Poll
Question:
What do you think?
Option 1: I like it!
votes: 4
Option 2: Interesting, but I have some changes....
votes: 4
Option 3: Don't like it, leave as is
votes: 14
Hey guys, just an idea (yes, another one of those) I've been playing with, and I'm sure will be shot down....
WXV Expansion - Teams 19 and 20
Squad sizes reduced from 45 (18 teams of 45 = 810 players currently) to 40 (20 teams of 40 = 800 players)
WXV Format changed from:
4D, 4M, 4F, 1R, 2I
to...
3D, 5M, 3F, 1R, 3I
(which reflects the continued shift to midfielders)
Plus, if you can't field a standard team, you can bring in players who are playing VFL/SANFL/WAFL/NEAFL. Where a player will score 30 points if they play in that comp, 60 points if named in the best on the official website of that comp. They will basically have the same rules as the current rookies.
As it stands now, on average, every team will have 22 players actually play AFL in the round. 20 teams would reduce this to 20. Realising some teams already struggle to name a full 15, I eased up the position requirements and allowed people to bring in the reserves as a last resort.
This would be paired with a more formal Reserves comp....
WV Competition
You select 5 players to represent you in the reserves.
So you name your 15 as per normal above.
Your 3 emergencies from your 15 are your first 3 players in your V reserves. You would name 2 more to round out 5 players, and another 5 players emergency (as with seniors you can name lower league players).
Fixture
EurAsia Conference - 10 teams play each other once over 9 rounds
AAP Conference - 10 teams play each other once over 9 rounds.
Next stage:
Division A (6 teams)
Guaranteed finals - but jostle for positions....
Top 3 from each conference to Division A. The results against the teams they have already played carry over. They play the other 3 teams once (brings us to 12 rounds), plus EVERYONE again (5 games - brings us to 17 rounds).
Division B (8 teams)
8 teams fight for the last 2 spots
Teams 4, 5, 6, 7 from each conference move to Division B. No results carry over. They play each other once over 7 rounds (brings us to 16 rounds). The Top 4 play off in elimination for Round 17.
Division C (6 teams)
Playing for pride....
Bottom 3 from each conference move to Division C. The results against the teams they have already played carry over. They play the other 3 teams once (brings us to 12 rounds), plus EVERYONE again (5 games - brings us to 17 rounds).
FINALS
Week 1
Qualifying Final One: 1st Div A v 4th Div A
Qualifying Final Two: 2nd Div A v 3rd Div A
Elimination Final One: 5th Div A v Winner of 2nd Div B and 3rd Div B
Elimination Final Two: 6th Div A v Winner of 1st Div B and 4th Div B
And go from that as normal....
do the new teams take some of the existing clubs players?
I'm in favour of having more teams - because the more the merrier.
However, I think adding teams to an existing comp could be tricky.
And, I don't like changing the format of naming your team or being able to use players not actually playing in the AFL.
Certainly don't increase the number of midfielders at least. Maybe allow teams to pick from a number of team line-ups each week to be able to field 15.
Like how we have flooding and attacking now - there could be a few different team line-ups that you can choose so it's flexible depending on your players available.
Like:
3D, 5M, 3F, 1R, 3I
4D, 4M, 4F, 1R, 2I
5D, 4M, 3F, 1R, 2I
3D, 4M, 5F, 1R, 2I
I also don't like the new fixture idea. You can't have a team guaranteed finals after 9 rounds. I don't like it.
Nope, not a fan.
I love your creativeness Os, it's awesome, but if it aint broke...
Quote from: Holz on June 05, 2015, 11:31:24 AM
do the new teams take some of the existing clubs players?
haven't worked that bit out yet
Memphis after 9 rounds reckon conservatively we have 4 teams guaranteed. Remembering we have 20 teams fitting into 8 this time not 18
Quote from: Memphistopheles on June 05, 2015, 11:32:24 AM
I'm in favour of having more teams - because the more the merrier.
I think the I5's might be a good argument against this
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on June 05, 2015, 12:16:38 PM
Quote from: Memphistopheles on June 05, 2015, 11:32:24 AM
I'm in favour of having more teams - because the more the merrier.
I think the I5's might be a good argument against this
You think? I reckon that i5s is going along pretty well, MOST people contribute. There's not much passion, but it hasn't really been focused on.
not sure how many are planning to or want to continue it next year tbh though
and it wasn't really an argument against your idea just against his comment
not against your idea at all as i'd probably apply for one of the teams if it went ahead
When I was talking about this last night with oz, hypothetically, if I was on board, then these things would have to happen:
The best teams (I'm looking at Dublin especially, as they are younger than Mexico City), would have to contribute more than other teams to the players of the new teams. And the weak teams would contribute close to nothing, if not zero.
This is beyond the work of one person to administrate the comp. Oz would have to come out of retirement basically :P
This makes a complex (and the best) competition even more complex... dedicated coaches would be needed. Fortunately, I think we'll be fine in that regard.
An idea like this is only possible because the state of Worlds is just so healthy at the moment. Although there is a lot of opposition to it, I'm crediting a large reason for that is because of the cap oz introduced.
Perhaps the two new teams could own the entirety of the first two rounds of the draft, and trade for players or draft them?
IMO the only way it could work if bringing in extra teams would be a complete redraft to be fair to the new teams as it is highly unlikely that top players will be surrendered to new teams.
Will further disadvantage teams that have been rebuilding and getting depth into their squads if they have to give up players.
So basically because of the logistics and in the interests of fairness to all I am not really a fan unless a suitable and fair system can be developed for delisting players and drafting 2 new teams to be competitive.
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on June 05, 2015, 11:50:09 AM
I love your creativeness Os, it's awesome, but if it aint broke...
Quote from: AaronKirk on June 05, 2015, 02:33:17 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on June 05, 2015, 11:50:09 AM
I love your creativeness Os, it's awesome, but if it aint broke...
This pretty much. Not completely against expanding but don't see any rush...
I really wouldn't mind the expansion but there may need to be some tweaks.
How about a bidding system similar to what the AFL has adopted?
Example:
The 2 new teams can have a majority of the first 2 round in the International draft and each of the selections will get a points value where each pick is worth 95% of the pick before it. Pick 1 may be worth 1500 points, Pick 2: 1425, Pick 3: 1354, Pick 4: 1286 and so on.
Pick 1: New Team 1 (1500)
Pick 2: New Team 2 (1425)
Pick 3: Team that finished 18th (1354)
Pick 4: New Team 2 (1286)
Pick 5: New Team 1
Pick 6: Team that finished 17th
Pick 7: New Team 1
Pick 8: New Team 2
Pick 9: Team that finished 16th
Pick 10: New Team 2
Pick 11: New Team 1
Pick 12: Team that finished 15th
Pick 13: New Team 1
Pick 14: New Team 2
Pick 15: Team that finished 14th
Pick 16: New Team 2
Pick 17: New Team 1
Pick 18: Team that finished 13th
These values directly represent a players score for the year in WXV's. Meaning that Pick 1 is worth a player who scored 1500 points for the year.
Then each team has the opportunity to put some of their players up for bid and then anyone who has enough picks can bid on those players put up. Example: Marc Murphy scores 1495 points for the year and the Rio de Janeiro Jaguars put him up for auction. New Team 1 can bid Pick 1 overall and surpass the quota required for Murphy. But New Team 2 may bid Pick 2 worth 1425 points along with Pick 70 worth (100 lets say) and then they have therefore surpassed the quota. After all bids have been made then the current owner of the respective player has the choice of which bid they like.
If this were to go ahead, another thing I'd like to see added is future picks. So lets say Gary Ablett scores 2999 points for the year and he is put up for auction. Team 1 may bid 2015 Pick 1 worth 1500 points along with 2016 Pick 2 and Pick 50 to surpass the quota of 2999.
I quite like that idea!
However, I think in a game that is so heavily based on trades, that trading future draft picks would cause not just a headache, but an indefinite migraine.
But the stuff above that is quite interesting 8)
Quote from: Purple 77 on June 07, 2015, 10:16:58 PM
I quite like that idea!
However, I think in a game that is so heavily based on trades, that trading future draft picks would cause not just a headache, but an indefinite migraine.
But the stuff above that is quite interesting 8)
Lol^
Maybe each team must put up players up to a specific points value?
Quote from: Levi434 on June 07, 2015, 10:20:47 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on June 07, 2015, 10:16:58 PM
I quite like that idea!
However, I think in a game that is so heavily based on trades, that trading future draft picks would cause not just a headache, but an indefinite migraine.
But the stuff above that is quite interesting 8)
Lol^
Maybe each team must put up players up to a specific points value?
Is an idea worth discussion, for sure.
I've also liked the idea of trying to put a numeric value on a player, and in my own time sometimes try to think of ways of how to accurately measure it. But there is so many factors such as age, coming off an LTI, how the player was recruited, the state of the team they are in...finding the right formula for a value determined by so many variables, is quite challenging.
I love to imagine if, such a formula existed, then how useful would that be in trying to determine the fairness of a trade -> both in Worlds and real life? It would open up areas of expansion in this comp IMO.
Quote from: Purple 77 on June 07, 2015, 10:28:20 PM
Quote from: Levi434 on June 07, 2015, 10:20:47 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on June 07, 2015, 10:16:58 PM
I quite like that idea!
However, I think in a game that is so heavily based on trades, that trading future draft picks would cause not just a headache, but an indefinite migraine.
But the stuff above that is quite interesting 8)
Lol^
Maybe each team must put up players up to a specific points value?
Is an idea worth discussion, for sure.
I've also liked the idea of trying to put a numeric value on a player, and in my own time sometimes try to think of ways of how to accurately measure it. But there is so many factors such as age, coming off an LTI, how the player was recruited, the state of the team they are in...finding the right formula for a value determined by so many variables, is quite challenging.
I love to imagine if, such a formula existed, then how useful would that be in trying to determine the fairness of a trade -> both in Worlds and real life? It would open up areas of expansion in this comp IMO.
It is indeed quite challenging and finding one will be sure to cause an indefinite migrane. When I was trying to establish the NFL IX's I liked the (Average divided by Age X100)? Currently meaning that Tom Mitchell is averaging 108 divided by 22 is 4.9090 x 100 = 490.91 and Lance Franklin is averaging 94.3 and is 28 which means he is worth 336.79.
It is pretty simple but then the hard part would be how much is a draft pick worth?
Anyways I might try and think of a more complex and reliable formula over the week. Need to know what factors are important though. Currently:
Average
Age
Injury History
Team
What else?
If expansion was to happen, it would be MUCH better to figure it out like GWS/Gold Coast in the AFL. Stack them with draft picks and give them lets say one player from each club with a formula for this to be decided by ladder positions? Could also be linked to averages?
Could almost have a starter club back in 2016, giving them 6 of the first 11 draft picks in 2015 Nat draft (For example, 1,3,5,7,9,11). Just reshuffling players from the current teams into a new team is a waste IMHO.
Quote from: ossie85 on June 05, 2015, 12:00:46 PM
Quote from: Holz on June 05, 2015, 11:31:24 AM
do the new teams take some of the existing clubs players?
haven't worked that bit out yet
Memphis after 9 rounds reckon conservatively we have 4 teams guaranteed. Remembering we have 20 teams fitting into 8 this time not 18
not in worlds except as a basically defunct assistant for trading, but I find the idea interesting so I'll drop my 2c in here.
You'd have to allow the new teams to take players from the existing teams. I'd probably create points based system like what Levi says, although I'd probably just go on age and use the highest average from their last couple of seasons (last 3 maybe?), factors like team and injury history would be irritating to quantify. I'd then say allocate how many points worth of players are allowed to be taken from each team based on where they finished last season, I'd then use a draft format for the two expansion teams where they can select players from other teams. I don't think I'd bother including the draft- every team would just have to accept they're going to lose players.
If you don't want to have a different number of points ascribed to each team and instead just have overall points used by the expansion, I'd probs say that every club can name untouchable players, with the lower clubs allowed to name more, then just have a cap on how many players from each club can be selected.
Quote from: Torpedo10 on June 07, 2015, 11:14:47 PM
If expansion was to happen, it would be MUCH better to figure it out like GWS/Gold Coast in the AFL. Stack them with draft picks and give them lets say one player from each club with a formula for this to be decided by ladder positions? Could also be linked to averages?
Could almost have a starter club back in 2016, giving them 6 of the first 11 draft picks in 2015 Nat draft (For example, 1,3,5,7,9,11). Just reshuffling players from the current teams into a new team is a waste IMHO.
In theory, I think this would be ideal. Dunno if coaches would actually commit to building a team from the ground up though. Would probably want them to have some knowledge about the players being drafted and all that (meow? :P ).
But yeah, if there are coaches who would want to do this, I'd say it's the best option. If I actually had knowledge of all the kids going through the draft, then I'd probably want to do this haha.
Quote from: GoLions on June 07, 2015, 11:39:22 PM
Quote from: Torpedo10 on June 07, 2015, 11:14:47 PM
If expansion was to happen, it would be MUCH better to figure it out like GWS/Gold Coast in the AFL. Stack them with draft picks and give them lets say one player from each club with a formula for this to be decided by ladder positions? Could also be linked to averages?
Could almost have a starter club back in 2016, giving them 6 of the first 11 draft picks in 2015 Nat draft (For example, 1,3,5,7,9,11). Just reshuffling players from the current teams into a new team is a waste IMHO.
In theory, I think this would be ideal. Dunno if coaches would actually commit to building a team from the ground up though. Would probably want them to have some knowledge about the players being drafted and all that (meow? :P ).
But yeah, if there are coaches who would want to do this, I'd say it's the best option. If I actually had knowledge of all the kids going through the draft, then I'd probably want to do this haha.
But like like 5 years to be competitive? I assume if you would be putting both teams in simultaneously you'd be alternating picks 1 to 12 between them?
So like in the 2012 draft
http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,44945.0.html
and the point where they became SC relevant
Team 1:
Patton (TBC)
Tyson (2014)
Wingard (2013)
Longer (TBC)
Docherty (2015)
Greene (2012)
^ actually looks better than it is considering inconsistent years backing up their breakouts that wingard and green had (and looking like tyson too)
Team 2:
Coniglio (TBC)
O'Meara (2014)
Buntine (TBC)
Hoskin-Eliott (TBC)
Tomlinson (TBC)
Mitchell (2015)
^That's pretty bad. With Mitchell in and out of the team, and O'meara's injury especially.
The cut off points I picked might have been a bit arbitrary, but as a backbone for a team that's a rought 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 season. I reckon you need to have to ability to take players from other teams.
Quote from: Ziplock on June 08, 2015, 01:20:51 AM
The cut off points I picked might have been a bit arbitrary, but as a backbone for a team that's a rought 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 season. I reckon you need to have to ability to take players from other teams.
Oh yeah I 100% agree. But via trading picks and all that. I don't think it's fair if someone like Holz or Jroo, who have built their teams to what they are now, are forced to lose players. Granted, it would make the competition a lot more even, but I just don't really think it should be done in that way.
What we did in another keeper league I'm in to add two new teams was the following which might work for this:
Each of the original coaches were able to nominate a certain number of players from their team they wanted to keep (in this instance it was 10 as we were only going from a 10 team to a 12 team league).
I reckon a smaller number for this competition like say just 5 players nominated per club.
Then each new team were able to pick two players from each of the other teams to form their teams. Any player not in the nominated 5 are fair game for them to grab. Although they'd also have to keep under the points cap.
So going with Ossies' original idea not only would this help the existing teams reduce the number of players they have it should allow for two, new competitive teams. They won't likely get any super-premiums but could get a really good list of consistent players and some gun youngsters.
Also the weaker teams like New Delhi can keep all their good players in those nominated 5 whereas a team like Dublin or Mexico City will have lots of stars available to be stolen outside of their 5.
Existing teams will also have to decide whether they keep established stars or future stars so it adds a strategy element.
Some great ideas here :) I like a lot of them
How about this for a different fixture idea:
You play 16 teams once over 16 rounds (+ 4 weeks of finals) = 20 rounds. This skips the bye rounds completely...
And you play 3 other teams 2 or 3 times each (a best of three scenario, only play a third if after 2 matches it is 1-1) DURING the regular matches. So you'll effectively be playing 2 matches in some weeks.
Example... Dublin plays London in Rounds 1 (home), 2 (away) and 3 (neutral, if required) while at the same time playing regular scheduled matches against Beijing, Rio and Cairo (in Rounds 1, 2 and 3 respectively).
The matches against London would only count as 1 game to the overall ladder.
Dublin would later play Berlin in Rounds 8 (home), 9 (away) and 10 (neutral, if required), and later PNL in Rounds 14 (home), 15 (away) and 16 (neutral, if required). Again, the result would only count as 1 match overall.
The teams would be grouped like:
Asia
Seoul
Tokyo
Beijing
New Delhi
Europe
Dublin
London
Berlin
PNL
Americas
Rio de Janeiro
Buenos Aires
Toronto
Mexico City
Africonia
Cairo
Cape Town
Pacific
Christchurch
Other
New York
Moscow
Expansion Team 1
Expansion Team 2
Which might change year to year....
I have no problems with that fixture idea, whatsoever tbh.
TBH i'm against the idea we had alot of lower teams struggling and after they had a season or so of pain and all got active in trading doing some smart deals i feel the comp is starting to even up more then it has been in a long time
so in saying that i think if we expand it could cause the 2 new teams to suffer or slow down the teams improving
i like that there is always thoughts in improving and growing the game but also think it is as strong as ever atm and love it the way it is
Quote from: DazBurg on June 08, 2015, 05:59:57 PM
TBH i'm against the idea we had alot of lower teams struggling and after they had a season or so of pain and all got active in trading doing some smart deals i feel the comp is starting to even up more then it has been in a long time
so in saying that i think if we expand it could cause the 2 new teams to suffer or slow down the teams improving
i like that there is always thoughts in improving and growing the game but also think it is as strong as ever atm and love it the way it is
You can legislate against that, with differing rules on how many players/ what players can be taken from teams based on how they're going- if anything it'd end up eqaualising the disparity between top and bottom even more.
The sub is getting scrapped next year so there's another 18 proper scorers per week. There's room for one more team but taking it to 20 might be OOP city.
Quote from: meow meow on June 09, 2015, 04:44:46 PM
The sub is getting scrapped next year so there's another 18 proper scorers per week. There's room for one more team but taking it to 20 might be OOP city.
19 would be a pain for fixtures though.
Doesn't the sub out basically give you double the amount of scorers with the red and green vest? :P
With the sub rule on average there's 75 points per player available
Without the sub rule there's 75 points per player available.
Remember everything scaled to 3300.
Basically the sub rule as it stands has been slightly increasing the scores of all non sub players
Quote from: ossie85 on June 10, 2015, 05:22:40 AM
With the sub rule on average there's 75 points per player available
Without the sub rule there's 75 points per player available.
Remember everything scaled to 3300.
Basically the sub rule as it stands has been slightly increasing the scores of all non sub players
It'll more evenly spread the points though, it'll decrease, slightly, the scoring of most players, but increase significantly the scoring of the subs.
All, righty.
As each day passes, I get more and more sure that I want two extra teams next year.
However, this is a democratic decision; if none of you like/want it, then it won't happen... next year at least.
This, is my proposal.
Two new teams; lets call them the Tehran Terror and the Stockholm Syndromes (just for this example at least).
In the AFL, we saw the Gold Coast and GWS introduced recently, and was built through draft concessions and... the most controversial part in this I'm sure, poaching. Under my proposal, both these things will happen. First of all, this is what (if the current ladder stands and New Delhi, Cairo and Buenos Aires get priority picks), the first two rounds of the draft will look like under my proposal:
1 New Delhi (priority)
2 Tehran Terror
3 Stockholm Syndromes
4 New Delhi
5 Stockholm Syndromes
6 Tehran Terror
7 Cairo
8 Tehran Terror
9 Stockholm Syndromes
10 Buenos Aires
11 Stockholm Syndromes
12 Tehran Terror
13 Seoul Magpies
14 Tehran Terror
15 Stockholm Syndromes
16 Rio de Janeiro Jaguars
17 Stockholm Syndromes
18 Tehran Terror
19 Cape Town Cobras
20 Pacific Islanders
21 Toronto Wolves
22 London Royals
23 Beijing Thunder
24 Tokyo Samurai
25 Berlin Brewers
26 New York Revolution
27 Mexico City Suns
28 Moscow Spetnaz
29 Christchurch Saints
30 Paris Nice Lyon Reindeers
31 Dublin Destroyers
32 Cairo (priority)
33 Buenos Aires (priority)
34 Tehran Terror
35 Stockholm Syndromes
36 New Delhi Tigers
37 Cairo Sands
38 Buenos Aires Armadillos
39 Seoul Magpies
40 Rio de Janeiro Jaguars
41 Cape Town Cobras
42 Pacific Islanders
43 Toronto Wolves
44 London Royals
45 Beijing Thunder
46 Tokyo Samurai
47 Berlin Brewers
48 New York Revolution
49 Mexico City Suns
50 Moscow Spetnaz
51 Christchurch Saints
52 Paris Nice Lyon Reindeers
53 Dublin Destroyers
So basically, Tehran and Stockholm will own the majority of the first 20 picks, then it is normal from there.
IN ADDITION to these draft concessions, and inspired by the GWS mini-draft, Stockholm will be given 2016 draft Pick 1 & 4, and Tehran will be given 2016 draft pick 2 & 3. THESE PICKS MUST BE TRADED, or else they will be unuseable.
Now, poaching.
Please bare with me on this one. First, the top 4 can nominate 5 players that are un-poachable. 5th-8th can nominate 6. 9th-12th can nominate 7. 13th-16th can nominate 8. 17th and 18th can nominate 9.
Tehran and Stockholm have the right to poach up to 5 players each, but no more than 1 player from any team. That means each current team can lose no more than 2 players. BUT THERE IS COMPENSATION! After each player is poached, a committee of coaches (up for ideas, but thinking the coaches lucky enough to not be affected by poaching) decides on the level of compensation, the levels same as the AFL but a little different:
Band 1) End of first round pick in 2015 and 2016
Band 2) The higher pick out of End of first round pick or mid-first round pick
Band 3) The lower pick out of End of first round pick or mid-first round pick
Band 4) End of second round pick
Or a combination of these bands, as the situation dictates.
There is currently 819 AFL players, with 18 WXV teams consisting of either 45 or 46 players. 20 teams would reduce this to 40 or 41 players per team.
Know that if we gave the OK to two new teams, it would mean that the XV fielded would become more flexible and the cap would be modified.
However, I'm not asking for you to consider that at this stage, I want you to think about:
1) Do you want two new teams next year
2) Do you like my idea of how to build it
3) If no to either, that's fine :) will gladly here your say in all this.
Also, if you do like my idea, but think the concessions should be modified or increased/decreased, please let me know.
1) yes
2) probably the fairest way to do it
If expansion was to occur (I'm probably against it at this stage) the proposal put up by Purps seems reasonable and fair.
1) No, I'm happy with how WXVs is running atm
2) If we were to have two teams, I think that's the right way to go about it.
No doubt MCS and Dublin will lose two players each, which I'm not a massive fan of, but I can't see how else it would work.
Maybe that teams can only lose one player, not one player to each side.
i see rucks is the biggest issue with getting 2 new teams
nobody will be willing to give up there ruck
maybe if you give extra compo if they give one up
Quote from: AaronKirk on June 24, 2015, 03:53:36 PM
If expansion was to occur (I'm probably against it at this stage) the proposal put up by Purps seems reasonable and fair.
Echoing my Co-Coaches sentiments
And
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on June 24, 2015, 04:30:20 PM
i see rucks is the biggest issue with getting 2 new teams
nobody will be willing to give up there ruck
maybe if you give extra compo if they give one up
Flower them. They'll be raping the draft and poaching our guns anyway. They can cop OOP if need be, but will prob just poach a 2nd tier ruck anyway :P
Quote from: JROO8 on June 24, 2015, 03:58:37 PM
1) No, I'm happy with how WXVs is running atm
2) If we were to have two teams, I think that's the right way to go about it.
Strongly opposed to a 20 team league.
In fact I think it should go down to a 16 team league. More teams means more inequality, more rules to try and fix that and in the end you have a complex comp with massive inequslity.
Always got to be different at Dublin.
Quote from: Holz on June 24, 2015, 05:09:30 PM
Strongly opposed to a 20 team league.
In fact I think it should go down to a 16 team league. More teams means more inequality, more rules to try and fix that and in the end you have a complex comp with massive inequslity.
Always got to be different at Dublin.
Putting up Dublin as one of the teams that folds?
Quote from: Ricochet on June 24, 2015, 05:11:05 PM
Quote from: Holz on June 24, 2015, 05:09:30 PM
Strongly opposed to a 20 team league.
In fact I think it should go down to a 16 team league. More teams means more inequality, more rules to try and fix that and in the end you have a complex comp with massive inequslity.
Always got to be different at Dublin.
Putting up Dublin as one of the teams that folds?
It wouldn't work just highlighting that an expansion shouldn't occur. Weaker teams merging would work but as I saif logistically not fair.
just another one of my crazy ideas
we introduce two more teams
but
each year the bottom team or or bottom teams get evicted from the competition
we have a mini draft of the players of those evicted players
then we replace hose teams again similar to how purple wants to introduce these teams
maybe to complicated or to much change just a crazy idea i think would keep the comp even
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on June 24, 2015, 05:24:00 PM
just another one of my crazy ideas
we introduce two more teams
but
each year the bottom team or or bottom teams get evicted from the competition
we have a mini draft of the players of those evicted players
then we replace hose teams again similar to how purple wants to introduce these teams
maybe to complicated or to much change just a crazy idea i think would keep the comp even
So teams get poached every year?? Dunno if that'll sit well man
yeah but we get replacement teams
regarding the coaches it gets voted if they should keep there job
if voted no we look at all applicants including old coaches
I don't want to be selfish but just saying, in a draft that is considerably weaker than previous years, Buenoes getting their first pick at 10 instead of 4 sets us back a fair bit and significantly reduces the value in what would have been one of our major trading pieces. Plus in allowing the new teams to poach, even though a few players from each team are exempt, it still allows to build a pretty damn solid core on top of all the high draft picks.
If people like it, I'm cool with it but not a fan personally at this stage.
Every week we have teams struggling to name 15 players and we want to have two extra teams so that there is another 30 players required to play.
Wont work.
I agree with the people saying two more teams are too many. There's not enough playing players to go round and I don't want to lessen the amount of players we have to name each week. It's not the XVs then it's the XIII's or XIV's.
However, I just thought of an alternative suggestion.
How about instead of another two new teams we have another whole 18 team league - a second World XV conference if you likeI'd suggest changing the name from World XVs to the
SuperCoach XVs and then we have the
World Conference and then say the
Australian Conference (as an example)
Here's my suggested teams for this new conference based on having two teams in every Australian state/territory and then two extra multiple teams in Victoria and one extra each in Western Australia and South Australia (the main footy states).
The coaches would have to pitch for and come up with their own nicknames for the teams (Perth Piranhas, Melbourne Masterminds, Sydney Sissies, Brisbane Bogans etc)
- Melbourne
- Geelong
- Ballarat
- Bendigo
- Sydney
- Newcastle
- Perth
- Fremantle
- Bunbury
- Adelaide
- Port Adelaide
- Mount Gambier
- Brisbane
- Gold Coast
- Launceston
- Hobart
- Darwin
- Alice Springs
These teams have their own new draft and then we can have inter-league competitions as well as intra-league competitions, Champions League competition between teams just using the SuperCoach scoring method and more.
The new conference/league would be completely separate from each other and would have the same rules, and use the same players, as the World conference but, the new teams could develop in a totally different way from how this conference has turned out.
It might just mean that in the inter-league competitions one week JPK might find himself matched up on JPK :P
PS - Ultimately down the track I envision another two (four total) of these conferences and 72 coaches in total - that would make for a proper Champions League and make finishing in the top 4 a lot more attractive.
Quote from: Purple 77 on June 24, 2015, 03:20:17 PM
Tehran and Stockholm have the right to poach up to 5 players each, but no more than 1 player from any team. That means each current team can lose no more than 2 players.
No more than two? If teams can have only one player poached shouldn't it be no more than one?
Quote from: meow meow on June 24, 2015, 06:37:49 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on June 24, 2015, 03:20:17 PM
Tehran and Stockholm have the right to poach up to 5 players each, but no more than 1 player from any team. That means each current team can lose no more than 2 players.
No more than two? If teams can have only one player poached shouldn't it be no more than one?
Each new team can take one player from your team. Two new teams = two players your team can lose.
Quote from: Memphistopheles on June 24, 2015, 06:44:38 PM
Quote from: meow meow on June 24, 2015, 06:37:49 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on June 24, 2015, 03:20:17 PM
Tehran and Stockholm have the right to poach up to 5 players each, but no more than 1 player from any team. That means each current team can lose no more than 2 players.
No more than two? If teams can have only one player poached shouldn't it be no more than one?
Each new team can take one player from your team. Two new teams = two players your team can lose.
Haha that sounds remarkably simple when put in those terms.
Okay, so
1) No, 20 won't work
2) No, the new teams will have about 6 good draft picks to use or trade, and can poach 5 players. What about the rest of their lists?
Quote from: meow meow on June 24, 2015, 06:49:28 PM
Quote from: Memphistopheles on June 24, 2015, 06:44:38 PM
Quote from: meow meow on June 24, 2015, 06:37:49 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on June 24, 2015, 03:20:17 PM
Tehran and Stockholm have the right to poach up to 5 players each, but no more than 1 player from any team. That means each current team can lose no more than 2 players.
No more than two? If teams can have only one player poached shouldn't it be no more than one?
Each new team can take one player from your team. Two new teams = two players your team can lose.
Haha that sounds remarkably simple when put in those terms.
Okay, so
1) No, 20 won't work
2) No, the new teams will have about 6 good draft picks to use or trade, and can poach 5 players. What about the rest of their lists?
Yeah, I wasn't too sure if I gave enough draft concessions or too many, I felt like I didn't give enough, but wanted to (initially) keep the numbers small so not to scare the other coaches.
There was also a good point about having to reduce the initial XV... I hadn't thought of that.
Keep the thoughts coming!
Not a fan of expanding to 20 teams as teams will have difficulties in fielding teams each week.
As an alternative and a little different from Memphs
Why not split into two conferences of 12 teams each.
Compete against each other to determine each Conference Premier and then Top 2 in Each Conference play off followed by Final.
Probably needs more work on it but just thinking out loud.
Quote from: Ringo on June 24, 2015, 07:34:46 PM
Not a fan of expanding to 20 teams as teams will have difficulties in fielding teams each week.
As an alternative and a little different from Memphs
Why not split into two conferences of 12 teams each.
Compete against each other to determine each Conference Premier and then Top 2 in Each Conference play off followed by Final.
Probably needs more work on it but just thinking out loud.
Doesn't this mean even more teams (12+12=24).
Or do you mean taking my idea of the two conference using the same rules and players but being separate to each other?
I reckon we could easily find another 18 WXV coaches if we needed to - WXV has always been the hardest league to get a top job in. Even I am a co-coach :P
Quote from: Memphistopheles on June 24, 2015, 07:40:21 PM
Quote from: Ringo on June 24, 2015, 07:34:46 PM
Not a fan of expanding to 20 teams as teams will have difficulties in fielding teams each week.
As an alternative and a little different from Memphs
Why not split into two conferences of 12 teams each.
Compete against each other to determine each Conference Premier and then Top 2 in Each Conference play off followed by Final.
Probably needs more work on it but just thinking out loud.
Doesn't this mean even more teams (12+12=24).
Or do you mean taking my idea of the two conference using the same rules and players but being separate to each other?
I reckon we could easily find another 18 WXV coaches if we needed to - WXV has always been the hardest league to get a top job in. Even I am a co-coach :P
Picked 12 so they could run to their conclusions playing finals and then into the Conference finals to finish season. Need to sort out the draw to ensure all works ok hence why I said need to work on it.
Is also an interesting idea Memph! I'd like it especially if it meant having an entirely new 18 coaches.
But, it might just end me having to administrate 36 coaches/teams. Would need another committed partner that I could easily co-ordinate with (*ahem* *probably only oz*).
We have been blessed with the fantastic coaching committee we currently have... I reckon finding 18 more would be pushing it. A concept like this would need the cohesion we have whilst doubling the players, and I think that's not within reach.
I also fear we would lose, (same 18 coaches or not), the attention/attachment/closeness with all the other teams (and even players) in the competition, which is a key unique element in our magnificent competition. Like, when I think of Scott Pendlebury, I think of Toronto. When I think Toronto, I think of great team that has lost momentum etc. And I think of roo boys :P
Quote from: Holz on June 24, 2015, 05:09:30 PM
Strongly opposed to a 20 team league.
In fact I think it should go down to a 16 team league. More teams means more inequality, more rules to try and fix that and in the end you have a complex comp with massive inequslity.
Always got to be different at Dublin.
Yeah I think if you want the comp to be more equal, 16 teams would be the way to go.
Quote from: Vinny on June 24, 2015, 05:43:13 PM
I don't want to be selfish but just saying, in a draft that is considerably weaker than previous years, Buenoes getting their first pick at 10 instead of 4 sets us back a fair bit and significantly reduces the value in what would have been one of our major trading pieces. Plus in allowing the new teams to poach, even though a few players from each team are exempt, it still allows to build a pretty damn solid core on top of all the high draft picks.
If people like it, I'm cool with it but not a fan personally at this stage.
And also this. Dildos, NDT, and Karen (Cairo for you simpletons) will lose a fair bit re value of draft picks for either getting young guns or trading for better players, so as Vinnamon said, from a selfish perspective it kinda bends us over and starts thrusting pretty hard.
what about a real reserves league with different players not like current one
the bottom four teams of the seniors get pushed to the juniors and the top four junior teams get pushed to seniors
teams playing each other might have same players but this was already happening in memphis idea
assistant coaches would be first in line to coach juniors if they wanted
Just clone all the players with #9 on their back (since it's the best number for AFL players). Introduce another GAJ, Sloane, D.Beams, Nic Nat, Stringer, Goddard, Cripps, Cotchin, Gray, Swallow, Scully, Burgoyne, Trengove, James Kelly etc into the competition. Like a mirror match in the original Mortal Kombat.
Quote from: Purple 77 on June 24, 2015, 07:48:40 PM
I also fear we would lose, (same 18 coaches or not), the attention/attachment/closeness with all the other teams (and even players) in the competition, which is a key unique element in our magnificent competition. Like, when I think of Scott Pendlebury, I think of Toronto. When I think Toronto, I think of great team that has lost momentum etc. And I think of roo boys :P
There was absolutely no need for you to turn that into a dig at Toronto, I'm beginning to feel like a slightly more successful Cairo nowadays :P
Quote from: meow meow on June 24, 2015, 08:08:24 PM
Just clone all the players with #9 on their back (since it's the best number for AFL players). Introduce another GAJ, Sloane, D.Beams, Nic Nat, Stringer, Goddard, Cripps, Cotchin, Gray, Swallow, Scully, Burgoyne, Trengove, James Kelly etc into the competition. Like a mirror match in the original Mortal Kombat.
Who gets Jesse White?
Quote from: roo boys! on June 24, 2015, 08:26:03 PM
There was absolutely no need for you to turn that into a dig at Toronto, I'm beginning to feel like a slightly more successful Cairo nowadays :P
:(
Quote from: roo boys! on June 24, 2015, 08:26:03 PM
Who gets Jesse White?
Toronto. :P
Quote from: Vinny on June 24, 2015, 05:43:13 PM
I don't want to be selfish but just saying, in a draft that is considerably weaker than previous years, Buenoes getting their first pick at 10 instead of 4 sets us back a fair bit and significantly reduces the value in what would have been one of our major trading pieces. Plus in allowing the new teams to poach, even though a few players from each team are exempt, it still allows to build a pretty damn solid core on top of all the high draft picks.
If people like it, I'm cool with it but not a fan personally at this stage.
its not selfish its the truth. How can dillos ever bounce back if they cant throught the draft. they should have two top 5 picks. look what brayshaw is doing to help them be competetvie. Got to fix the weak teams first before putting more in.
So I decided to have a quick play around and see what sort of players I could get from each of the current teams if I were to be managing a new team. Keep in mind that this is just a rough idea and don't be offended if I missed one of your boys as I really just skimmed over each of the teams mainly from here: http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,99835.0.html
According to current ladder:
Quote from: Purple 77 on June 24, 2015, 03:20:17 PM
First, the top 4 can nominate 5 players that are un-poachable.
1 Dublin Destroyers (J.Selwood, R.Sloane, T.Goldstein, D.Martin, L.Franklin)
2 Paris Nice Lyon Reindeers (M.Priddis, C.Wingard, D.Shiel, M.Lobbe, L.Hodge)
3 Christchurch Saints (J.Elliot, H.Hartlett, D.Zorko, B.Gibbs, L.Picken)
4 Moscow Spetnaz (D.Heppell, C.Ward, J.O'Meara, N.Natanui, R.Gray)
Quote from: Purple 77 on June 24, 2015, 03:20:17 PM
5th-8th can nominate 6.
5 Mexico City Suns (T.Rockliff, S.Sidebottom, B.Deledio, J.Lewis, K.Simpson, I.Maric)
6 New York Revolution (M.Liberatore, J.Macrae, H.Bennell, JJ,Kennedy, K.Kolodashnij, H.Shaw)
7 Berlin Brewers (N.Fyfe, J.Steven, A.Treloar, M.Hibberd, J.Viney, C.Dixon)
8 Tokyo Samurai (L.Dahlhaus, K.Jack, S.Motlop, L.Parker, G.Ibbotson, J.Johannisen)
Quote from: Purple 77 on June 24, 2015, 03:20:17 PM
9th-12th can nominate 7.
9 Beijing Thunder (O.Wines, M.Kreuzer, J.Polec, L.Neale, J.Caddy, J.Aish, M.Jeansch)
10 London Royals (D.Hannerbery, J.McVeigh, B.Stanton, M.LeCras, D.Rampe, D.Pearce, S.Edwards)
11 Toronto Wolves (S.Pendlebury, A.Swallow, R.Griffin, B.Cunnington, P.Ryder, J.Ziebell, I.Smith)
12 Pacific Islanders (M.Barlow, J.Redden, T.Mitchell, S.Gibson, J.Martin, C.Guthrie, M.Bontompelli)
Quote from: Purple 77 on June 24, 2015, 03:20:17 PM
13th-16th can nominate 8.
13 Cape Town Cobras (JP.Kennedy, T.Cotchin, D.Tyson. S.Martin, S.Selwood, J.Cameron, S.Higgin, A.Everitt)
14 Rio de Janeiro Jaguars (B.Houli, G.Ablett, M.Murphy, D.Zaharakis, S.Jacobs, T.Walker, E.Yeo, P.Cripps)
15 Seoul Magpies (P.Dangerfield, B.Ellis, T.Greene, T.Langdon, TJ.Lynch, D.Swallow, C.Sutcliffe, L.Whitfield)
16 Buenos Aires Armadillos (B.Hill, E.Wood, T.Adams, M.Crouch, M.Wallis, J.Schultz, L.Jong, D.Armfield)
Quote from: Purple 77 on June 24, 2015, 03:20:17 PM
17th and 18th can nominate 9.
17 Cairo Sands (B.Smith, N.Smith, D.Beams, D.Prestia, P.Hanley, M.Hucthings, L.Dunstan, S.Mumford, J.Mcgovern)
18 New Delhi Tigers (S.Coniglio, Z.Clarke, R.Conca, J.Darling, A.Gaff, C.Masten, V.Michie, T.Nicholls, I.Heeney)
So with all those players being exempted here is the list of some players for the easy pickings(Dublin's list):
G.Birchall
A.Rance
J.Gunston
J.Roughead
J.Watson
T.Boak
D.Mundy
T.Mcdonald
N.Jones
J.Westhoff
C.Rioli
N.Malceski
J.Harborw
J.Billings
T.Scully
The Package
S.Mitchell
M.Boyd
N.Hrovat
W.Minson
P.Seedsman
L.Greenwood
Lol this is just a list from the top 4 teams and it is already loaded.
Add 5 players from this list to picks 2, 6, 8, 12, 14, 18 and that will be.....
Probably almost beating a couple of the lower teams already...
Quote from: Toga on June 24, 2015, 10:42:14 PM
Probably almost beating a couple of the lower teams already...
just alf that list each with massive draft concession would have both in the top 8
Cheers for not poaching Arma from me mate :P
Just reminding that no more than 2 players from each team would be poached. But yeah, can't just introduce two non competitive teams.
Still a little concerned with 20 teams with the possible struggle at times to name a team.
Using my team as an example
I have 13 players yet to play a game due to injury or rookie listed or in some cases eg Giles not being picked,
A further 9 players have played 6 games or less.
So basically 50% of my list have played 0 or less than 6 games. So you can see some weeks with injuries as well only had 18 players to pick from and then had to play OOP.
Suspect most mid tier teams will be in a similar position hence my reservations about extending the competition to 20 and suggesting 2 conferences involving 24 teams. When the conferences play off it is possible for teams to be similar as each conference will have the same availability of players.
Will however work with what is decided but just expressing the concern with 20 teams.
Quote from: Purple 77 on June 24, 2015, 07:48:40 PM
Is also an interesting idea Memph! I'd like it especially if it meant having an entirely new 18 coaches.
But, it might just end me having to administrate 36 coaches/teams. Would need another committed partner that I could easily co-ordinate with (*ahem* *probably only oz*).
I might be open to putting my hand up for this perhaps - I'd have to see how I'm placed (could depend on whether I get a new job I applied for)
This would be the biggest issue - finding a league admin to help run the second conference and work with you. But, I'm sure there's someone around that could help do it, especially if they had a handy spreadsheet like you seem to have.
Quote from: Purple 77 on June 24, 2015, 07:48:40 PM
We have been blessed with the fantastic coaching committee we currently have... I reckon finding 18 more would be pushing it. A concept like this would need the cohesion we have whilst doubling the players, and I think that's not within reach.
I disagree with you here. Every time a World XV coaching spot comes up there are loads of applicants. Some of our current teams have co-coaches and assistants who might perhaps be inclined to split in to two teams as well. The hardest challenge I think would be finding 18 coach as committed and active as the current bunch - but that should come over time (we can replace the crap ones until we get there).
Quote from: Purple 77 on June 24, 2015, 07:48:40 PM
I also fear we would lose, (same 18 coaches or not), the attention/attachment/closeness with all the other teams (and even players) in the competition, which is a key unique element in our magnificent competition. Like, when I think of Scott Pendlebury, I think of Toronto. When I think Toronto, I think of great team that has lost momentum etc. And I think of roo boys :P
The unique side of things I agree with but, it can't really be helped.
However, I don't think we would lose the attention as heading in the the second season with two conferences we would then have our own 'Champions League' which would spark people's interest.
The inter-conference competitions could extend further than that - instead of an Australian Conference we could even have a second lot of 18 World teams and they could play throughout the season and slot in to the Africonia, Europe, Asia and America leagues and pad out the AAP Alliance and EurAsia.
Imagine having a full-blooded 18 team EurAsia league and the same with the AAP Alliance - winning that would be even more meaningful then.
Or 9 team Europe, Africonia, Asia and America ladders - Dublin might dominate World I conference but they could find the competition they desire from the other Europe teams in World II. I'm sure some of the more creative heads in here could help us come up with some more competitions/ideas to keep the interest levels high. Plus there's a whole new 18 coaches who would add to the Worlds community!
It might even require three admins perhaps. One to do Worlds I, one to do Worlds II and one to run the Inter-League competitions.
I like the Champs League idea. Its kinda been tried (although we could do it a lot better) between the four AXV, WXV, BXV and EXV. I was going to try and do it properly but just don't have the time to run it. Personally, if we were going to do a champs league then inter-comp would be my vote
A true and legitimate Champions League would be amazing; I still would like to see one amongst Worlds, Euros, British and Asia.
In regards to finding coaches, I've always been quite proud that a Worlds position is always in demand. I have no doubts we'd find a dozen more committed coaches, but it's the last few positions that I doubt we'd find the people we're looking for.
Since it was pointed out, I'm concerned that we won't consistently have 15 players available for 20 teams each and every week. I'm also not at all keen to reduce the field to 14... its called the World XVs. I won't change that.
But, I remember oz posing the idea that we give 30 points to players that played in the VFL/SANFL/WAFL/NEAFL, and 60 points to the players named in their teams best players. This idea can even be extended into the Worlds reserves competition. At the moment, the best reserves teams are simply the ones that have the most players play in the AFL. However, by introducing the 30/60 point concept, we can even up the numbers... even making the teams able to field 10 or 15 players max, so that the reserves competition becomes a bit more fair and, well, more of a competition.
At the moment, we have 396 AFL players play per week (18*22). 270 of these players play in Worlds (18*15) every week.
Under my 20-team proposal, we would need 300 players (18*20) every week. Who knows how many AFL players play in either the AFL level or the one below, but it would be in excess of 500 surely? This way, fielding 15 players per team shouldn't be a problem.
In regards to teams not fielding 15 (basically us)... I guess this is where a low Max Cap forces depth has to be traded to those that have the room. Because I can't remember, how long has the cap been at the level it is?
Quote from: Purple 77 on June 25, 2015, 10:30:28 AM
But, I remember oz posing the idea that we give 30 points to players that played in the VFL/SANFL/WAFL/NEAFL, and 60 points to the players named in their teams best players. This idea can even be extended into the Worlds reserves competition. At the moment, the best reserves teams are simply the ones that have the most players play in the AFL. However, by introducing the 30/60 point concept, we can even up the numbers... even making the teams able to field 10 or 15 players max, so that the reserves competition becomes a bit more fair and, well, more of a competition.
Not a fan of this plan. It's really getting away from the player scoring SuperCoach element of the game by giving players a blanket 30 points points for playing in the reserves (or 60 if they're in the best).
I think this comp should only be based on AFL scores.
Also who's responsible for checking which players are in the best each week in the reserves - that would be a lot of work. I wouldn't have time to do it for the Cape Town players that's for sure. Also do those competitions update their scores as regularly as the AFL? In other words would we be waiting ages on Mon/Tues to find out final NEAFL best players?
Unfortunately I can't see expanding the current competition past 18 teams being viable which is why I suggested a whole new league/conference.
Also RE: Champions League - I can't see it working properly either with Worlds, Euros, Asians and British. The different scoring systems make it too hard - someone will always be complaining about the scaling system. You'd be much better off expanding each of the competitions to have four of their own leagues with the same scoring and then having Champions League matches between those leagues I think.
But, that's going in to the bigger picture. Probably would involve creating an actual game and promoting it to a wider audience, not just running the XVs comp in a forum. Something I have been thinking about doing actually but, haven't had the time for it.
Been doing some work on my suggestion and I do not care if it is rejected or not but putting the detail out there.
We split into to a Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere Conference of 12 teams each
Each Conference runs their own competition
Play each other once
Then Top 6 and bottom 6 play off for final positions. (16 weeks competition)
Top 2 from both conferences then play off over 2 weeks to decide championship.
During Byes have a 3 match series Northern Hemisphere v Southern Hemisphere
This accounts for 21 weeks of the competition meaning no finals etc in final round avoiding the general soreness.
Players from teams that change conference eg Dublin will go to the pool for the Southern Conference allowing the 3 new teams to draft from.
Suggested Teams using our existing 18
Northern Hemisphere
Dublin
Paris
Moscow
New York
Berlin
Tokyo
Bejing
London
Toronto
Southern Hemisphere
Christchurch
Mexico*
Pacific
Capetown
Rio De Janeiro
Seoul*
Buenos Airies
Cairo*
New Delhi*
* have taken a bit of licence here but these are teams closest equator and may want to relocate.
Allows 3 new teams to be brought into each conference.
Team lists with reduction in teams to 12 to be increased to 48 (including 4 rookies) which will assist teams with depth and match AFL lists. Also maybe give the three teams a list of 50 which must be reduced to 48 in year 3 similar to concessions given to GWS and Suns.
With the establishment of the 9 team conference should mean that maximum of 405 players become available in each conference for the three new teams to draft from.
The three new teams to draft 45 players initially as well from these player so they equate to existing teams with remaining players to go into drafts for all to pick from to increase lists to 48.
feel free to tear apart comment amend.
Quote from: Ricochet on June 25, 2015, 10:39:57 AM
In regards to teams not fielding 15 (basically us)... I guess this is where a low Max Cap forces depth has to be traded to those that have the room. Because I can't remember, how long has the cap been at the level it is?
Im not sure about other teams but im going over the cap with 20 players I have zero depth. Arguably less depth than some of the bottom teans.
1-2 more injuries and at some stage I eould struggle for 15. There is a reason I dropedwinjury prone players.
Ok, I'm going to step down from the 20 teams push. I don't think its quite possible yet. Thanks all for the discussion about it, the passion riled up is just fantastic!
@Ringo, not sure I quite understand the use of 24 teams properly. So are you proposing that the 6 new teams be formed from the strongest in each conference? Or are some players doubled up?
To explain Purps we will be introducing 3 new teams in each conference.
So basically Players in teams in the Northern conference become available for drafting by the Southern Conference new teams as well as left overs going to draft pool and vice versa. Because of this the three teams coming in to each conference should be reasonably strong.
Really do not see any real issues with having common players across the conferences as they will be playing within the conference and with the champion overall that should be ok as well as there would differences in the teams but some players may be the same.
Hope that explains it a little better
Ah yes I see now, is an interesting concept!
Thank You - just came up with it as a way to increasing teams without decreasing the number of players available to teams and helping teams have the ability to name teams. left over players in each conference will assist with the extra 3 players allowed. To make it interesting maybe keep the cap the same making the drafting a strategy to keep below cap.
Just thought I'd chime in with the fact that the poll is basically 7-10 atm in favour of keeping as is. :P
But bear in mind Poll was based on increasing to 20 teams which Purps has admitted would not work. I voted for some changes which is why I put forward my suggestion which allows an expansion of teams into conferences without effecting depth.
Honestly, I prefer following the model of the AFL. Gets a bit trickier when we have more teams than the competition we are following does and it mainly comes back to ruckman. Screw those guys.