowe
Jake Long
Nathan Wright
Mitchell Lewis
2017
Cameron O'Shea (former player bidding) (still not a real pick)
Tyler Brown
Matt Guelfi
Jack Leslie
Matt Shaw
Paul Hunter
Nick Holman (former player bidding)(still not a real pick)
David Mackay
Tory Dickson
Sam Switkowski
Darren Minchington
Jeremy Finlayson
Jimmy Toumpas
Kane Farrell
Cory Gregson
Tristan Xerri
Dylan Buckley
Michael Apeness
Brandon Zerk-Thatcher
Rohan Bewick
so as you can see it is increasing
now most are what you'd class as spuds but using PNL as an example
if i could of drafted in the rookie draft a number of thee players we would of had more then 14 playing early in the season (hell 4 of them are what we were forced to delist)
also i believe it is unfair on those teams who legitimately trade in late picks to ensure they have enough to cover the spots they need (RD & AK both great at this and unfair to them for making the effort)
if you choose to trade all your picks and half your team without getting late picks in to ensure you can participate in the draft for all your spots,
you should instead get these free picks allocated at the end of the rookie draft
so you get what it really is meant to be free ones but the untaken ones
also not to mention when they are on traded afterwards to profit from when never having a legitimate pick fr them in the first place
Good stuff Daz
We certainly always ensure we have 44 players/picks by the end of the trade period
To be honest I just always thought it was mandatory
Remove Attack/Flood, test the Clubs depth and balance even more.
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 10, 2018, 09:53:57 AM
Remove Attack/Flood, test the Clubs depth and balance even more.
agree, just get cover
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 10, 2018, 09:53:57 AM
Remove Attack/Flood, test the Clubs depth and balance even more.
I'm fine with that. As I've suggested, we either remove it, or bring in something for rucks in the same vein
Can't continue on as is though because it's flawed - a change is required
Yeah, I’d be more than happy to see it removed.
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 10, 2018, 10:08:07 AM
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 10, 2018, 09:53:57 AM
Remove Attack/Flood, test the Clubs depth and balance even more.
I'm fine with that. As I've suggested, we either remove it, or bring in something for rucks in the same vein
Can't continue on as is though because it's flawed - a change is required
yep scrap it all.
thats the fair thing to do
Going back to the loophole discussion now, as much as emergency loophole is a tactic used by most SC coaches, I do think that it's probably a bit too messy for WXV
I do however like the simplicity of introducing VC loophole to World's
When we VC loop in SC we are required to use a non playing player to bank that score, and that results in a player on the benches score counting, but then that tips into the emergency loop side of things so to avoid that I would propose a simpler way
We scrap CC, and move to VC and C. Each week your VC is someone who plays before your C and if you want to bank the VC score you simply post in the thread advising Purps of so, however you must post advising so before your C plays otherwise you miss banking it and your C remains as captain
This means there is no need to field a non player, emergency loop etc so we avoid all of that and keep things nice and simple
Don't want to bank your VC? Great, nothing to do, just leave things as is and your C remains as chosen
Want to bank your VC? Simple, just make it known in the weeks match day thread prior to your C playing
Sounds like we can put the flood attack ruck talks to bed
When the votes go out, it will be
A) Keep Flood Attack as is
B) Keep Flood Attack but add ruck rule
C) Scrap it all
Hopefully we don't get any if many votes for A, but because it's the current process it needs to be an option I guess
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 10, 2018, 10:17:16 AM
Going back to the loophole discussion now, as much as emergency loophole is a tactic used by most SC coaches, I do think that it's probably a bit too messy for WXV
I do however like the simplicity of introducing VC loophole to World's
When we VC loop in SC we are required to use a non playing player to bank that score, and that results in a player on the benches score counting, but then that tips into the emergency loop side of things so to avoid that I would propose a simpler way
We scrap CC, and move to VC and C. Each week your VC is someone who plays before your C and if you want to bank the VC score you simply post in the thread advising Purps of so, however you must post advising so before your C plays otherwise you miss banking it and your C remains as captain
This means there is no need to field a non player, emergency loop etc so we avoid all of that and keep things nice and simple
Don't want to bank your VC? Great, nothing to do, just leave things as is and your C remains as chosen
Want to bank your VC? Simple, just make it known in the weeks match day thread prior to your C playing
As someone who just doesn’t care for loopholing all that much, I don’t really mind this. It at least could make things a little interesting rather than people maybe banking on a “perma-captain†and adds a little bit of a risk vs reward strategy as it could maybe backfire. It also promotes a bit more activity which is always nice considering sometimes coaches aren’t seen until they’re due to post their team the following week.
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 10, 2018, 10:30:55 AM
Sounds like we can put the flood attack ruck talks to bed
When the votes go out, it will be
A) Keep Flood Attack as is
B) Keep Flood Attack but add ruck rule
C) Scrap it all
Hopefully we don't get any if many votes for A, but because it's the current process it needs to be an option I guess
Keep as is
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 10, 2018, 10:17:16 AM
Going back to the loophole discussion now, as much as emergency loophole is a tactic used by most SC coaches, I do think that it's probably a bit too messy for WXV
I do however like the simplicity of introducing VC loophole to World's
When we VC loop in SC we are required to use a non playing player to bank that score, and that results in a player on the benches score counting, but then that tips into the emergency loop side of things so to avoid that I would propose a simpler way
We scrap CC, and move to VC and C. Each week your VC is someone who plays before your C and if you want to bank the VC score you simply post in the thread advising Purps of so, however you must post advising so before your C plays otherwise you miss banking it and your C remains as captain
This means there is no need to field a non player, emergency loop etc so we avoid all of that and keep things nice and simple
Don't want to bank your VC? Great, nothing to do, just leave things as is and your C remains as chosen
Want to bank your VC? Simple, just make it known in the weeks match day thread prior to your C playing
Isn't part of loopholing that you risk being one emg down? Not a fan of this at all.
Quote from: GoLions on August 10, 2018, 11:15:39 AM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 10, 2018, 10:30:55 AM
Sounds like we can put the flood attack ruck talks to bed
When the votes go out, it will be
A) Keep Flood Attack as is
B) Keep Flood Attack but add ruck rule
C) Scrap it all
Hopefully we don't get any if many votes for A, but because it's the current process it needs to be an option I guess
Keep as is
on this perhaps for voting an ordering.
As basically if the vote is that then ill be wanting to see anything but B
C is ideal, A is fine, B i hate
D i dont care should be an option, as if you really dont care about a rule, that should b taken into account and not be as influential as someone who really does care about a rule.
On that I think there should be a change to trade voting, this one is certainly needed either the vote changes to.
1. Team A wins, Trade is Neutral, Team B wins
2 Team A wins alot, Team A wins slightly, Trade is Neutral, Team B wins slightly, Team B wins alot.
option 1 is probably easier.
essentially if 9 coaches say team A wins, and 7 coaches say team B wins then the result under the current system is 16 votes to neg and is fails.
but in reality the fact the coaches are split shows this trade is actually very even and should be instead looked at as 2 teams net think A wins.
That way if i trade fails it can be negotiated properly with 1 team winning and one team losing. We have had a few deals blocked as some coaches like a player on Team A and some dont.
Quote from: Holz on August 10, 2018, 11:18:40 AM
Quote from: GoLions on August 10, 2018, 11:15:39 AM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 10, 2018, 10:30:55 AM
Sounds like we can put the flood attack ruck talks to bed
When the votes go out, it will be
A) Keep Flood Attack as is
B) Keep Flood Attack but add ruck rule
C) Scrap it all
Hopefully we don't get any if many votes for A, but because it's the current process it needs to be an option I guess
Keep as is
on this perhaps for voting an ordering.
As basically if the vote is that then ill be wanting to see anything but B
C is ideal, A is fine, B i hate
D i dont care should be an option, as if you really dont care about a rule, that should b taken into account and not be as influential as someone who really does care about a rule.
Big fan of the i don't care option actually
Quote from: Holz on August 10, 2018, 11:24:17 AM
On that I think there should be a change to trade voting, this one is certainly needed either the vote changes to.
1. Team A wins, Trade is Neutral, Team B wins
2 Team A wins alot, Team A wins slightly, Trade is Neutral, Team B wins slightly, Team B wins alot.
option 1 is probably easier.
essentially if 9 coaches say team A wins, and 7 coaches say team B wins then the result under the current system is 16 votes to neg and is fails.
but in reality the fact the coaches are split shows this trade is actually very even and should be instead looked at as 2 teams net think A wins.
That way if i trade fails it can be negotiated properly with 1 team winning and one team losing. We have had a few deals blocked as some coaches like a player on Team A and some dont.
Also a fan of this.
Quote from: GoLions on August 10, 2018, 11:17:03 AM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 10, 2018, 10:17:16 AM
Going back to the loophole discussion now, as much as emergency loophole is a tactic used by most SC coaches, I do think that it's probably a bit too messy for WXV
I do however like the simplicity of introducing VC loophole to World's
When we VC loop in SC we are required to use a non playing player to bank that score, and that results in a player on the benches score counting, but then that tips into the emergency loop side of things so to avoid that I would propose a simpler way
We scrap CC, and move to VC and C. Each week your VC is someone who plays before your C and if you want to bank the VC score you simply post in the thread advising Purps of so, however you must post advising so before your C plays otherwise you miss banking it and your C remains as captain
This means there is no need to field a non player, emergency loop etc so we avoid all of that and keep things nice and simple
Don't want to bank your VC? Great, nothing to do, just leave things as is and your C remains as chosen
Want to bank your VC? Simple, just make it known in the weeks match day thread prior to your C playing
Isn't part of loopholing that you risk being one emg down? Not a fan of this at all.
Rarely ever happens tho - being impacted. In SC most people use a dud R3 etc to bank their VC
One EMG down can happen easier when you're actually looping players but we're not, this is just VC
This way just keeps it simpler
What about super attacks, mega floods and stretching?
Quote from: GoLions on August 10, 2018, 11:47:04 AM
Quote from: Holz on August 10, 2018, 11:24:17 AM
On that I think there should be a change to trade voting, this one is certainly needed either the vote changes to.
1. Team A wins, Trade is Neutral, Team B wins
2 Team A wins alot, Team A wins slightly, Trade is Neutral, Team B wins slightly, Team B wins alot.
option 1 is probably easier.
essentially if 9 coaches say team A wins, and 7 coaches say team B wins then the result under the current system is 16 votes to neg and is fails.
but in reality the fact the coaches are split shows this trade is actually very even and should be instead looked at as 2 teams net think A wins.
That way if i trade fails it can be negotiated properly with 1 team winning and one team losing. We have had a few deals blocked as some coaches like a player on Team A and some dont.
Also a fan of this.
This makes sense.
Quote from: Holz on August 10, 2018, 11:18:40 AM
Quote from: GoLions on August 10, 2018, 11:15:39 AM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 10, 2018, 10:30:55 AM
Sounds like we can put the flood attack ruck talks to bed
When the votes go out, it will be
A) Keep Flood Attack as is
B) Keep Flood Attack but add ruck rule
C) Scrap it all
Hopefully we don't get any if many votes for A, but because it's the current process it needs to be an option I guess
Keep as is
on this perhaps for voting an ordering.
As basically if the vote is that then ill be wanting to see anything but B
C is ideal, A is fine, B i hate
D i dont care should be an option, as if you really dont care about a rule, that should b taken into account and not be as influential as someone who really does care about a rule.
Or, we could just not make voting mandatory for everyone, instead of putting D on every one
I too like your voting proposal
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 10, 2018, 12:29:28 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 10, 2018, 11:18:40 AM
Quote from: GoLions on August 10, 2018, 11:15:39 AM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 10, 2018, 10:30:55 AM
Sounds like we can put the flood attack ruck talks to bed
When the votes go out, it will be
A) Keep Flood Attack as is
B) Keep Flood Attack but add ruck rule
C) Scrap it all
Hopefully we don't get any if many votes for A, but because it's the current process it needs to be an option I guess
Keep as is
on this perhaps for voting an ordering.
As basically if the vote is that then ill be wanting to see anything but B
C is ideal, A is fine, B i hate
D i dont care should be an option, as if you really dont care about a rule, that should b taken into account and not be as influential as someone who really does care about a rule.
Or, we could just not make voting mandatory for everyone, instead of putting D on every one
I too like your voting proposal
I can only speak for myself but some rules i care about and some i really dont mind. So id be putting A B or C for most but 1-2 id be putting D down.
Quote from: Nige on August 10, 2018, 10:54:28 AM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 10, 2018, 10:17:16 AM
Going back to the loophole discussion now, as much as emergency loophole is a tactic used by most SC coaches, I do think that it's probably a bit too messy for WXV
I do however like the simplicity of introducing VC loophole to World's
When we VC loop in SC we are required to use a non playing player to bank that score, and that results in a player on the benches score counting, but then that tips into the emergency loop side of things so to avoid that I would propose a simpler way
We scrap CC, and move to VC and C. Each week your VC is someone who plays before your C and if you want to bank the VC score you simply post in the thread advising Purps of so, however you must post advising so before your C plays otherwise you miss banking it and your C remains as captain
This means there is no need to field a non player, emergency loop etc so we avoid all of that and keep things nice and simple
Don't want to bank your VC? Great, nothing to do, just leave things as is and your C remains as chosen
Want to bank your VC? Simple, just make it known in the weeks match day thread prior to your C playing
As someone who just doesn’t care for loopholing all that much, I don’t really mind this. It at least could make things a little interesting rather than people maybe banking on a “perma-captain†and adds a little bit of a risk vs reward strategy as it could maybe backfire. It also promotes a bit more activity which is always nice considering sometimes coaches aren’t seen until they’re due to post their team the following week.
VC Fyfe scores 140
Purps banks it
Gawn scores 200
VC Gawn scores 68
Purps keeps the C onFyfe
Fyfe scores 50
Haha no doubt Purps would still struggle even with this VC implemented haha
Quote from: meow meow on August 10, 2018, 02:50:59 PM
VC Fyfe scores 140
Purps banks it
Gawn scores 200
VC Gawn scores 68
Purps keeps the C onFyfe
Fyfe scores 50
Fyfe out injured
VC Gawn for 112
keeps it
Buddy drops 178
How about we just get our highest scorer as captain?
Quote from: GoLions on August 10, 2018, 03:41:34 PM
How about we just get our highest scorer as captain?
How about we don't name our sides anymore and the Top 15 scores from our entire list are our score?
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 10, 2018, 03:51:03 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 10, 2018, 03:41:34 PM
How about we just get our highest scorer as captain?
How about we don't name our sides anymore and the Top 15 scores from our entire list are our score?
Or just use our entire list instead of top 15? Although then may as well hand the premiership to Dublin with their superior depth.
Quote from: GoLions on August 10, 2018, 04:17:26 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 10, 2018, 03:51:03 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 10, 2018, 03:41:34 PM
How about we just get our highest scorer as captain?
How about we don't name our sides anymore and the Top 15 scores from our entire list are our score?
Or just use our entire list instead of top 15? Although then may as well hand the premiership to Dublin with their superior depth.
Lol
WXLIV
Quote from: GoLions on August 10, 2018, 04:17:26 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 10, 2018, 03:51:03 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 10, 2018, 03:41:34 PM
How about we just get our highest scorer as captain?
How about we don't name our sides anymore and the Top 15 scores from our entire list are our score?
Or just use our entire list instead of top 15? Although then may as well hand the premiership to Dublin with their superior depth.
Not sure about the entire list.
But handing the premiership to dublin. We should explore that as an option. I like your thinking
Rule Proposal:
Based off many recent discussions; I say we do away with the SC positions as ours. Clearly the WXV Coaches are the smartest and most clued in set of individuals I've ever come across and therefore I think we are more than capable of listing and aligning our own positions.
Pretty clearly Champion Data/Supercoach are a bunch of flogs who have no idea how to allocate positions. E.g. Lobb, Gunston, Goddard. Therefore WXV coaches should be able to propose their player change position and a vote is held on it.
I do like the idea that top up players come at the end of all drafts, that's the penalty for poor list Management.
Also get rid of the Rookie list, doesn't really serve any purpose.
Can we also get suggestions added to the Opening Post?
Thread gets derailed with pages of waffle, that's it's hard to find what sensible suggestions have been put up.
Quote from: Levi434 on August 11, 2018, 12:14:16 PM
Rule Proposal:
Based off many recent discussions; I say we do away with the SC positions as ours. Clearly the WXV Coaches are the smartest and most clued in set of individuals I've ever come across and therefore I think we are more than capable of listing and aligning our own positions.
Pretty clearly Champion Data/Supercoach are a bunch of flogs who have no idea how to allocate positions. E.g. Lobb, Gunston, Goddard. Therefore WXV coaches should be able to propose their player change position and a vote is held on it.
This should apply to ruckmen only.
Quote from: meow meow on August 11, 2018, 01:21:01 PM
Quote from: Levi434 on August 11, 2018, 12:14:16 PM
Rule Proposal:
Based off many recent discussions; I say we do away with the SC positions as ours. Clearly the WXV Coaches are the smartest and most clued in set of individuals I've ever come across and therefore I think we are more than capable of listing and aligning our own positions.
Pretty clearly Champion Data/Supercoach are a bunch of flogs who have no idea how to allocate positions. E.g. Lobb, Gunston, Goddard. Therefore WXV coaches should be able to propose their player change position and a vote is held on it.
This should apply to ruckmen only.
Blicavs in defence would have been nice haha
Quote from: Levi434 on August 11, 2018, 12:14:16 PM
Rule Proposal:
Based off many recent discussions; I say we do away with the SC positions as ours. Clearly the WXV Coaches are the smartest and most clued in set of individuals I've ever come across and therefore I think we are more than capable of listing and aligning our own positions.
Pretty clearly Champion Data/Supercoach are a bunch of flogs who have no idea how to allocate positions. E.g. Lobb, Gunston, Goddard. Therefore WXV coaches should be able to propose their player change position and a vote is held on it.
I dont mind this for rucks only tbh
For guys like Lobb who was clearly going to be number 1 ruck to start the year but just didnt play it this year. Or an exampe for next year is Mason Cox who will be fwd only but is clearly Grundys back up if he were to go down leaving Toga with no ruck cover despite having the full set
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 11, 2018, 12:53:58 PM
Can we also get suggestions added to the Opening Post?
Thread gets derailed with pages of waffle, that's it's hard to find what sensible suggestions have been put up.
Why don't you collaborate the list yourself instead of relying on like 4 people who do all the work here in WXV?
Quote from: Levi434 on August 11, 2018, 02:57:30 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 11, 2018, 12:53:58 PM
Can we also get suggestions added to the Opening Post?
Thread gets derailed with pages of waffle, that's it's hard to find what sensible suggestions have been put up.
Why don't you collaborate the list yourself instead of relying on like 4 people who do all the work here in WXV?
Or even easier, stop reading this thread and wait until the voting process occurs.
Idk if this is a rule or not, but top draft picks should be worth more in the cap, similar to SC. E.g pick 1 worth 200k, then drop it by 5k per pick until you hit 100k.
Quote from: GoLions on August 14, 2018, 12:45:45 AM
Idk if this is a rule or not, but top draft picks should be worth more in the cap, similar to SC. E.g pick 1 worth 200k, then drop it by 5k per pick until you hit 100k.
Also, this would remain as their 'base cap' for their first 3 years.
i e. Pick 7 would be worth 170k, if they don't play at all for 3 years, they hold that 170k value. But if they play and score alright then obviously they rise like they normally would have.
Do not mind this rule with a slight amendment - That the calculation on a reducing basis be applied to first round picks only.
Second slight adjustment is if they do not play each year they drop 10k a year till their value reaches $100k,
If they do play then their value increases,
Quote from: Ringo on August 14, 2018, 11:11:27 AM
Do not mind this rule with a slight amendment - That the calculation on a reducing basis be applied to first round picks only.
Second slight adjustment is if they do not play each year they drop 10k a year till their value reaches $100k,
If they do play then their value increases,
Well it would be applied to the top 20 picks which is effectively the first round, so much of a muchness there.
Not a major fan of the rule but if it is put on the max cap must also rise by the value of the extra salaries.
Quote from: GoLions on August 14, 2018, 12:48:27 AM
Quote from: GoLions on August 14, 2018, 12:45:45 AM
Idk if this is a rule or not, but top draft picks should be worth more in the cap, similar to SC. E.g pick 1 worth 200k, then drop it by 5k per pick until you hit 100k.
Also, this would remain as their 'base cap' for their first 3 years.
i e. Pick 7 would be worth 170k, if they don't play at all for 3 years, they hold that 170k value. But if they play and score alright then obviously they rise like they normally would have.
I dont mind this but i think there is a bit of a flaw in it if it were to come in with no other changes to cap
Andy Mcgrath went on to average 70 in his first season which is almost as good as you can hope for a first year player, his cap this year was 193.
Any Mcgrath should have a starting cap of 195 in the above scenario after being picked at N2.
Are we saying despite a great first year that Mcgrath should go down? or even if you say that first round picks shouldnt be able to go down. Are we saying someone picked at >20 that averages 70 in his first season should be worth less in the cap?? Because i dont like that.
Quote from: iZander on August 14, 2018, 12:01:04 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 14, 2018, 12:48:27 AM
Quote from: GoLions on August 14, 2018, 12:45:45 AM
Idk if this is a rule or not, but top draft picks should be worth more in the cap, similar to SC. E.g pick 1 worth 200k, then drop it by 5k per pick until you hit 100k.
Also, this would remain as their 'base cap' for their first 3 years.
i e. Pick 7 would be worth 170k, if they don't play at all for 3 years, they hold that 170k value. But if they play and score alright then obviously they rise like they normally would have.
I dont mind this but i think there is a bit of a flaw in it if it were to come in with no other changes to cap
Andy Mcgrath went on to average 70 in his first season which is almost as good as you can hope for a first year player, his cap this year was 193.
Any Mcgrath should have a starting cap of 195 in the above scenario after being picked at N2.
Are we saying despite a great first year that Mcgrath should go down? or even if you say that first round picks shouldnt be able to go down. Are we saying someone picked at >20 that averages 70 in his first season should be worth less in the cap?? Because i dont like that.
Agree with all the points.
It will fix itself out in a years time.plus if you pick a kpp who will take time a higher cap then a mid.
Its only needed in fantasy as rookies go up in value and you can sell for the cap.
You cant pick 2 rookies wait a few weeks then sell them and pick up danger in this comp
Quote from: iZander on August 14, 2018, 12:01:04 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 14, 2018, 12:48:27 AM
Quote from: GoLions on August 14, 2018, 12:45:45 AM
Idk if this is a rule or not, but top draft picks should be worth more in the cap, similar to SC. E.g pick 1 worth 200k, then drop it by 5k per pick until you hit 100k.
Also, this would remain as their 'base cap' for their first 3 years.
i e. Pick 7 would be worth 170k, if they don't play at all for 3 years, they hold that 170k value. But if they play and score alright then obviously they rise like they normally would have.
I dont mind this but i think there is a bit of a flaw in it if it were to come in with no other changes to cap
Andy Mcgrath went on to average 70 in his first season which is almost as good as you can hope for a first year player, his cap this year was 193.
Any Mcgrath should have a starting cap of 195 in the above scenario after being picked at N2.
Are we saying despite a great first year that Mcgrath should go down? or even if you say that first round picks shouldnt be able to go down. Are we saying someone picked at >20 that averages 70 in his first season should be worth less in the cap?? Because i dont like that.
Min and max cap would rise proportionately. Base cap of say 195k for McGrath would mean in first 3 years (or whatever number is used), he can't drop below that regardless of what happens.
The idea is a pick in the top 20 or so obviously holds a lot more value, and the players selected there are expected to perform substantially better, and imo this should be reflected in the cap.
Aw, I'm not too sure on that one, but I appreciate and respect where it's coming from.
Puts an extra mill or so in the total cap, thus would increase the min cap by 1 mill / 18, so about 50k, and although it's minimal, it effectively means the lower teams get a cop out in trying to get over the min cap, which are the teams I most want to be over it.
If anything I think -15% of the average cap is generous for a min cap.
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 14, 2018, 01:33:52 PM
Aw, I'm not too sure on that one, but I appreciate and respect where it's coming from.
Puts an extra mill or so in the total cap, thus would increase the min cap by 1 mill / 18, so about 50k, and although it's minimal, it effectively means the lower teams get a cop out in trying to get over the min cap, which are the teams I most want to be over it.
If anything I think -15% of the average cap is generous for a min cap.
So would you rather they trade one of their picks for nathan brown to get over instead? Which is what has happened in the past. And personally I'm planning on trading pick 1 anyway (hmu fellas), but regardless of whether i have pick 1 or if ada does, i just think they should be worth a bit more than your later picks.
Quote from: GoLions on August 14, 2018, 02:05:54 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 14, 2018, 01:33:52 PM
Aw, I'm not too sure on that one, but I appreciate and respect where it's coming from.
Puts an extra mill or so in the total cap, thus would increase the min cap by 1 mill / 18, so about 50k, and although it's minimal, it effectively means the lower teams get a cop out in trying to get over the min cap, which are the teams I most want to be over it.
If anything I think -15% of the average cap is generous for a min cap.
So would you rather they trade one of their picks for nathan brown to get over instead? Which is what has happened in the past. And personally I'm planning on trading pick 1 anyway (hmu fellas), but regardless of whether i have pick 1 or if ada does, i just think they should be worth a bit more than your later picks.
I tend to agree with GL here - Some of Londons trades in recent years were to keep above cap but say we had Pick 4 which was worth 160 points instead of 100 could stay above the cap and not have to trade in a spud to stay above.
-15% is very lenient, plus you dont need to trade in spuds to pick up cap guys.
We all basically acknowledge that the rookie draft is pretty useless. The following guys where available for pretty much nothing. Josh green as an example was taken at pick 44 in the rookie.
If anything what this would do is stop contending teams from trading in early picks as they are the ones who need to worry about the cap.
Lindsay Thomas $227,000 Buenos Aires Armadillos
Ty Vickery $217,000 Mexico City Suns
Josh Green $212,000 Buenos Aires Armadillos
Mitch W Brown $198,000 Buenos Aires Armadillos
Sam Rowe $195,000 Rio de Janeiro Jaguars
Patrick Ambrose $195,000 Tokyo Samurai
Nathan Brown $185,000 Rio de Janeiro Jaguars
Josh Wagner $181,000 Buenos Aires Armadillos
Kaiden Brand $179,000 Seoul Magpies
Jake Neade $173,000 Buenos Aires Armadillos
Jackson Merrett $169,000 Tokyo Samurai
Fletcher Roberts $156,000 Cairo Sands
Claye Beams $154,000 London Royals
Adam Kennedy $152,000 Tokyo Samurai
Quote from: Holz on August 14, 2018, 02:22:35 PM
-15% is very lenient, plus you dont need to trade in spuds to pick up cap guys.
We all basically acknowledge that the rookie draft is pretty useless. The following guys where available for pretty much nothing. Josh green as an example was taken at pick 44 in the rookie.
If anything what this would do is stop contending teams from trading in early picks as they are the ones who need to worry about the cap.
Lindsay Thomas $227,000 Buenos Aires Armadillos
Ty Vickery $217,000 Mexico City Suns
Josh Green $212,000 Buenos Aires Armadillos
Mitch W Brown $198,000 Buenos Aires Armadillos
Sam Rowe $195,000 Rio de Janeiro Jaguars
Patrick Ambrose $195,000 Tokyo Samurai
Nathan Brown $185,000 Rio de Janeiro Jaguars
Josh Wagner $181,000 Buenos Aires Armadillos
Kaiden Brand $179,000 Seoul Magpies
Jake Neade $173,000 Buenos Aires Armadillos
Jackson Merrett $169,000 Tokyo Samurai
Fletcher Roberts $156,000 Cairo Sands
Claye Beams $154,000 London Royals
Adam Kennedy $152,000 Tokyo Samurai
Can you explain the point of this post because i dunno what you're saying here haha
Quote from: GoLions on August 14, 2018, 02:29:03 PM
Can you explain the point of this post because i dunno what you're saying here haha
what is the purpose of making the high end rookies more expensive?
1. effect as Purp outlined is that the weaker teams who have the higher picks can help with going over the cap. I addressed as did purp that the -15% was pretty lenient. I then added that its very very easy to add cap, you dont need to trade good picks for spuds. You can just pick them up in the rookie.
2. Secondly raising the cap on high priced rookies could do the reberse thing the cap is trying to do which is make the weaker teams more competitive and strong teams less dominant. Say im Dublin and i want to go to the draft early then if the cap on these guys raises then that would make me less likely to go after early picks. Which is a bad thing for equality.
Quote from: Holz on August 14, 2018, 02:33:14 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 14, 2018, 02:29:03 PM
Can you explain the point of this post because i dunno what you're saying here haha
what is the purpose of making the high end rookies more expensive?
1. effect as Purp outlined is that the weaker teams who have the higher picks can help with going over the cap. I addressed as did purp that the -15% was pretty lenient. I then added that its very very easy to add cap, you dont need to trade good picks for spuds. You can just pick them up in the rookie.
2. Secondly raising the cap on high priced rookies could do the reberse thing the cap is trying to do which is make the weaker teams more competitive and strong teams less dominant. Say im Dublin and i want to go to the draft early then if the cap on these guys raises then that would make me less likely to go after early picks. Which is a bad thing for equality.
The point of my suggestion had nothing to do with helping teams get above cap. Purps brought that up and i mentioned lower teams can trade in (or draft as you suggested) spuds anyway.
If you wanted to go early in the draft then you wouldn't care if the pick you get is worth an extra 5-100k when you'd be trading someone worth like 500k anyway. And your comment also works the other way where a lower team might not be able to trade for high picks because they would be below cap. But again, i don't care for the rule being introduced for this reason. I just think higher picks should be worth more.
Quote from: GoLions on August 14, 2018, 02:42:26 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 14, 2018, 02:33:14 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 14, 2018, 02:29:03 PM
Can you explain the point of this post because i dunno what you're saying here haha
what is the purpose of making the high end rookies more expensive?
1. effect as Purp outlined is that the weaker teams who have the higher picks can help with going over the cap. I addressed as did purp that the -15% was pretty lenient. I then added that its very very easy to add cap, you dont need to trade good picks for spuds. You can just pick them up in the rookie.
2. Secondly raising the cap on high priced rookies could do the reberse thing the cap is trying to do which is make the weaker teams more competitive and strong teams less dominant. Say im Dublin and i want to go to the draft early then if the cap on these guys raises then that would make me less likely to go after early picks. Which is a bad thing for equality.
The point of my suggestion had nothing to do with helping teams get above cap. Purps brought that up and i mentioned lower teams can trade in (or draft as you suggested) spuds anyway.
If you wanted to go early in the draft then you wouldn't care if the pick you get is worth an extra 5-100k when you'd be trading someone worth like 500k anyway. And your comment also works the other way where a lower team might not be able to trade for high picks because they would be below cap. But again, i don't care for the rule being introduced for this reason. I just think higher picks should be worth more.
Your not wrong that higher picks probably should be worth more.
I still after 2-3 years dont have a clear understanding of why we have a cap. So that makes it difficult to work out any rules relating to the cap.
Jaeger O'Meara was 100k cap last year.
HOLZ
(https://proxy.bigfooty.com/forum/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sbs.com.au%2Fguide%2Fsites%2Fsbs.com.au.guide%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2Fbody_image%2Fpublic%2Fplease_explain_quote_amended.jpg%3Fitok%3DTPBRn5uv%26mtime%3D1470033449&hash=68996efd952fe309ced2e42a4599533a)
Quote from: Levi434 on August 14, 2018, 05:12:03 PM
Jaeger O'Meara was 100k cap last year.
HOLZ
(https://proxy.bigfooty.com/forum/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sbs.com.au%2Fguide%2Fsites%2Fsbs.com.au.guide%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2Fbody_image%2Fpublic%2Fplease_explain_quote_amended.jpg%3Fitok%3DTPBRn5uv%26mtime%3D1470033449&hash=68996efd952fe309ced2e42a4599533a)
Im against the cap and didn't agree or totally understand how it was newly calculated.
I still dont have a clear understanding why we even have a cap.
So i cant explain at all.
We seem to have similar teams up the top and down the bottom most years, the same if not more then other comps.
We need to decide why we have a cap before we talk about how it actually should be calculated.
Is it to equalize teams in scoring
is it to balance list quality
Is it to stop teams going hard for premierships
is it to stop tanking
All of the above.
Quote from: Holz on August 14, 2018, 05:21:36 PM
Quote from: Levi434 on August 14, 2018, 05:12:03 PM
Jaeger O'Meara was 100k cap last year.
HOLZ
(https://proxy.bigfooty.com/forum/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sbs.com.au%2Fguide%2Fsites%2Fsbs.com.au.guide%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2Fbody_image%2Fpublic%2Fplease_explain_quote_amended.jpg%3Fitok%3DTPBRn5uv%26mtime%3D1470033449&hash=68996efd952fe309ced2e42a4599533a)
Im against the cap and didn't agree or totally understand how it was newly calculated.
I still dont have a clear understanding why we even have a cap.
So i cant explain at all.
We seem to have similar teams up the top and down the bottom most years, the same if not more then other comps.
We need to decide why we have a cap before we talk about how it actually should be calculated.
Is it to equalize teams in scoring
is it to balance list quality
Is it to stop teams going hard for premierships
is it to stop tanking
None of the above.
We just have it so there is something for you to complain about between August and the International draft.
That or it's a great little unique element that ossie thought would add a little extra strategy to the worlds experience which we all love and cherish!
Quote from: GoLions on August 14, 2018, 02:05:54 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 14, 2018, 01:33:52 PM
Aw, I'm not too sure on that one, but I appreciate and respect where it's coming from.
Puts an extra mill or so in the total cap, thus would increase the min cap by 1 mill / 18, so about 50k, and although it's minimal, it effectively means the lower teams get a cop out in trying to get over the min cap, which are the teams I most want to be over it.
If anything I think -15% of the average cap is generous for a min cap.
So would you rather they trade one of their picks for nathan brown to get over instead? Which is what has happened in the past. And personally I'm planning on trading pick 1 anyway (hmu fellas), but regardless of whether i have pick 1 or if ada does, i just think they should be worth a bit more than your later picks.
Absolutely I would. Because in reality those clubs aren't trading a top 20 pick (with extra cap as you propose) for a spud, it's 4th, 5th rounders if at all, else they get drafted in the rookie draft. And EVERY single year, a few of those spuds gets up and does something, improving that team. So I'm against any initiative that makes it easier for teams to get above the min cap, thus decreasing the chances of that happening.
I understand the sentiment though, as bigger picks should be worth more. And they are - through the trade market. Cap values and trade values were never meant to reflect one another, so it's through the trade market that top 20 picks get priced appropriately.
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 14, 2018, 09:15:27 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 14, 2018, 02:05:54 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 14, 2018, 01:33:52 PM
Aw, I'm not too sure on that one, but I appreciate and respect where it's coming from.
Puts an extra mill or so in the total cap, thus would increase the min cap by 1 mill / 18, so about 50k, and although it's minimal, it effectively means the lower teams get a cop out in trying to get over the min cap, which are the teams I most want to be over it.
If anything I think -15% of the average cap is generous for a min cap.
So would you rather they trade one of their picks for nathan brown to get over instead? Which is what has happened in the past. And personally I'm planning on trading pick 1 anyway (hmu fellas), but regardless of whether i have pick 1 or if ada does, i just think they should be worth a bit more than your later picks.
Absolutely I would. Because in reality those clubs aren't trading a top 20 pick (with extra cap as you propose) for a spud, it's 4th, 5th rounders if at all, else they get drafted in the rookie draft. And EVERY single year, a few of those spuds gets up and does something, improving that team. So I'm against any initiative that makes it easier for teams to get above the min cap, thus decreasing the chances of that happening.
I understand the sentiment though, as bigger picks should be worth more. And they are - through the trade market. Cap values and trade values were never meant to reflect one another, so it's through the trade market that top 20 picks get priced appropriately.
My point was that if a club wants to get above the min cap, they can do so via those showerty trades or drafting rookies with extra cap. The extra 50k (max, due to avg going up) here wouldn't really impact that.
But yeah, literally the only reason I brought it up is simply because I think Pick 1 should be worth more than Pick 90.
Other rule suggestion, and not sure if it has been mentioned cause I haven't followed much due to work being full on the last few weeks, is live pick trading. 2hr rule still stands if you come online, but you have the chance to trade picks (and only picks) during that window.
As an example, when Ringo picked Willem Drew, I was left with a choice between Ainsworth and SPS, and I was pretty much split on both. Would have been more than happy at that point to attempt to work a trade with meow in that short period of time, providing he was also online and interested in moving up to my spot in the draft.
The main issue I see here is that unbalanced trades could be made if a team gets really desperate to move up or down the draft, so perhaps we could also use the points system that the AFL uses, and trades need to fall within a certain range in terms of the difference between draft points. For arguments sake, the acceptable difference is 200 points, so you could trade pick 7 (lets say worth 1200) and pick 45 (lets say worth 100) for pick 8 (1100) and pick 30 (310), making it 1300 for 1410. But you couldn't do 7 for 8 and 30, as that would give a difference of 210.
GL makes a good point
I think everyone would agree that it makes sense for Pick 1 to be worth more than Pick 90, and as he says every year the teams with a low cap end up just filling their lists with spuds for the sole purpose of getting above the cap, which does sound pretty counter intuitive because they don't actually want those players, but basically have to just for the purposes of getting above the cap
Now you could argue they should trade in better players with decent $ value, but if they're going down the youth path that really doesn't help at all
It's a tricky one
Quote from: GoLions on August 14, 2018, 10:52:47 PM
Other rule suggestion, and not sure if it has been mentioned cause I haven't followed much due to work being full on the last few weeks, is live pick trading. 2hr rule still stands if you come online, but you have the chance to trade picks (and only picks) during that window.
As an example, when Ringo picked Willem Drew, I was left with a choice between Ainsworth and SPS, and I was pretty much split on both. Would have been more than happy at that point to attempt to work a trade with meow in that short period of time, providing he was also online and interested in moving up to my spot in the draft.
The main issue I see here is that unbalanced trades could be made if a team gets really desperate to move up or down the draft, so perhaps we could also use the points system that the AFL uses, and trades need to fall within a certain range in terms of the difference between draft points. For arguments sake, the acceptable difference is 200 points, so you could trade pick 7 (lets say worth 1200) and pick 45 (lets say worth 100) for pick 8 (1100) and pick 30 (310), making it 1300 for 1410. But you couldn't do 7 for 8 and 30, as that would give a difference of 210.
That sounds like it could get really messy
We have enough time during the trade period to get the picks we want.
I like the idea in theory, but my initial reaction is that it would just get messy
Maybe we trial it, but only in the 1st round? See how it worked, and then discuss it again the following year?
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 14, 2018, 10:56:45 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 14, 2018, 10:52:47 PM
Other rule suggestion, and not sure if it has been mentioned cause I haven't followed much due to work being full on the last few weeks, is live pick trading. 2hr rule still stands if you come online, but you have the chance to trade picks (and only picks) during that window.
As an example, when Ringo picked Willem Drew, I was left with a choice between Ainsworth and SPS, and I was pretty much split on both. Would have been more than happy at that point to attempt to work a trade with meow in that short period of time, providing he was also online and interested in moving up to my spot in the draft.
The main issue I see here is that unbalanced trades could be made if a team gets really desperate to move up or down the draft, so perhaps we could also use the points system that the AFL uses, and trades need to fall within a certain range in terms of the difference between draft points. For arguments sake, the acceptable difference is 200 points, so you could trade pick 7 (lets say worth 1200) and pick 45 (lets say worth 100) for pick 8 (1100) and pick 30 (310), making it 1300 for 1410. But you couldn't do 7 for 8 and 30, as that would give a difference of 210.
That sounds like it could get really messy
We have enough time during the trade period to get the picks we want.
I like the idea in theory, but my initial reaction is that it would just get messy
Maybe we trial it, but only in the 1st round? See how it worked, and then discuss it again the following year?
Yeah, it definitely could get messy haha, hence why we would need some system that allows for trades to effectively be automatically approved/rejected. The idea is if a player slips further than you thought they would, or if someone goes earlier than you expected. You would imagine that it would only really occur in the 1st round or thereabouts anyway, but yeah, I think it's something that could add something extra to WXVs and make the draft a bit more interesting! (to those online anyway :P)
Quote from: GoLions on August 14, 2018, 11:09:11 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 14, 2018, 10:56:45 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 14, 2018, 10:52:47 PM
Other rule suggestion, and not sure if it has been mentioned cause I haven't followed much due to work being full on the last few weeks, is live pick trading. 2hr rule still stands if you come online, but you have the chance to trade picks (and only picks) during that window.
As an example, when Ringo picked Willem Drew, I was left with a choice between Ainsworth and SPS, and I was pretty much split on both. Would have been more than happy at that point to attempt to work a trade with meow in that short period of time, providing he was also online and interested in moving up to my spot in the draft.
The main issue I see here is that unbalanced trades could be made if a team gets really desperate to move up or down the draft, so perhaps we could also use the points system that the AFL uses, and trades need to fall within a certain range in terms of the difference between draft points. For arguments sake, the acceptable difference is 200 points, so you could trade pick 7 (lets say worth 1200) and pick 45 (lets say worth 100) for pick 8 (1100) and pick 30 (310), making it 1300 for 1410. But you couldn't do 7 for 8 and 30, as that would give a difference of 210.
That sounds like it could get really messy
We have enough time during the trade period to get the picks we want.
I like the idea in theory, but my initial reaction is that it would just get messy
Maybe we trial it, but only in the 1st round? See how it worked, and then discuss it again the following year?
Yeah, it definitely could get messy haha, hence why we would need some system that allows for trades to effectively be automatically approved/rejected. The idea is if a player slips further than you thought they would, or if someone goes earlier than you expected. You would imagine that it would only really occur in the 1st round or thereabouts anyway, but yeah, I think it's something that could add something extra to WXVs and make the draft a bit more interesting! (to those online anyway :P)
Remember the AFL are introducing live pick trading this year so we would following their initiative as well. Ad has been said could get really messy for Admin to monitor as well.
Regarding the draft picks I would suggest after thinking about it maybe make all first round picks worth 125 points for simplicity.
Quote from: Ringo on August 15, 2018, 09:29:15 AM
Quote from: GoLions on August 14, 2018, 11:09:11 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 14, 2018, 10:56:45 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 14, 2018, 10:52:47 PM
Other rule suggestion, and not sure if it has been mentioned cause I haven't followed much due to work being full on the last few weeks, is live pick trading. 2hr rule still stands if you come online, but you have the chance to trade picks (and only picks) during that window.
As an example, when Ringo picked Willem Drew, I was left with a choice between Ainsworth and SPS, and I was pretty much split on both. Would have been more than happy at that point to attempt to work a trade with meow in that short period of time, providing he was also online and interested in moving up to my spot in the draft.
The main issue I see here is that unbalanced trades could be made if a team gets really desperate to move up or down the draft, so perhaps we could also use the points system that the AFL uses, and trades need to fall within a certain range in terms of the difference between draft points. For arguments sake, the acceptable difference is 200 points, so you could trade pick 7 (lets say worth 1200) and pick 45 (lets say worth 100) for pick 8 (1100) and pick 30 (310), making it 1300 for 1410. But you couldn't do 7 for 8 and 30, as that would give a difference of 210.
That sounds like it could get really messy
We have enough time during the trade period to get the picks we want.
I like the idea in theory, but my initial reaction is that it would just get messy
Maybe we trial it, but only in the 1st round? See how it worked, and then discuss it again the following year?
Yeah, it definitely could get messy haha, hence why we would need some system that allows for trades to effectively be automatically approved/rejected. The idea is if a player slips further than you thought they would, or if someone goes earlier than you expected. You would imagine that it would only really occur in the 1st round or thereabouts anyway, but yeah, I think it's something that could add something extra to WXVs and make the draft a bit more interesting! (to those online anyway :P)
Remember the AFL are introducing live pick trading this year so we would following their initiative as well. Ad has been said could get really messy for Admin to monitor as well.
Regarding the draft picks I would suggest after thinking about it maybe make all first round picks worth 125 points for simplicity.
Wouldn't work. Would technically mean pick 1 and 18 are equal, and would be passed if a trade was done to swap just those picks.
Quote from: GoLions on August 15, 2018, 11:10:19 AM
Quote from: Ringo on August 15, 2018, 09:29:15 AM
Quote from: GoLions on August 14, 2018, 11:09:11 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 14, 2018, 10:56:45 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 14, 2018, 10:52:47 PM
Other rule suggestion, and not sure if it has been mentioned cause I haven't followed much due to work being full on the last few weeks, is live pick trading. 2hr rule still stands if you come online, but you have the chance to trade picks (and only picks) during that window.
As an example, when Ringo picked Willem Drew, I was left with a choice between Ainsworth and SPS, and I was pretty much split on both. Would have been more than happy at that point to attempt to work a trade with meow in that short period of time, providing he was also online and interested in moving up to my spot in the draft.
The main issue I see here is that unbalanced trades could be made if a team gets really desperate to move up or down the draft, so perhaps we could also use the points system that the AFL uses, and trades need to fall within a certain range in terms of the difference between draft points. For arguments sake, the acceptable difference is 200 points, so you could trade pick 7 (lets say worth 1200) and pick 45 (lets say worth 100) for pick 8 (1100) and pick 30 (310), making it 1300 for 1410. But you couldn't do 7 for 8 and 30, as that would give a difference of 210.
That sounds like it could get really messy
We have enough time during the trade period to get the picks we want.
I like the idea in theory, but my initial reaction is that it would just get messy
Maybe we trial it, but only in the 1st round? See how it worked, and then discuss it again the following year?
Yeah, it definitely could get messy haha, hence why we would need some system that allows for trades to effectively be automatically approved/rejected. The idea is if a player slips further than you thought they would, or if someone goes earlier than you expected. You would imagine that it would only really occur in the 1st round or thereabouts anyway, but yeah, I think it's something that could add something extra to WXVs and make the draft a bit more interesting! (to those online anyway :P)
Remember the AFL are introducing live pick trading this year so we would following their initiative as well. Ad has been said could get really messy for Admin to monitor as well.
Regarding the draft picks I would suggest after thinking about it maybe make all first round picks worth 125 points for simplicity.
Wouldn't work. Would technically mean pick 1 and 18 are equal, and would be passed if a trade was done to swap just those picks.
Does it matter if trades are done that are "unfair" when it wont change who they pick up anyway. For example if you have ur eye on someone there is no difference between taking Willem Drew at N6 or picking him up at 10-15 where he would have gone while getting a very small upgrade lower down in the draft. For example in the above scenario they might have decided to trade N6 for N10 and a small upgrade in the 2nd round which people would of said is way unfair but it would of resulted in them getting a better outcome cause they would of still got the guy they wanted but got an upgrade elsewhere. Would of also worked out well for the otherside who gets a big upgrade.
If your doing live trading its because you want someone you think will slip later or more likely you want someone who slipped later than you expected. Either way the net result probably doesnt change much, picks are very subjective.
I'll give you 9 + 10 for 1 + 68
2864 vs 3059
If 200 is the magic number then I say the team with the later first pick should have to be 200 points OVER the value of the team with the earlier pick.
1 + 68 for 6 + 8 just looks fairer IMO.
3059 vs 3302
Quote from: meow meow on August 15, 2018, 11:20:41 AM
I'll give you 9 + 10 for 1 + 68
2864 vs 3059
If 200 is the magic number then I say the team with the later first pick should have to be 200 points OVER the value of the team with the earlier pick.
1 + 68 for 6 + 8 just looks fairer IMO.
3059 vs 3302
Yeah i don't mind that. I hadn't looked at any values or anything, was just pulling numbers out of my ass haha, but this seems good.
Quote from: iZander on August 15, 2018, 11:16:32 AM
Quote from: GoLions on August 15, 2018, 11:10:19 AM
Quote from: Ringo on August 15, 2018, 09:29:15 AM
Quote from: GoLions on August 14, 2018, 11:09:11 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 14, 2018, 10:56:45 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 14, 2018, 10:52:47 PM
Other rule suggestion, and not sure if it has been mentioned cause I haven't followed much due to work being full on the last few weeks, is live pick trading. 2hr rule still stands if you come online, but you have the chance to trade picks (and only picks) during that window.
As an example, when Ringo picked Willem Drew, I was left with a choice between Ainsworth and SPS, and I was pretty much split on both. Would have been more than happy at that point to attempt to work a trade with meow in that short period of time, providing he was also online and interested in moving up to my spot in the draft.
The main issue I see here is that unbalanced trades could be made if a team gets really desperate to move up or down the draft, so perhaps we could also use the points system that the AFL uses, and trades need to fall within a certain range in terms of the difference between draft points. For arguments sake, the acceptable difference is 200 points, so you could trade pick 7 (lets say worth 1200) and pick 45 (lets say worth 100) for pick 8 (1100) and pick 30 (310), making it 1300 for 1410. But you couldn't do 7 for 8 and 30, as that would give a difference of 210.
That sounds like it could get really messy
We have enough time during the trade period to get the picks we want.
I like the idea in theory, but my initial reaction is that it would just get messy
Maybe we trial it, but only in the 1st round? See how it worked, and then discuss it again the following year?
Yeah, it definitely could get messy haha, hence why we would need some system that allows for trades to effectively be automatically approved/rejected. The idea is if a player slips further than you thought they would, or if someone goes earlier than you expected. You would imagine that it would only really occur in the 1st round or thereabouts anyway, but yeah, I think it's something that could add something extra to WXVs and make the draft a bit more interesting! (to those online anyway :P)
Remember the AFL are introducing live pick trading this year so we would following their initiative as well. Ad has been said could get really messy for Admin to monitor as well.
Regarding the draft picks I would suggest after thinking about it maybe make all first round picks worth 125 points for simplicity.
Wouldn't work. Would technically mean pick 1 and 18 are equal, and would be passed if a trade was done to swap just those picks.
Does it matter if trades are done that are "unfair" when it wont change who they pick up anyway. For example if you have ur eye on someone there is no difference between taking Willem Drew at N6 or picking him up at 10-15 where he would have gone while getting a very small upgrade lower down in the draft. For example in the above scenario they might have decided to trade N6 for N10 and a small upgrade in the 2nd round which people would of said is way unfair but it would of resulted in them getting a better outcome cause they would of still got the guy they wanted but got an upgrade elsewhere. Would of also worked out well for the otherside who gets a big upgrade.
If your doing live trading its because you want someone you think will slip later or more likely you want someone who slipped later than you expected. Either way the net result probably doesnt change much, picks are very subjective.
For the sake of having trades automatically passed, i think so.
Pick 1 should be worth 500k. Pick 2 480k. Picks 11-20 lose 10k instead of 20k The three year rule should apply. Highest value is counted as in real cap or draft cap.
Chumps who average or are priced at less than 60 shouldn't be counted in the cap as they're just shower and collecting them to get above minimum cap is not productive. Libba won't be free as his cap value is higher than 60. Ed Richards won't be free as he's in his 3 year draft pricing.
We should be able to pay players what ever we want.
I'd much rather pay Cripps 1 million and take 5 draft picks to get to 1.5 mil then have to fill my list with spuds like Nick Smith, Josh Walker, Hayden Ballantyne to get over the cap.
Those spuds should cost nothing!
Quote from: GoLions on August 14, 2018, 10:45:21 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 14, 2018, 09:15:27 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 14, 2018, 02:05:54 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 14, 2018, 01:33:52 PM
Aw, I'm not too sure on that one, but I appreciate and respect where it's coming from.
Puts an extra mill or so in the total cap, thus would increase the min cap by 1 mill / 18, so about 50k, and although it's minimal, it effectively means the lower teams get a cop out in trying to get over the min cap, which are the teams I most want to be over it.
If anything I think -15% of the average cap is generous for a min cap.
So would you rather they trade one of their picks for nathan brown to get over instead? Which is what has happened in the past. And personally I'm planning on trading pick 1 anyway (hmu fellas), but regardless of whether i have pick 1 or if ada does, i just think they should be worth a bit more than your later picks.
Absolutely I would. Because in reality those clubs aren't trading a top 20 pick (with extra cap as you propose) for a spud, it's 4th, 5th rounders if at all, else they get drafted in the rookie draft. And EVERY single year, a few of those spuds gets up and does something, improving that team. So I'm against any initiative that makes it easier for teams to get above the min cap, thus decreasing the chances of that happening.
I understand the sentiment though, as bigger picks should be worth more. And they are - through the trade market. Cap values and trade values were never meant to reflect one another, so it's through the trade market that top 20 picks get priced appropriately.
My point was that if a club wants to get above the min cap, they can do so via those showerty trades or drafting rookies with extra cap. The extra 50k (max, due to avg going up) here wouldn't really impact that.
But yeah, literally the only reason I brought it up is simply because I think Pick 1 should be worth more than Pick 90.
Given that everyone needs to have the same list size, then under your proposal, it stops coaches trading in cap spuds in favour of spuds that just cost 100k.
For example, a team that has 3 first rounders gets a 200k or so cop out from getting above the minimum cap. Instead of previously being forced to trade in that extra 200k (because you have to be above the minimum before the draft), they'll now be forced to pick up (because of list size) 100k spuds in the draft, whom are more unlikely to play afl, and thus less likely to improve your team.
Draft picks aren't even worth 100k. Players that have played less than 10 games over 3 years are, and draftees meet that category. The trade market is supposed to be the governing body on draft pick worth, the salary cap is supposed to value players on performance, and given first rounders haven't yet performed, I think it's premature - unfair even - to allocate extra cap value to them.
I really appreciate this conversation and your input GL! It leads to an informed decision by those voting against us :P
Here's a quick summary of what's been suggested so far
- Mid Season Trade Period
- Rivalry Round
- Resting Bonus increase from 10% to 20%
- Scrapping Rookie draft and using the scrubs to top up lists end of NAT/PSD
- Loopholing - both VC and EMG
- Leadership Groups
- Flood/Attack and option for Ruck vs Scrap all together
- Trade Voting Process (Team A/B wins or Neutral)
- Does voting need to be mandatory? Option "D" to pass
- First Rounder Rookies being worth more than 100k
- Yearly Cap Talk which won't result in anything lol
- Live Trading of Picks
EDIT: Leadership Groups added
Thanks RD :)
Also Leadership Groups.
Trading future first rounders.
gives people great flexibility of the long term direction of their team.
Quote from: Holz on August 15, 2018, 06:49:15 PM
Trading future first rounders.
gives people great flexibility of the long term direction of their team.
Voted on and squashed last year.
What's stopping teams from trading their future first rounders, then going hard in the trade period?
Ringo might trade his future first (pick 1) then somehow get Ablett, Danger, Kelly, Docherty, Laird, Buddy etc. The trade for pick 1 might have been fair at the time, but it can easily turn into pick 14 in one trade period and become unfair. Works in reverse too.
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 15, 2018, 06:44:44 PM
- Yearly Cap Talk which won't result in anything lol
Surely retired players get removed from the cap this time around!
Quote from: meow meow on August 15, 2018, 06:56:54 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 15, 2018, 06:44:44 PM
- Yearly Cap Talk which won't result in anything lol
Surely retired players get removed from the cap this time around!
Hope there is no cap changes, each solution just opens up new problems or diminishes the reason for the cap. Cap talk should be off the table :P
Is my compo pick 1 or four seasons of auto 100 at D4? I've provided evidence why it has to be one or the other, need to know which it's going to be.
Quote from: meow meow on August 15, 2018, 07:11:31 PM
Is my compo pick 1 or four seasons of auto 100 at D4? I've provided evidence why it has to be one or the other, need to know which it's going to be.
I vote for the latter
Quote from: GoLions on August 09, 2018, 05:39:24 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 09, 2018, 05:36:22 PM
I still reckon it'd be better that if you played an OOP ruck, he doesn't get penalised, but the oppositon ruck gets a 50% bonus
.... Now pretend I didn't say that as the owner of Gawn :-X
What about both; 50% penalty for OOP and 50% bonus for oppo ruck. OOP ruck would get smashed against an actual ruck irl, hence the 50% penalty, and actual ruck would destroy, hence the 50% bonus.
(https://i.gyazo.com/a89680bb9dda9abf8214bd8add583671.png)
(https://emojipedia-us.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbs/160/facebook/105/thinking-face_1f914.png)
(https://i.gyazo.com/9a77c2572ac68c3ceb0626552b7f016a.png)
(https://emojipedia-us.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbs/160/facebook/105/thinking-face_1f914.png) (https://emojipedia-us.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbs/160/facebook/105/thinking-face_1f914.png)
Giving GL a post quota.
Stop spamming this thread lol
I say we vote on Nigel scrapping the awful song selections in World Idol
Quote from: meow meow on August 15, 2018, 08:11:06 PM
I say we vote on Nigel scrapping the awful song selections in World Idol
I got "the scientist", im happy :P
Quote from: meow meow on August 15, 2018, 08:11:06 PM
I say we vote on Nigel scrapping the awful song selections in World Idol
I had no intentions on doing it again anyway.
Naw, I liked it :'(
Well, I was about to send the rule vote out, then saw we had a suggestion for people should have the option to indicate that they don't care about the rule.
So, I then went about sending out a vote just to decide on how we vote, before we vote ::)
I was gonna send the following, and force people to vote for this... but alas, I'll give it some time for people to digest and see reactions.
Please tell me what you think ASAP, as I want to send out something tomorrow.
I'm going to put my foot down a little here, and insist you can't donkey vote in Worlds.
Because we should all be involved in whatever we decide, else it's really not a collective decision. Take American non-compulsory voting for example, at the end of the day, 70% of people (I dunno if that number is accurate, but it's something around that mark) didn't actually vote for Trump, yet he's the one in charge. So yeah, you WILL be voting. And yes, I see the irony in this paragraph.
Vote Severity
Should we introduce vote severity in our vote responses, instead of our Yes/No response?
For example, in the past we've had rules that have been fairly 50/50, but one side feels more strongly about it than the other, and the those whom cared more about it lost in favour of those whom didn't really have a preference either way, but because they were forced to vote, voted against the people whom really cared about it.
Say, we have the following vote proposed:
Who had the better career? Cale Morton or Jimmy Toumpas?
A) Morton
B) Toumpas.
Currently, you'd be forced to vote either A or B. We might have 7 coaches who really fervently believe Morton had the better career, but there was 11 coaches who really don't feel that strongly about this vote, and happened to vote for Toumpas.
I propose, that you are STILL forced to vote for either option... but have a choice as to whether you put '1' point or '2' points to your option.
So in the above scenario, instead of Toumpas being decided has having had the best career (because all 11 coaches put '1' point to him), Morton is now the new winner as all 7 coaches felt strongly about it, and put down '2' points (14 in total).
All draws will be decided by the side whom had the most coaches vote. So 12 despondent coaches would beat 6 passionate coaches. If both the number of points and coaches are equal, then my vote decides, as I'm the one that has to implement and manage the decision.
Thoughts?
Not a big fan of giving an option a 1 or 2
Think I prefer having a 3rd choice along the lines of "don't care", and then just tally the A vs B result to decide the winner
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 18, 2018, 03:55:30 PM
Not a big fan of giving an option a 1 or 2
Think I prefer having a 3rd choice along the lines of "don't care", and then just tally the A vs B result to decide the winner
Just keep it the way it is, stop being such fence sitters :P
Quote from: iZander on August 18, 2018, 03:57:09 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 18, 2018, 03:55:30 PM
Not a big fan of giving an option a 1 or 2
Think I prefer having a 3rd choice along the lines of "don't care", and then just tally the A vs B result to decide the winner
Just keep it the way it is, stop being such fence sitters :P
If we keep it the way it is then the problem that Purps outlined remains
I'd rather someone sit on the fence if it's something they don't give two showers about instead of being forced to pick one which could change the outcome which is again the problem Purps outlined
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 18, 2018, 04:02:55 PM
Quote from: iZander on August 18, 2018, 03:57:09 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 18, 2018, 03:55:30 PM
Not a big fan of giving an option a 1 or 2
Think I prefer having a 3rd choice along the lines of "don't care", and then just tally the A vs B result to decide the winner
Just keep it the way it is, stop being such fence sitters :P
If we keep it the way it is then the problem that Purps outlined remains
I'd rather someone sit on the fence if it's something they don't give two showers about instead of being forced to pick one which could change the outcome which is again the problem Purps outlined
When it comes to trade voting you shouldnt be able to not give a flower, look at the trade, and decide weather its fair or if its not and pick a damn answer. This system doesnt work if there only 5 people who "dont give two showers"
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 18, 2018, 03:55:30 PM
Not a big fan of giving an option a 1 or 2
Think I prefer having a 3rd choice along the lines of "don't care", and then just tally the A vs B result to decide the winner
That falls in the 'Donkey vote' category, which I will not be permitting.
My personal preference is the current system FWIW, but this vote is an effort to recognise those who suggested it.
I always thought the general consensus was if you're a fence sitter, you vote to stay with what is already in place?
Ah OK
I thought we were talking about rule change voting, not trading
This is the rule change thread after all, so just naturally assumed that
Oh, that's a good point actually.
I wasn't considering trade voting in that scenario. I don't see why trade voting would change at all.
This suggestion would only be for rule change voting.
If going down this track I would be classifying "the do not care" as a vote against.
Do not really like the change at all though as committed coaches should be able to express an opinion one way or the other on rule changes.
Quote from: Ringo on August 18, 2018, 04:44:57 PM
If going down this track I would be classifying "the do not care" as a vote against.
Do not really like the change at all though as committed coaches should be able to express an opinion one way or the other on rule changes.
Excellent point.
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 19, 2018, 12:04:42 PM
Quote from: Ringo on August 18, 2018, 04:44:57 PM
If going down this track I would be classifying "the do not care" as a vote against.
Do not really like the change at all though as committed coaches should be able to express an opinion one way or the other on rule changes.
Excellent point.
Didn't I just mention this yesterday? :P
Quote from: Torpedo10 on August 18, 2018, 04:14:07 PM
I always thought the general consensus was if you're a fence sitter, you vote to stay with what is already in place?
Well done Torp!
Quote from: Torpedo10 on August 19, 2018, 03:13:40 PM
Quote from: Toga on August 19, 2018, 03:09:46 PM
Well done Torp!
Thank you 2018 WXVs Premier.
;)
Haha if only. Think we've left a bit too much to do today unfortunately :(
So, rule severity votes are in...
Vote Severity
Should we introduce vote severity in our vote responses - as explained in the rule thread - instead of our current Yes/No system?
A) Yes - it will give a bigger voice to those whom are passionate about future rule changes over those whom don't mind as much.
B) No - keep it as is, you shouldn't be allowed to determine how far from the fence you are.
A - 6 votes
B - 12 votes
Ironically, under both formats B wins! So keep an eye out for the first lot of rules soon, and respond to them as quick as you can :)
I regret voting for rule changes
I think I voted to change about 5
24 rules to vote on. Goodness me.
Get over it you sooks. It's not difficult.
Quote from: meow meow on August 21, 2018, 11:12:59 PM
Get over it you sooks. It's not difficult.
24 rule changes? 23 superlatives? I wonder if either will ever be fully voted on?
Rule Proposal:
It's pretty clear that most coaches in here are too lazy to do stuff when required of them. The most telling example being the superlatives. :P
In all seriousness though, I propose a subcommittee of 4 elected representatives in which they will discuss all the rule proposals PRIOR to them being sent to a vote. We'll call this the "Rules Committee."
The 4 members will be:
Chair: Levi434
Vice-Chair: Purple 77
Elected Member:
Elected Member:
I believe that Purp definitely should be on the committee but shouldn't have to chair it. That leaves the only other person capable (Levi) to run the show. The other 2 spots will be open to any coach who would like to nominate. Also this will only apply to rule proposals NOT trades!
Quote from: Levi434 on August 21, 2018, 11:36:08 PM
Rule Proposal:
It's pretty clear that most coaches in here are too lazy to do stuff when required of them. The most telling example being the superlatives. :P
In all seriousness though, I propose a subcommittee of 4 elected representatives in which they will discuss all the rule proposals PRIOR to them being sent to a vote. We'll call this the "Rules Committee."
The 4 members will be:
Chair: Levi434
Vice-Chair: Purple 77
Elected Member:
Elected Member:
I believe that Purp definitely should be on the committee but shouldn't have to chair it. That leaves the only other person capable (Levi) to run the show. The other 2 spots will be open to any coach who would like to nominate. Also this will only apply to rule proposals NOT trades!
Surely Holz and I go h2h and JB chimes in with his 2 cents when he feels like calling Holz on his BS
I swear Purps already proposed that idea himself before at some stage.
i nek nominate Boomz to be on the committee
I propose that the worst team of the year before gets to field 16 players each round the following year.
Apologies for the large chunk of rules!
Essentially, it's because of work, and consequently not having the stamina anymore to send them in bite sized PMs.
Quote from: Nige on August 21, 2018, 11:40:39 PM
I swear Purps already proposed that idea himself before at some stage.
I personally didn't, but the idea was proposed last year and maybe the year before.
And like I said then, you'd all hate it if you gave up your only shred of democracy to me and let me decide on rules and trades :-X
Democracy on voting for rules but then we listen to the minority on trades. Still makes no sense.
At the moment 3 people can think team A wins, 3 people can think team B wins and then 12 think its a fair trade and it goes down. Thats not democracy at all.
Just to clarify, the committee would NOT be deciding which rules pass or fail. Rather just to weed out the ones that are irrelevant and to simplify the wording etc prior to them being sent to everyone.
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 22, 2018, 08:36:09 AM
Quote from: Nige on August 21, 2018, 11:40:39 PM
I swear Purps already proposed that idea himself before at some stage.
I personally didn't, but the idea was proposed last year and maybe the year before.
And like I said then, you'd all hate it if you gave up your only shred of democracy to me and let me decide on rules and trades :-X
Id honestly rather you sift out most of the suggestions, like the one above but dont wanna put all that pressure on you :P Could also use the thread as a gage, if a suggestion got a positive response in there then put it up to vote if it didn't then let you decide whether it goes to vote or not :P
Saves us going through 24 rules with only 3-5 actual proper ones :P
Quote from: iZander on August 22, 2018, 11:42:25 AM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 22, 2018, 08:36:09 AM
Quote from: Nige on August 21, 2018, 11:40:39 PM
I swear Purps already proposed that idea himself before at some stage.
I personally didn't, but the idea was proposed last year and maybe the year before.
And like I said then, you'd all hate it if you gave up your only shred of democracy to me and let me decide on rules and trades :-X
Id honestly rather you sift out most of the suggestions, like the one above but dont wanna put all that pressure on you :P Could also use the thread as a gage, if a suggestion got a positive response in there then put it up to vote if it didn't then let you decide whether it goes to vote or not :P
Saves us going through 24 rules with only 3-5 actual proper ones :P
However true, I've already had a couple of responses complaining that I ignored their suggestion :P understand where you're coming from, but at the end of the day it probably takes 5 mins to vote for them all
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 22, 2018, 01:24:46 PM
Quote from: iZander on August 22, 2018, 11:42:25 AM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 22, 2018, 08:36:09 AM
Quote from: Nige on August 21, 2018, 11:40:39 PM
I swear Purps already proposed that idea himself before at some stage.
I personally didn't, but the idea was proposed last year and maybe the year before.
And like I said then, you'd all hate it if you gave up your only shred of democracy to me and let me decide on rules and trades :-X
Id honestly rather you sift out most of the suggestions, like the one above but dont wanna put all that pressure on you :P Could also use the thread as a gage, if a suggestion got a positive response in there then put it up to vote if it didn't then let you decide whether it goes to vote or not :P
Saves us going through 24 rules with only 3-5 actual proper ones :P
However true, I've already had a couple of responses complaining that I ignored their suggestion :P understand where you're coming from, but at the end of the day it probably takes 5 mins to vote for them all
yeah can understand that i guess :P
10 coaches have responded :)
Two outcomes have revealed themselves:
11. Should we be able to rest more than 1 player per week? (with cap to be determined in the next vote if successful)
A. Yes
B. No
All 10 coaches voted B. No
So 1 player per week it remains
14. In addition to Floods/Attacks, should we have the option to not play a ruck? (with the decision to decide if extra forward, mid, defender or utility spot to be done later if successful)
A. Yes
B. No
All 10 coaches voted B. No
So the ruck spot will continue to be enforced every week.
12/16 teams have voted (Toronto & Rio no longer count).
Teams still to vote:
London Royals
Mexico City Suns
Pacific Islanders
Seoul Magpies
Rules officially decided:
4. All Partial Lockouts should be Rolling Lockouts, where loopholing is permitted (but non-partial/rolling lockouts should remain as full-lockouts)
A. Yes - reintroduces the ability to loophole which is sometimes needed to field your best XV, whilst not disadvantaging those teams without Thursday/Friday night players
B. No - teams should be locked in once all available players are known, like this year.
A: 3 votes
B: 9 votes
5. Rolling Lockouts every week with full loopholing abilities
A. Yes - 1 vote
B. No - 11 votes
9. Should you be able to stack your Floods/Attacks in one round? For example, you can elect to use two of your floods to play 6 defenders and two forwards.
A. Yes - 2 votes
B. No - 10 votes
12. Remove Rookie List/Draft (i.e. move from split of 40 seniors / 4-5 rookies to 44-45 seniors, where the Pre-Season Draft which will be extended to finish off your lists)
A. Yes - if you don't have to upgrade rookies anymore, there shouldn't be a rookie list.
B. No - it’s a unique element of Worlds.
A: 10 votes
B: 2 votes
Bye bye rookie lists! Hello renewed relevance to the PSD!
15. Rather than a flat 50% penalty for OOP rucks, should it be less if you play a tall player? (percentages to be voted upon if vote is successful)
A. Yes - 2 votes
B. No - 10 votes
19. Rather than being penalised 50% for having an OOP ruck, should the opposing ruck be granted a 50% bonus instead?
A. Yes - 3 votes
B. No - 9 votes
20. Should we scrap the ability to name Co-Captains, and adopt the following system instead?: Each week your VC is someone who plays before your C and if you want to bank the VC score you simply post in the thread advising Purps of so, however you must post advising so before your C plays otherwise you miss banking it and your C remains as captain
A. Yes - 3 votes
B. No - 9 votes
21. Should the WXV Community decide upon the positions of players rather than SC?
A. Yes - 1 votes
B. No - 11 votes
22. Should the Salaries of Top 20 draft picks be worth more, where Pick 1 is worth 200k, Pick 2 is worth 195k, Pick 3 is 190k…. Pick 19 is 110k, and Pick 20 is 105k?
A. Yes - 3 votes
B. No - 9 votes
Damn. I really wanted two bites at the captaincy score. Looks like I'll just have to back in Abbott permacaptain.
Booo
Bit disappointed the VC/C didn't get up - it's an SC staple
Two teams left to vote:
- Mexico City
- Seoul
2. Partial Lockout Loopholing
A. Allow
B. Continue to Disallow
A - 4
B - 10
7. Rivalry Round to be the round with no HGA (note: can't be next year due to the 2018-2019 fixture pairing)
A. Yes - adds an extra spectacle.
B. No - should be free to decide what games are neutral every two years.
A - 9
B - 5
10. Increase Resting Bonus from 10% to 20%
A. Yes - it will provide a meaningful incentive to rest.
B. No - the bonus is high enough.
A - 10
B - 4
13. Top-Up Picks to be allocated AFTER Rookie Draft instead of BEFORE the Pre-Season Draft.
A. Yes - it encourages retention of late national draft picks and rewards those who do.
B. No - list gaps should be filled up prior to Rookie Draft to keep lists more even in the first 40 players.
A - 11
B - 3
16. Rather than a flat 50% penalty for OOP rucks, should the penalty reduce per hit-out your OOP ruck gets? (percentages to be voted upon if vote is successful)
A. Yes
B. No
A - 5
B - 9
18. Regardless of whether ruck concessions are granted, should we scrap the ability to use an alternate team format such as Flood/Attacks?
A. Yes
B. No
A - 5
B - 9
23. When drafting - during the 2 hr rule window to make your draft pick - should we introduce "Live Pick Trading" where any trades are auto-passed if it meets the AFL guidelines of fair pick trading? (i.e. within 200 points of total draft pick value)?
A. Yes
B. No
A - 5
B - 9
24. Should you be able to trade future draft picks (1 year in the future only)?
A. Yes
B. No
A - 5
B - 9
Remaining votes
1. Should we bring Back the Leadership Group (according to the same rules of 2017)?
A. Yes - it was nice little feature of Worlds, and is more realistic of an AFL team.
B. No - you should be able to have absolute freedom in naming your captain each week.
3. Rolling Lockout Loopholing during Bye Rounds (our WXV Split Round & EurAsia/AAP Rounds only)
A. Allow
B. Continue to Disallow
6. Mid-Season Trade Period (that takes place during bye rounds)
A. Yes; with number of trades allowed to be determined in next vote
B. No
8. Retired Players to be exempt from Min/Max Cap Calculations
A. Player salaries of retired players shouldn't count in the calculation of the min/max caps
B. Player salaries of retired players should count in the calculation of the min/max caps, as they help reflect the scoring power available in a typical year
17. If no OOP ruck concessions are granted, should we scrap the ability to use an alternate team format such as Flood/Attacks?
A. Yes
B. No
Personally, I'm excited about the increase in resting bonus and top-up draft picks now allocated at the end of the PSD (congrats Daz on that one) :)
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 26, 2018, 03:35:12 PM
Personally, I'm excited about the increase in resting bonus and top-up draft picks now allocated at the end of the PSD (congrats Daz on that one) :)
glad that got through as some know i felt strongly on that one
actually done the research to back up why
1 rule proposal 1 rule changed 100% strike rate 8)
Alrighty, rule vote results!
1
A. 9
B. 7
2
A. 5
B. 11
3
A. 8 - I voted A, so A wins.
B. 8
4
A. 6
B. 10
5
A. 3
B. 13
6
A. 6
B. 10
7
A. 9
B. 7
8
A. 10
B. 6
9
A. 3
B. 13
10
A. 12
B. 4
11
A. 2
B. 13
12
A. 13
B. 3
13
A. 13
B. 3
14
A. 0
B. 16
15
A. 3
B. 13
16
A. 5
B. 11
17
A. 6
B. 10
18
A. 5
B. 11
19
A. 4
B. 12
20
A. 5
B. 11
21
A. 1
B. 15
22
A. 5
B. 11
23
A. 5
B. 11
24
A. 5
B. 11
1. Should we bring Back the Leadership Group (according to the same rules of 2017)?
A. Yes - it was nice little feature of Worlds, and is more realistic of an AFL team.
B. No - you should be able to have absolute freedom in naming your captain each week.
2. Partial Lockout Loopholing
A. Allow
B. Continue to Disallow
3. Rolling Lockout Loopholing during Bye Rounds (our WXV Split Round & EurAsia/AAP Rounds only)
A. Allow
B. Continue to Disallow
4. All Partial Lockouts should be Rolling Lockouts, where loopholing is permitted (but non-partial/rolling lockouts should remain as full-lockouts)
A. Yes - reintroduces the ability to loophole which is sometimes needed to field your best XV, whilst not disadvantaging those teams without Thursday/Friday night players
B. No - teams should be locked in once all available players are known, like this year.
5. Rolling Lockouts every week with full loopholing abilities
A. Yes
B. No
6. Mid-Season Trade Period (that takes place during bye rounds)
A. Yes; with number of trades allowed to be determined in next vote
B. No
7. Rivalry Round to be the round with no HGA (note: can't be next year due to the 2018-2019 fixture pairing)
A. Yes - adds an extra spectacle.
B. No - should be free to decide what games are neutral every two years.
8. Retired Players to be exempt from Min/Max Cap Calculations
A. Player salaries of retired players shouldn't count in the calculation of the min/max caps
B. Player salaries of retired players should count in the calculation of the min/max caps, as they help reflect the scoring power available in a typical year
9. Should you be able to stack your Floods/Attacks in one round? For example, you can elect to use two of your floods to play 6 defenders and two forwards.
A. Yes
B. No
10. Increase Resting Bonus from 10% to 20%
A. Yes - it will provide a meaningful incentive to rest.
B. No - the bonus is high enough.
11. Should we be able to rest more than 1 player per week? (with a cap to be determined in the next vote if successful)
A. Yes
B. No
12. Remove Rookie List/Draft (i.e. move from split of 40 seniors / 4-5 rookies to 44-45 seniors, where the Pre-Season Draft which will be extended to finish off your lists)
A. Yes - if you don't have to upgrade rookies anymore, there shouldn't be a rookie list.
B. No - it’s a unique element of Worlds.
13. Top-Up Picks to be allocated AFTER Rookie Draft instead of BEFORE the Pre-Season Draft.
A. Yes - it encourages retention of late national draft picks and rewards those who do.
B. No - list gaps should be filled up prior to Rookie Draft to keep lists more even in the first 40 players.
14. In addition to Floods/Attacks, should we have the option to not play a ruck? (with the decision to decide if extra forward, mid, defender or utility spot to be done later if successful)
A. Yes
B. No
15. Rather than a flat 50% penalty for OOP rucks, should it be less if you play a tall player? (percentages to be voted upon if vote is successful)
A. Yes
B. No
16. Rather than a flat 50% penalty for OOP rucks, should the penalty reduce per hit-out your OOP ruck gets? (percentages to be voted upon if vote is successful)
A. Yes
B. No
17. If no OOP ruck concessions are granted, should we scrap the ability to use an alternate team format such as Flood/Attacks?
A. Yes
B. No
18. Regardless of whether ruck concessions are granted, should we scrap the ability to use an alternate team format such as Flood/Attacks?
A. Yes
B. No
19. Rather than being penalised 50% for having an OOP ruck, should the opposing ruck be granted a 50% bonus instead?
A. Yes
B. No
20. Should we scrap the ability to name Co-Captains, and adopt the following system instead?: Each week your VC is someone who plays before your C and if you want to bank the VC score you simply post in the thread advising Purps of so, however you must post advising so before your C plays otherwise you miss banking it and your C remains as captain.
A. Yes
B. No
21. Should the WXV Community decide upon the positions of players rather than SC?
A. Yes
B. No
22. Should the Salaries of Top 20 draft picks be worth more, where Pick 1 is worth 200k, Pick 2 is worth 195k, Pick 3 is 190k… Pick 19 is 110k, and Pick 20 is 105k?
A. Yes
B. No
23. When drafting - during the 2 hr rule window to make your draft pick - should we introduce "Live Pick Trading" where any trades are auto-passed if it meets the AFL guidelines of fair pick trading? (i.e. within 200 points of total draft pick value)?
A. Yes
B. No
24. Should you be able to trade future draft picks (1 year in the future only)?
A. Yes
B. No
So with the retired players cap calculation thing... I'll figure it out later :-\
Gonna be real easy to get above the min cap now me thinks.
Flood/Attacks stay.
Leadership group returns!
And Rolling Lockout during the bye rounds with full loopholing abilities.
Quote from: Holz on August 29, 2018, 12:22:10 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 28, 2018, 09:48:01 PM
So with the retired players cap calculation thing... I'll figure it out later :-\
Gonna be real easy to get above the min cap now me thinks.
great work guys you just made the cap even more wrong.
The system was somewhat balanced with young players being undervalued, now the counter balance is removed.
also now purp needs to waste his time for stupidity.
yep this is one of those didnt look close enough at the rule thing but at first glance it looks logical. Thanks alot Meow ;)
Quote from: Holz on August 29, 2018, 12:51:02 PM
23 year old 105 average defender 343 salary
27 year old 60 average mid 501 salary
30 year old 85 mid 462 salary
seems legit.
I think I might be able to fix the salary issue. Take a player's current cap, and double it. Then multiply it by 5. After this, divide the new player cap by the original. Then take away 9. This gives you the new player salary. Max, min, and avg caps can be easily worked out from there, don't see why there would be any complaints. Qed.
So um, with this one
8. Retired Players to be exempt from Min/Max Cap Calculations
A. Player salaries of retired players shouldn't count in the calculation of the min/max caps
B. Player salaries of retired players should count in the calculation of the min/max caps, as they help reflect the scoring power available in a typical year
Just judging off the reaction on Discord, some might not be totally aware of what this means?
I'm also not totally sure how to go about it. It will require a new average/min/max cap calculation in semi-frequent intervals, and at what point should I stop? After 4 weeks? 2 weeks before List Lodgement date?
I'll leave those who voted for it to help me out here :)
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 29, 2018, 08:16:04 PM
So um, with this one
8. Retired Players to be exempt from Min/Max Cap Calculations
A. Player salaries of retired players shouldn't count in the calculation of the min/max caps
B. Player salaries of retired players should count in the calculation of the min/max caps, as they help reflect the scoring power available in a typical year
Just judging off the reaction on Discord, some might not be totally aware of what this means?
I'm also not totally sure how to go about it. It will require a new average/min/max cap calculation in semi-frequent intervals, and at what point should I stop? After 4 weeks? 2 weeks before List Lodgement date?
I'll leave those who voted for it to help me out here :)
Honestly, I think the best idea is that we discuss this one further here
It needs to be clearly explained, with an example, and then I honestly think after that is done it should be revoted on because I'm certain some people didn't actually quite understand it all
yeah maybe re-do it purps
i voted to get rid of retired players
but i can honestly say i didn't think about max/min caps and what problems that can cause
i simply thought Cyril Rioli? why should he count
(mind you having him count is actually better for us as we are the lowest cap team so actually probably need all those retired caps)
but yeah i did not think to in depth just thought of it as, not playing not paying haha
but yeah tbh seems like it cause way to much disruption trying to take it out therefore think we should just leave it in
Quote from: DazBurg on August 30, 2018, 08:01:40 AM
yeah maybe re-do it purps
i voted to get rid of retired players
but i can honestly say i didn't think about max/min caps and what problems that can cause
i simply thought Cyril Rioli? why should he count
(mind you having him count is actually better for us as we are the lowest cap team so actually probably need all those retired caps)
Cyril wouldn't be counted in your cap under either scenario as he's not going to be on a list in 2019, so he can't be on your list lodgement. The only difference is whether or not he's counted in the average/min/max caps. You'd be better off with him not counting if your cap is low.
Average cap with Cyril 10,500,000
Average cap without Cyril 10,499,985
It works the other way too. Basically all the highest cap teams get an extra 15k per retired player to go even further over the max cap.
If every AFL player retired and 2019 lists were filled with 100k draftees the average would be 4,500,000 as each team would have 45 × 100k players. But the average cap would be around 10 million because we include the salaries of the Cyril's and Waite's. You'd have to magically come up with 4 million dollars to get over the minimum cap, but you can't do that because you can't include Cyril, even though the average cap does.
Quote from: meow meow on August 30, 2018, 11:27:14 AM
If every AFL player retired and 2019 lists were filled with 100k draftees the average would be 4,500,000 as each team would have 45 × 100k players. But the average cap would be around 10 million because we include the salaries of the Cyril's and Waite's. You'd have to magically come up with 4 million dollars to get over the minimum cap, but you can't do that because you can't include Cyril, even though the average cap does.
If every player except all of Christchurch's players retired I'd still be able to keep all my players, be under the cap, and every other team would be stripped of their first round picks for being under the cap as they'd all have $4.5 mil lists.
Quote from: meow meow on August 30, 2018, 11:39:18 AM
Quote from: meow meow on August 30, 2018, 11:27:14 AM
If every AFL player retired and 2019 lists were filled with 100k draftees the average would be 4,500,000 as each team would have 45 × 100k players. But the average cap would be around 10 million because we include the salaries of the Cyril's and Waite's. You'd have to magically come up with 4 million dollars to get over the minimum cap, but you can't do that because you can't include Cyril, even though the average cap does.
If every player except all of Christchurch's players retired I'd still be able to keep all my players, be under the cap, and every other team would be stripped of their first round picks for being under the cap as they'd all have $4.5 mil lists.
If we removed the retired players then we'd have Christchurch's 10 million worth of players + 17 lists × 4.5 million. Average of 4.8 million per team. Christchurch with their 10 million dollar list would have to cut heaps of their players to get under the cap and the low cap teams would have to pick them up. Which I assume is the whole point of the cap?
Over to you Holz
Quote from: meow meow on August 30, 2018, 11:47:36 AM
Over to you Holz
its too much work, there is no cut off point, there is no gain
people didnt really understand it when it was voted on
also rule discussion how boring, other comps are doing drafts and trading.
that is all, im busy trading in the Euro
Can I captain a player that I rested the round before? And if so do I get:
Score * 1.2 * 2
or
Score * 2 + (0.2*Score)
Quote from: PowerBug on August 31, 2018, 07:22:25 PM
Can I captain a player that I rested the round before? And if so do I get:
Score * 1.2 * 2
or
Score * 2 + (0.2*Score)
Ha, so fresh :P
No, you cannot double up on bonuses, but on the flip-side, you won't ever have a penalty double up on you either. For example, if you play an OOP ruck that scores 60 (so 30 overall), but someone else scores a 50, and he is your lowest scoring player, then your HGA will be 50, and not 30.
... and with 14/16 coaches already voted on our last two votes:
1. Retired Players to be exempt from Min/Max Cap Calculations
A. Player salaries of retired players shouldn't count in the calculation of the min/max caps
B. Player salaries of retired players should count in the calculation of the min/max caps, as they help reflect the scoring power available in a typical year
2. Should we scrap Captains, Vice Captains and Co-Captains?
A. Yes - they provide too much of an advantage when they score high.
B. No - it is a feature of all fantasy comps.
1.
A - 2 votes
B - 12 votes
So B wins, which means there has been no new changes to the salary cap this year.
2.
A - 1 vote
B - 13 votes
Cs, CCs and VCs remain!
Rules updated in the Rulebook (http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,51596.0.html).
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 31, 2018, 08:47:58 PM
Quote from: PowerBug on August 31, 2018, 07:22:25 PM
Can I captain a player that I rested the round before? And if so do I get:
Score * 1.2 * 2
or
Score * 2 + (0.2*Score)
Ha, so fresh :P
No, you cannot double up on bonuses, but on the flip-side, you won't ever have a penalty double up on you either. For example, if you play an OOP ruck that scores 60 (so 30 overall), but someone else scores a 50, and he is your lowest scoring player, then your HGA will be 50, and not 30.
Cheers, I believe that the rules haven’t got that in there though :P
Next question, if I rest a player, but then they get dropped from the AFL the next week (when I want to get their 20%), do I miss out on his 20% bonus completely, or do I get a 20% bonus when he next gets recalled to the AFL?
P.S. in case you haven’t noticed yet, I’m big on the rule book and trying to work out every little way that I can make my side better ;)
Quote from: PowerBug on September 01, 2018, 03:13:39 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 31, 2018, 08:47:58 PM
Quote from: PowerBug on August 31, 2018, 07:22:25 PM
Can I captain a player that I rested the round before? And if so do I get:
Score * 1.2 * 2
or
Score * 2 + (0.2*Score)
Ha, so fresh :P
No, you cannot double up on bonuses, but on the flip-side, you won't ever have a penalty double up on you either. For example, if you play an OOP ruck that scores 60 (so 30 overall), but someone else scores a 50, and he is your lowest scoring player, then your HGA will be 50, and not 30.
Cheers, I believe that the rules haven’t got that in there though :P
Next question, if I rest a player, but then they get dropped from the AFL the next week (when I want to get their 20%), do I miss out on his 20% bonus completely, or do I get a 20% bonus when he next gets recalled to the AFL?
P.S. in case you haven’t noticed yet, I’m big on the rule book and trying to work out every little way that I can make my side better ;)
UTG Admin can confirm.
Quote from: PowerBug on September 01, 2018, 03:13:39 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 31, 2018, 08:47:58 PM
Quote from: PowerBug on August 31, 2018, 07:22:25 PM
Can I captain a player that I rested the round before? And if so do I get:
Score * 1.2 * 2
or
Score * 2 + (0.2*Score)
Ha, so fresh :P
No, you cannot double up on bonuses, but on the flip-side, you won't ever have a penalty double up on you either. For example, if you play an OOP ruck that scores 60 (so 30 overall), but someone else scores a 50, and he is your lowest scoring player, then your HGA will be 50, and not 30.
Cheers, I believe that the rules haven’t got that in there though :P
Next question, if I rest a player, but then they get dropped from the AFL the next week (when I want to get their 20%), do I miss out on his 20% bonus completely, or do I get a 20% bonus when he next gets recalled to the AFL?
P.S. in case you haven’t noticed yet, I’m big on the rule book and trying to work out every little way that I can make my side better ;)
You miss out on the rest bonus entirely I'm afraid!
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 01, 2018, 03:34:00 PM
Quote from: PowerBug on September 01, 2018, 03:13:39 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 31, 2018, 08:47:58 PM
Quote from: PowerBug on August 31, 2018, 07:22:25 PM
Can I captain a player that I rested the round before? And if so do I get:
Score * 1.2 * 2
or
Score * 2 + (0.2*Score)
Ha, so fresh :P
No, you cannot double up on bonuses, but on the flip-side, you won't ever have a penalty double up on you either. For example, if you play an OOP ruck that scores 60 (so 30 overall), but someone else scores a 50, and he is your lowest scoring player, then your HGA will be 50, and not 30.
Cheers, I believe that the rules haven’t got that in there though :P
Next question, if I rest a player, but then they get dropped from the AFL the next week (when I want to get their 20%), do I miss out on his 20% bonus completely, or do I get a 20% bonus when he next gets recalled to the AFL?
P.S. in case you haven’t noticed yet, I’m big on the rule book and trying to work out every little way that I can make my side better ;)
You miss out on the rest bonus entirely I'm afraid!
In which case doesn't that make the current rule 14f redundant? Would it be better off changing it to; You must play a rested player in the next immediate round to get the 20% bonus.
If I rest a player one week and don't want to take the bonus, does that matter?
Quote from: PowerBug on September 01, 2018, 04:18:08 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 01, 2018, 03:34:00 PM
Quote from: PowerBug on September 01, 2018, 03:13:39 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 31, 2018, 08:47:58 PM
Quote from: PowerBug on August 31, 2018, 07:22:25 PM
Can I captain a player that I rested the round before? And if so do I get:
Score * 1.2 * 2
or
Score * 2 + (0.2*Score)
Ha, so fresh :P
No, you cannot double up on bonuses, but on the flip-side, you won't ever have a penalty double up on you either. For example, if you play an OOP ruck that scores 60 (so 30 overall), but someone else scores a 50, and he is your lowest scoring player, then your HGA will be 50, and not 30.
Cheers, I believe that the rules haven’t got that in there though :P
Next question, if I rest a player, but then they get dropped from the AFL the next week (when I want to get their 20%), do I miss out on his 20% bonus completely, or do I get a 20% bonus when he next gets recalled to the AFL?
P.S. in case you haven’t noticed yet, I’m big on the rule book and trying to work out every little way that I can make my side better ;)
You miss out on the rest bonus entirely I'm afraid!
In which case doesn't that make the current rule 14f redundant? Would it be better off changing it to; You must play a rested player in the next immediate round to get the 20% bonus.
If I rest a player one week and don't want to take the bonus, does that matter?
14f is designed so that, if your rested player is named in the AFL emergencies, and you don't want to take the risk of playing a potential donut, then you don't have to name him.
You are otherwise forced to play the rested player, hence why I haven't worded it as you've suggested. You're forced to name a rested player because it stops people from resting nuffies indefinitely until they have to play them out of necessity.
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 01, 2018, 04:45:13 PM
You are otherwise forced to play the rested player, hence why I haven't worded it as you've suggested. You're forced to name a rested player because it stops people from resting nuffies indefinitely until they have to play them out of necessity.
Good point, didn't think of it that way.
I think that's all for now ;D
Quote from: PowerBug on September 01, 2018, 04:47:34 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 01, 2018, 04:45:13 PM
You are otherwise forced to play the rested player, hence why I haven't worded it as you've suggested. You're forced to name a rested player because it stops people from resting nuffies indefinitely until they have to play them out of necessity.
Good point, didn't think of it that way.
I think that's all for now ;D
Haha, anytime :P
Getting in early for the next lot of rule change votes, scrap leadership groups
Should reduce leadership groups to 3
Or we just name a C, VC, DVC, etc. and that order holds for the entire season :P
I think now is a good time for our annual review of the trade period :)
Historically, I've split the vote process into two parts. The first part will be a discussion and vote on the method of how we process trades. The second part is a vote on the specifics of the method we have vote for.
For example, the first vote will be whether we do something like...
A) Democracy - keep as is - where all coaches have a vote
B) Partial democracy - where I led a panel of coaches whom decide the outcome of each trade
C) Dictatorship - I decide every trade outcome.
And then the second vote, taking A for example, would be voting on the 'neg' levels.
Discuss... what method would you be most keen for? How did you feel the last trade period went?
If it ain't broke...
Quote from: Ringo on January 13, 2019, 02:46:25 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on January 13, 2019, 01:41:32 PM
If it ain't broke...
Agree with the above too
If it aint broke, dont fix it.
However its broke so lets fix it.
We need majority on rules and voting. Or 6 people dictating rules and trading.
We cant keep the minority winning on trades and then the majority on voting
Quote from: Holz on January 13, 2019, 10:13:39 PM
Quote from: Ringo on January 13, 2019, 02:46:25 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on January 13, 2019, 01:41:32 PM
If it ain't broke...
Agree with the above too
If it aint broke, dont fix it.
However its broke so lets fix it.
We need majority on rules and voting. Or 6 people dictating rules and trading.
We cant keep the minority winning on trades and then the majority on voting
Maybe a compromise her to consider:
Admin rules on all trades
Coaches are given 72hrs (Negotiable and just suggesting for the purpose of rules).
If 4 or more coaches object to ruling then trade put to the vote of all coaches.
10 votes required to overturn decision.
Just to start discussion.
But how many that "approve" a trade are indifferent about it? Because I feel like that would be a fair few people.
I'm fine with the current trade system. It's simple.
Quote from: PowerBug on January 15, 2019, 02:38:03 PM
But how many that "approve" a trade are indifferent about it? Because I feel like that would be a fair few people.
I'm fine with the current trade system. It's simple.
Team A wins
Neutral
Team B wins
Quote from: Holz on January 16, 2019, 01:43:30 AM
Quote from: PowerBug on January 15, 2019, 02:38:03 PM
But how many that "approve" a trade are indifferent about it? Because I feel like that would be a fair few people.
I'm fine with the current trade system. It's simple.
Team A wins
Neutral
Team B wins
Is there a difference to the end result whether it's Team A or B?
Team A or B win = Neg under current system
Neutral = Pass under current system
How does identifying if it's A or B winning/losing make any difference to the result?
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on January 16, 2019, 07:26:58 AM
Quote from: Holz on January 16, 2019, 01:43:30 AM
Quote from: PowerBug on January 15, 2019, 02:38:03 PM
But how many that "approve" a trade are indifferent about it? Because I feel like that would be a fair few people.
I'm fine with the current trade system. It's simple.
Team A wins
Neutral
Team B wins
Is there a difference to the end result whether it's Team A or B?
Team A or B win = Neg under current system
Neutral = Pass under current system
How does identifying if it's A or B winning/losing make any difference to the result?
8 people say team a wins
8 people say team b wins
> the perfect trade, pass
Either that or just tells us that 8 people are morons.
Quote from: Holz on January 16, 2019, 01:43:30 AM
Quote from: PowerBug on January 15, 2019, 02:38:03 PM
But how many that "approve" a trade are indifferent about it? Because I feel like that would be a fair few people.
I'm fine with the current trade system. It's simple.
Team A wins
Neutral
Team B wins
There's been plenty of trades (infact probably everyone single one) where I've had an opinion on who won the trade, but that doesn't mean I will neg the trade.
Quote from: PowerBug on January 16, 2019, 11:07:40 AM
Quote from: Holz on January 16, 2019, 01:43:30 AM
Quote from: PowerBug on January 15, 2019, 02:38:03 PM
But how many that "approve" a trade are indifferent about it? Because I feel like that would be a fair few people.
I'm fine with the current trade system. It's simple.
Team A wins
Neutral
Team B wins
There's been plenty of trades (infact probably everyone single one) where I've had an opinion on who won the trade, but that doesn't mean I will neg the trade.
Exactly
Not like there's a scale that says what neutral exactly is either. Each coaches thoughts are different, hence we all vote to accommodate that, and for those reasons going with Holz suggestion doesn't change or improve anything
If anything it will just cause a lot more problems because every trade that someone thinks is marginally ahead will get voted or passed and not neutral, where as the current system allows marginal ones through and rightly so - we vote to just block the lopsided rorts
How about we simplify further all trades pass. Admin has the right to review those he considers unbalanced and only send those for a vote.
Quote from: Ringo on January 16, 2019, 04:29:03 PM
How about we simplify further all trades pass. Admin has the right to review those he considers unbalanced and only send those for a vote.
Has merit.
Quote from: Purple 77 on January 16, 2019, 07:38:52 PM
Quote from: Ringo on January 16, 2019, 04:29:03 PM
How about we simplify further all trades pass. Admin has the right to review those he considers unbalanced and only send those for a vote.
Has merit.
Where does he draw the line though? What admin might consider unbalanced, someone else might seem fine which would be fine as it would be sent to the vote, but the opposite is the concern in that admin could think a trade is perfectly fine and not even send it, where as someone else might not and they wouldn't even get a chance to vote
That's the only concern I have with a system that heavily relies on one individual
I think the current system we have works fine. It's not like we get heaps of negs each year, and when a trade does get negged we've all learnt (due to Purps previous warnings) not to react in a negative way, and to simply renegotiate and I think it's all been great
If anything, the only change I would like to see is in terms of the timeline to get votes in. Every coach knows to be on regularly during the trade period. When Admin sends the vote, replies should be given a time limit of 48 hours. If a coach doesn't respond with their vote within the 48 hours, their vote is null and void, and if they repeat offend then penalties apply. It's not a big ask to check in once every 48 hours during the trade period
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on January 16, 2019, 02:04:58 PM
Quote from: PowerBug on January 16, 2019, 11:07:40 AM
Quote from: Holz on January 16, 2019, 01:43:30 AM
Quote from: PowerBug on January 15, 2019, 02:38:03 PM
But how many that "approve" a trade are indifferent about it? Because I feel like that would be a fair few people.
I'm fine with the current trade system. It's simple.
Team A wins
Neutral
Team B wins
There's been plenty of trades (infact probably everyone single one) where I've had an opinion on who won the trade, but that doesn't mean I will neg the trade.
Exactly
Not like there's a scale that says what neutral exactly is either. Each coaches thoughts are different, hence we all vote to accommodate that, and for those reasons going with Holz suggestion doesn't change or improve anything
If anything it will just cause a lot more problems because every trade that someone thinks is marginally ahead will get voted or passed and not neutral, where as the current system allows marginal ones through and rightly so - we vote to just block the lopsided rorts
My interpretation of Holz's suggestion is when/if you neg a trade, you state which team is winning, and if the negs are split between either team winning fairly evenly, then that would cancel out and the trade would pass.
Under current system: 4 coaches neg and believe team A wins and 4 coaches neg and believe team B wins. 8 negs, trade is rejected
Under new system: 4 coaches neg and believe team A wins and 4 coaches neg and believe team B wins. 8 negs, but the split is 4-4, which means the trade is passed
Quote from: GoLions on January 16, 2019, 09:08:11 PM
My interpretation of Holz's suggestion is when/if you neg a trade, you state which team is winning, and if the negs are split between either team winning fairly evenly, then that would cancel out and the trade would pass.
Under current system: 4 coaches neg and believe team A wins and 4 coaches neg and believe team B wins. 8 negs, trade is rejected
Under new system: 4 coaches neg and believe team A wins and 4 coaches neg and believe team B wins. 8 negs, but the split is 4-4, which means the trade is passed
Ah OK
Well, if that's the case I still don't see how that is better
The reason for the neg is somewhat irrelevant. Using that example, in both cases 8 coaches think the trade is not fair for one reason or another, but in that suggestion it would pass (with 8 overall negs) and in the current system it would fail, which is correct
Seems like that outcome is reason based, when the reason is just each coaches thoughts - it's only their vote that matters, not the reason, if that makes sense
Keep as is
I don’t think anyway will be 100%
So probably best to leave as is
However I also think last trade period was very inconsistent imo on how things passed etc
Each trade is different I know but if a value is established for a played then goes for less in other deals is silly no consistency as I said
Also think there are a couple of loopholes in the system
Hard to stop probably cannot be but again makes it inconsistent
But overall besides a couple of inconsistencies it held up well like most years
6 - 6 = 0
5 - 0 = 5
Equity = Assets - Liabilities
Fairness of Trade = Team A wins - Team B wins
its not Fairness of Trade = Team A wins + Team B wins
Just make it that the teams involved in the trade cant vote on it.
The only way there is a loophole in the system then is if teams are favoring one team or being bribed in one way or another through changing their voting on that other teams trade.
Are we saying that teams do that?
If so then Voting should be scrapped.
So is the whole voting system corrupt if not, then there is no logical reason that (5*1) + (5*-1) + (8*0) = 10
Equity = Assets - Liabilities is a very inaccurate metaphor :P
Why not just allow all trades to pass? If a coach wants to do a bad trade then let them, they'll find a way to do it anyway.
The Cap is in place to stop clubs becoming over powered.
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 30, 2019, 09:30:02 PM
Why not just allow all trades to pass? If a coach wants to do a bad trade then let them, they'll find a way to do it anyway.
The Cap is in place to stop clubs becoming over powered.
Approve
Disagreed
I like the safety net. I mean I had a midfield of Ablett, Parker, Swallow, Higgins, Gibbs, Murphy, Liberatore and Scully and who knows what I may have ended up with if I was allowed to trade with no restrictions. That would surely end badly, but thanks to you guys I've gotten fair value for each and every one. Phew!
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 30, 2019, 09:30:02 PM
Why not just allow all trades to pass? If a coach wants to do a bad trade then let them, they'll find a way to do it anyway.
The Cap is in place to stop clubs becoming over powered.
Do that, and then for the team that comes last, that coach has to re-apply for the job (i.e. other applications are accepted for the position)
Quote from: PowerBug on February 01, 2019, 12:19:50 PM
Do that, and then for the team that comes last, that coach has to re-apply for the job (i.e. other applications are accepted for the position)
Yeah that's never going to happen
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on February 01, 2019, 12:34:23 PM
Quote from: PowerBug on February 01, 2019, 12:19:50 PM
Do that, and then for the team that comes last, that coach has to re-apply for the job (i.e. other applications are accepted for the position)
Yeah that's never going to happen
Why not? You let coaches do the moves that THEY think will benefit their team. If they do badly, then the onus is on them. What's the punishment right now for coming last and not winning games? Pick 1 and a priority pick if you be bad consistently.
I'm not suggesting an automatic sacking, that would be stupid. But perhaps you could go something like this:
- If you come last, the other 17 coaches vote on the future, that future being either "they keep their job" (Might be because coaches see that that coach is building something and just needs another season, or they just got really unlucky that season with injuries) or "we allow other applicants to apply" (Current coach can obviously re-apply).
- You are exempt from this if it's your first season in charge. The new manager that takes over a bad team gets at least 2 years to turn it around.
It would mean you'd only need a max cap, no longer need a min cap. It speeds up trading processes. It will change the trading dynamic because it'll completely change what players are valued at (i.e. the older guys suddenly hold more value)
I think I thought of this at some point during the last voting process for the two new spots where a comment was made that only the "best" get into WXV. When in truth it's not
necessarily the best, it's most definitely some of the loudest though.
I said that's never going to happen, in reference to the bottom team coach getting sacked
I don't care if all trades just pass without a vote tbh, because 99% of them don't get negged anyway other than meow's rubbish trades haha
You've just come into the comp, but the idea of under-performing coaches being given the flick is something that I personally have suggested on more than one occasion (constant low performance and or lack of activity) but save your breath, because as long as Purps is Admin a coach is never going to get sacked for either of those reasons
You apply to enter this comp, and once you're in, the only way you generally ever leave is if you decide to yourself
Quote from: PowerBug on February 01, 2019, 12:58:37 PM
I think I thought of this at some point during the last voting process for the two new spots where a comment was made that only the "best" get into WXV. When in truth it's not necessarily the best, it's most definitely some of the loudest though.
Your definition of "the best" could be different to mine, or anybody else
"The Best" isn't based on results. It's based on the people we have in this comp. You might think we're loud, and maybe some of us are, but I don't see people lining up to join any other XV so I guess they are good traits we have :)
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on February 01, 2019, 02:18:42 PM
You've just come into the comp, but the idea of under-performing coaches being given the flick is something that I personally have suggested on more than one occasion (constant low performance and or lack of activity) but save your breath, because as long as Purps is Admin a coach is never going to get sacked for either of those reasons
If that's the way it is then fair enough, was just an idea.
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on February 01, 2019, 12:34:23 PM
Quote from: PowerBug on February 01, 2019, 12:19:50 PM
Do that, and then for the team that comes last, that coach has to re-apply for the job (i.e. other applications are accepted for the position)
Yeah that's never going to happen
lucky i wasn't kicked out for being an "incompetent" coach
I should have been kicked out for bringing in Willem Drew,
Always welcome ideas :) thanks for the discussion PB.
But yeah at the end of the day, I have four standards:
- submit your team on time
- vote on time
- if a co coach, have SOME input into your team
- don't d!ck me around
There isn't another way for me to sack you.
Quote from: Purple 77 on February 01, 2019, 06:28:39 PM
Always welcome ideas :) thanks for the discussion PB.
But yeah at the end of the day, I have four standards:
- submit your team on time
- vote on time
- if a co coach, have SOME input into your team
- don't d!ck me around
There isn't another way for me to sack you.
fek
Teams left to vote:
Buenos Aires Armadillos
Cairo Sands
Dublin Destroyers
Mexico City Suns
Moscow Spetsnaz
New Delhi Tigers
Tokyo Samurai
Votes are in!
A) Democracy - keep as is - where all coaches have a vote
B) Partial democracy - where I lead a panel of coaches whom decide the outcome of each trade
C) Partial dictatorship - I decide which trades I want the community to vote on (which will be most of them - designed to avoid obviously (and I mean obviously) fair trades from clogging the system).
D) Dictatorship - I decide every trade outcome.
A) 10
B) 0
C) 6
D) 2
So keeping as is!
Now, discuss the neg levels...
Its not democracy though.
The majority of coaches can vote to pass and it fails.
Quote from: Holz on February 09, 2019, 09:26:22 AM
Its not democracy though.
The majority of coaches can vote to pass and it fails.
The current system was voted upon by the coaches. They voted for a 6 neg rejection level, as they want a higher degree of accountability for trades.
This is now your opportunity to discuss why a 9 vote neg level is more appropriate.
How often do we get 9+ negs on a trade? If 4 or 5 coaches have an issue with a trade, then surely the trade needs looking at.
Whilst I'm capitalising on some motivation, here is a reminder of the results from the rules we voted on in August :)
Leadership Groups are back. I'll open up a thread shortly where you can announce them.
Partial lockout loopholing is not allowed, however, you may loophole to your heart's content during the bye round rolling lockouts.
Resting bonuses were increased from 10% to 20%.
Ha, that was it.
You forgot anti-captain.
Quote from: upthemaidens on February 09, 2019, 11:56:44 AM
How often do we get 9+ negs on a trade? If 4 or 5 coaches have an issue with a trade, then surely the trade needs looking at.
the coaches voted for a Democracy though.
How often do democratic governments get elected into government with 33% of the vote.
also as it stands 3 coaches can think team A wins, 3 coaches can think team B wins and 66% of coaches can think its fair and it fails.
If we are going with this North Korean, Germany in 1930 voting system. then at least we need to have Team A wins Team B wins and neutral.
Let it go Holz, just let it go
Purps has already told you that your scenario of multiple votes for both sides doesn't even happen in the first place, so stop beating this dead horse already
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on February 11, 2019, 12:34:53 PM
Let it go Holz, just let it go
Purps has already told you that your scenario of multiple votes for both sides doesn't even happen in the first place, so stop beating this dead horse already
Purp "This is now your opportunity to discuss why a 9 vote neg level is more appropriate."
Holz "Did that"
Quote from: Holz on February 11, 2019, 12:32:13 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on February 09, 2019, 11:56:44 AM
How often do we get 9+ negs on a trade? If 4 or 5 coaches have an issue with a trade, then surely the trade needs looking at.
the coaches voted for a Democracy though.
How often do democratic governments get elected into government with 33% of the vote.
also as it stands 3 coaches can think team A wins, 3 coaches can think team B wins and 66% of coaches can think its fair and it fails.
If we are going with this North Korean, Germany in 1930 voting system. then at least we need to have Team A wins Team B wins and neutral.
Clinton had 2.8 million more votes then Trump. What is democracy really...
Teams left to vote:
Cairo Sands
Cape Town Cobras
Christchurch Saints
Pacific Islanders
PNL Reindeers
Tokyo Samurai
Toronto Wolves
Quote from: Purple 77 on February 18, 2019, 08:08:10 PM
Teams left to vote:
Cairo Sands
Cape Town Cobras
Christchurch Saints
Pacific Islanders
PNL Reindeers
Tokyo Samurai
Toronto Wolves
Voted!
So, with 16 votes down, a majority has revealed itself!
A) 10
B) 2
C) 2
D) 2
So, we are keeping as is!
What's that? These two votes were a waste of time I hear you say? Well, you'd be wrong! This is vital confirmation that the way we do things is what the community wants, and it's important to reaffirm that on an annual basis.
FTR, option 'Relax' received the most 'second preference' votes.
Quote from: Purple 77 on February 20, 2019, 05:34:19 PM
FTR, option 'Relax' received the most 'second preference' votes.
Yeah it did bb
Again the comp votes to keeps things the same.
More then happy for things to stay the same, has been working out pretty well for my Dubliners.
Quote from: Holz on February 21, 2019, 08:51:52 AM
Again the comp votes to keeps things the same.
More then happy for things to stay the same, has been working out pretty well for my Dubliners.
Yeah, because how we vote on trades has a huge impact on how Dublin performs :o
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on February 21, 2019, 10:10:04 AM
Quote from: Holz on February 21, 2019, 08:51:52 AM
Again the comp votes to keeps things the same.
More then happy for things to stay the same, has been working out pretty well for my Dubliners.
Yeah, because how we vote on trades has a huge impact on how Dublin performs :o
Yes you are correct, it has had a huge effect The below 8 trades have drastically shaped Dublin. Last year if trade voting was more relaxed i would of had Rocky and not Selwood and I would have missed the finals. So rejecting that rocky trade gave me a flag.
Trade 1Dublin gives: Pick 1 and Scott D Thompson
Dublin receives: Pick 18 and Stewart Crameri
instead
Dublin gives: Picks 1, 56 and 74, Scott D. Thompson and Adam Schneider
Dublin receives: Alex Rance, Travis Boak, Jesse Hogan
This was huge i picked up 3 stars instead of essentially nothing.
Trade 2Dublin Give: Pick 12 + Pick 21 + Luke Delaney + Shuan Grigg + Sam Frost + Neville Jetta + George Hewett
Dillos Give: Dane Swan + Paul Chapman
instead
keep the picks for latter trades
Trade 3Dublin Trades: Tom Rockliff + Robert Murphy + N57
Dublin Receives: Steele Sidebottom + Shannon Hurn + Daniel Wells + Josh Saunders + N84
instead
Trade 110
Christchurch trade: Jack Gunston and Travis Boak
Dublin trade: Josh Green and Tom Rockliff
Sidey and Hurn are ok but much happier with Gunston and Boak.
Trade 4New York give: Tom Liberatore and Harley Bennell
Dublin give: Travis Boak and Jack Gunston
instead
Kept Boak + Gunny and avoided those 2 disasters.
Trade 5
Dublin trade: Todd Goldstein, Jobe Watson, Jason Holmes, Daniel Currie + Majak Daw
Rio de Janeiro trade: Sam Jacobs, Marc Murphy, Jack Riewoldt, Taylor Garner + Tom Read
instead kept Goldy and Daw and turned Watson into Jroo anyway.
Trade 6Dublin trade: Scott Thompson, Robert Murphy, Lachlan Hansen, Nathan van Berlo, Josh Walker
Dublin Receive: Pick 3
instead:
Dublin trade: Scott Thompson, Robert Murphy, Nathan van Berlo, Josh Walker
Rio de Janeiro trade: Pick 5
I kept Hansen but moved down from 3 to 5 and lost Jacob Hopper. This one still hurts.
Trade 7 Berlin trade: Jarryd Roughead, Mark LeCras, Jay Kennedy-Harris + Ben Davis
Dublin trade: Kieren Jack, Kayne Turner, Ben Crocker + Jack Trengove
instead
Cape Town trade: Tom Hawkins + Lachie Plowman
Dublin trade: Kieran Jack + Kayne Turner
Hawkins was huge for me this year and been very helpfull in past premierships.
Trade 8 Dublin trade: Jacob Weitering, Hugh Greenwood + Mason Wood
Mexico trade: Tom Rockliff, Elliot Himmelberg + PSD Pick 8
instead
Dublin trade: Hugh Greenwood, Jacob Weitering + Mason Wood
Dublin recieve: Joel Selwood, Harley Balic, Mitchell Lewis + Pick 61
much happier having Jelly in the squad over Rocky without it i dont think i make the grandfinal.
Nearly all of those trades are so damn old making them irrelevant examples of how the current vote process and coaches had anything to do with making Dublin great
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on February 21, 2019, 01:21:35 PM
Nearly all of those trades are so damn old making them irrelevant examples of how the current vote process and coaches had anything to do with making Dublin great
The rocky trade last year.
If we had more relaxed trade votes would have passed and Seoul would be the Premiers.
Quote from: Holz on February 21, 2019, 01:31:01 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on February 21, 2019, 01:21:35 PM
Nearly all of those trades are so damn old making them irrelevant examples of how the current vote process and coaches had anything to do with making Dublin great
The rocky trade last year.
If we had more relaxed trade votes would have passed and Seoul would be the Premiers.
Most of those trades though.... lol you actually were lucky that the other coaches helped you by negging them haha
You've come a long way, because you don't put up trades like them anymore, well at least since I've been around :)
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on February 21, 2019, 01:36:55 PM
Quote from: Holz on February 21, 2019, 01:31:01 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on February 21, 2019, 01:21:35 PM
Nearly all of those trades are so damn old making them irrelevant examples of how the current vote process and coaches had anything to do with making Dublin great
The rocky trade last year.
If we had more relaxed trade votes would have passed and Seoul would be the Premiers.
Most of those trades though.... lol you actually were lucky that the other coaches helped you by negging them haha
You've come a long way, because you don't put up trades like them anymore, well at least since I've been around :)
When the comp first started i was new to super coach and pretty bad, as reflected in my first spoon. The comp saved me early on largely with the pick 1 trade.
luckily with a second chance i nailed the next trade.
the other times the comp has saved me from bad luck
Libba
Bennell - getting injured
Rocky - moving clubs
Swan - retiring early
Trade 6 is a huge one, I was going to pick Hopper at pick 3 but got moved down to pick 5 which lead me to get Kennedy. However if Kennedy had of been taken instead of Parish or Francis i would have drafted Clayton Oliver and that would have been the comps biggest gift to me.
If we're talking negged trades then I must put forth one word: COMPO
Hmm let's block Rocky and Gilbert for Gibbs and Sandi because Gilbert is worth too much. Just give up someone of lesser value like James flowering Sicily instead. Cheats. Give me Gibbons.
Quote from: meow meow on February 21, 2019, 05:38:49 PM
Hmm let's block Rocky and Gilbert for Gibbs and Sandi because Gilbert is worth too much. Just give up someone of lesser value like James flowering Sicily instead. Cheats. Give me Gibbons.
just a word of advice that might help you out.
There is an option you haven't considered.
you could always just not do bad trades.
What was the issues with trading future picks? It adds another bargaining chip to trading and it's used in the AFL.
What's the negatives to it?
I think in the AFL, clubs need to use at least one 1st round pick every four years(don't quote me on that).
Whether we would need to adopt that part as well is another thing.
Quote from: upthemaidens on March 01, 2019, 03:29:00 PM
What was the issues with trading future picks? It adds another bargaining chip to trading and it's used in the AFL.
What's the negatives to it?
I think in the AFL, clubs need to use at least one 1st round pick every four years(don't quote me on that).
Whether we would need to adopt that part as well is another thing.
The negative is its a change
its just easier to tick the box "keep i the same"
I think its a great rule, which means its no chance of being implemented.
Quote from: upthemaidens on March 01, 2019, 03:29:00 PM
What was the issues with trading future picks? It adds another bargaining chip to trading and it's used in the AFL.
What's the negatives to it?
I think in the AFL, clubs need to use at least one 1st round pick every four years(don't quote me on that).
Whether we would need to adopt that part as well is another thing.
The issue is that Pacific wouldn't trade anything of value for a future first.
That and they're impossible to value. At the start of the trade period my future first would have probably been considered to be in the 10-14 range, by the end of the trade period I didn't have one haha. But if I didn't get stripped of it it would have surely been worth pick 1 or 2.
Quote from: meow meow on March 02, 2019, 12:59:21 AM
Quote from: upthemaidens on March 01, 2019, 03:29:00 PM
What was the issues with trading future picks? It adds another bargaining chip to trading and it's used in the AFL.
What's the negatives to it?
I think in the AFL, clubs need to use at least one 1st round pick every four years(don't quote me on that).
Whether we would need to adopt that part as well is another thing.
The issue is that Pacific wouldn't trade anything of value for a future first.
That and they're impossible to value. At the start of the trade period my future first would have probably been considered to be in the 10-14 range, by the end of the trade period I didn't have one haha. But if I didn't get stripped of it it would have surely been worth pick 1 or 2.
Thats not really an issue though, one of the skills of trading future picks is being able to predict where ur team/other teams will finish and can benefit from that! Dont see that as an issue not to have it?
At the start of the trade period a future pick could be worth pick 14 and at the end it be worth pick 2, depending on how coaches want to manipulate things. That's not an issue?
Christchurch were a contender. If I traded my future first most people would think it in the 10-14 range and value it as that, vote on the trade according to that. Then I gutted my team and the picks value skyrocketed. The earlier trade could become very unfair.
Quote from: meow meow on March 04, 2019, 03:42:52 PM
At the start of the trade period a future pick could be worth pick 14 and at the end it be worth pick 2, depending on how coaches want to manipulate things. That's not an issue?
Christchurch were a contender. If I traded my future first most people would think it in the 10-14 range and value it as that, vote on the trade according to that. Then I gutted my team and the picks value skyrocketed. The earlier trade could become very unfair.
Compo surely
Quote from: meow meow on March 04, 2019, 03:42:52 PM
At the start of the trade period a future pick could be worth pick 14 and at the end it be worth pick 2, depending on how coaches want to manipulate things. That's not an issue?
Christchurch were a contender. If I traded my future first most people would think it in the 10-14 range and value it as that, vote on the trade according to that. Then I gutted my team and the picks value skyrocketed. The earlier trade could become very unfair.
thats the point and fun of trading picks.
The team trading in the pick is backing you in to do worse then expected and your backing yourself in to do better then expected.
If you trade out a pick at a value of a future pick 14 and then you collapse and it turns out pick 2 because you gutted your team then you lose out and thats on you. The exact same if Capetown traded out their pick top 3 value and then they do a great job of competing then they win by moving on the pick.
Quote from: Holz on March 04, 2019, 04:25:49 PM
Quote from: meow meow on March 04, 2019, 03:42:52 PM
At the start of the trade period a future pick could be worth pick 14 and at the end it be worth pick 2, depending on how coaches want to manipulate things. That's not an issue?
Christchurch were a contender. If I traded my future first most people would think it in the 10-14 range and value it as that, vote on the trade according to that. Then I gutted my team and the picks value skyrocketed. The earlier trade could become very unfair.
thats the point and fun of trading picks.
The team trading in the pick is backing you in to do worse then expected and your backing yourself in to do better then expected.
If you trade out a pick at a value of a future pick 14 and then you collapse and it turns out pick 2 because you gutted your team then you lose out and thats on you. The exact same if Capetown traded out their pick top 3 value and then they do a great job of competing then they win by moving on the pick.
Yeah flower you guys for not letting me trade pick 17 of the 2019 draft
Quote from: Holz on March 04, 2019, 04:25:49 PM
Quote from: meow meow on March 04, 2019, 03:42:52 PM
At the start of the trade period a future pick could be worth pick 14 and at the end it be worth pick 2, depending on how coaches want to manipulate things. That's not an issue?
Christchurch were a contender. If I traded my future first most people would think it in the 10-14 range and value it as that, vote on the trade according to that. Then I gutted my team and the picks value skyrocketed. The earlier trade could become very unfair.
thats the point and fun of trading picks.
The team trading in the pick is backing you in to do worse then expected and your backing yourself in to do better then expected.
If you trade out a pick at a value of a future pick 14 and then you collapse and it turns out pick 2 because you gutted your team then you lose out and thats on you. The exact same if Capetown traded out their pick top 3 value and then they do a great job of competing then they win by moving on the pick.
You wouldn't be saying that if I traded my future pick to Seoul before I decided to "rebuild".
Quote from: meow meow on March 04, 2019, 09:45:25 PM
Quote from: Holz on March 04, 2019, 04:25:49 PM
Quote from: meow meow on March 04, 2019, 03:42:52 PM
At the start of the trade period a future pick could be worth pick 14 and at the end it be worth pick 2, depending on how coaches want to manipulate things. That's not an issue?
Christchurch were a contender. If I traded my future first most people would think it in the 10-14 range and value it as that, vote on the trade according to that. Then I gutted my team and the picks value skyrocketed. The earlier trade could become very unfair.
thats the point and fun of trading picks.
The team trading in the pick is backing you in to do worse then expected and your backing yourself in to do better then expected.
If you trade out a pick at a value of a future pick 14 and then you collapse and it turns out pick 2 because you gutted your team then you lose out and thats on you. The exact same if Capetown traded out their pick top 3 value and then they do a great job of competing then they win by moving on the pick.
You wouldn't be saying that if I traded my future pick to Seoul before I decided to "rebuild".
If you traded out future picks then decided to rebuild in that same trade period then you should be sacked immeditely.
I'd like to officially hand back Christchurch's 1st round draft pick.
However, the 4 premiership point penalty will still apply in the 2019 season (which will still not impact on their 2019 draft position).
If anyone has an objection to this, flick me a PM.