Playing around with an equalisation idea
--> PACIFIC WARRIORS
(pothead & Jayman)
[A merger of Pacific and Wellington]
Select a squad of 44 from the Pacific and Wellington teams (22 each)
Example of the new best XV
D: C Hampton, S Dempster, L Spurr, T Mohr
M: M Murphy, J Redden, B Deledio, I Smith
R: H McIntosh
F: J Howe, J Elliott, T Walker, M Hurley
I: M Leuenberger, S Gibson
--> BEIJING TIGERS
(Toga and Master Q and Ricochet and Elephants)
[A merger of Beijing and New Delhi]
Select a squad of 44 from the Beijing and New Delhi teams (22 each)
Example of the new best XV
D: H Taylor, C Hooker, W Langford, E Yeo
M: O Wines, M Duncan, T Greene, L Montagna
R: M Kreuzer
F: E Betts, S Mayes, R Palmer, J Podsiadly
I: L Shiels, A Gaff
I think that works out pretty neatly, except that Beijing Tigers now have 4 coaches :/
These teams would not not get ANY draft picks (unless they needed numbers to complete a full list for unexpected delistment)
Neither of those best XVs are earth shattering, but are so much more competitive.
So I wondered instead of stopping there, we add 2 more teams:
--> CHRISTCHURCH SAINTS
(kilbluff1985)
[A new team, getting kb back in the game]
--> MUMBAI ELEPHANTS
(elephants and Ricochet)
[A new team, unless Master Q and Toga want to swap]
And, now this is the controversial part, have what I deem 'surplus' players removed from other teams to complete the lists.
The Christchurch Saints would get the remainder of the Pacific/Wellington players.
The Mumbai Elephants the remainder of the Beijing/New Delhi players.
Christchurch and Mumbai would have picks 1 and 2 [which they'd have to use on the draft]
Picks 3 to 8 would be the current picks of teams 14th to 9th
Picks 9 to 36 [28 picks] in total will be allocated to Christchurch and Mumbai. EACH team will be required to trade 2 players for 2 picks to these teams. None of these picks can be used by Mumbai or Christchurch, and if a team hasn't traded players, I'll take players away based on what I think is fair and/or surplus to that teams requirements.
Really think that this will radically equalise the competition?
Just thinking out loud right now...
Genius ;D
i like your creative thinking Ossman
a couple of questions though
if trading to them for thier picks what is deemed ok?
my point is ofc they won't want say Angus Graham
but in saying that if most teams don't want draft picks (which looking at the trade talk thread most want to trade them away).....if say KB is coach and we at PNL or the other teams have to trade too him what if he doesn't like what we offer
i.e i know he wouldn't want angus graham but what if say we offered heath grundy and he didn't like it?
who says what pick is worth what i mean what if most say ok i'll trad these 2 depth players for pick 37 and 38 but most have this idea etc
Yeah good point
might make it so those players overall need to fit a certain profile...
Eg a 100 ave mid, 75 ave def, etc
Really up for better ideas than that though
id much rather just take players from teams.... but that could prove unpopular
Wait so what players do the two new teams get from Beijing/NDT and the Pacific/WW lists? When you say they will get the "remainder" of the lists?
What about us teams ranked between 8-14 this would really hurt us as would see the combined teams zoom past us and we also lose our yools to try and bridge our gap to the top 8.
Quote from: Toga on August 17, 2014, 05:26:09 PM
Wait so what players do the two new teams get from Beijing/NDT and the Pacific/WW lists? When you say they will get the "remainder" of the lists?
Also up for discussion, but whatever players don't go to the merged team
Quote from: ossie85 on August 17, 2014, 05:27:57 PM
Quote from: Toga on August 17, 2014, 05:26:09 PM
Wait so what players do the two new teams get from Beijing/NDT and the Pacific/WW lists? When you say they will get the "remainder" of the lists?
Also up for discussion, but whatever players don't go to the merged team
Righto, so how would the players going to the merged team be decided on?
Sorry for the questions, just trying to get it straight in my head :P
I'm all for equalisation Oz but this would totally ruin our plans to strengthen our side that we have been working on for the last month or 2.
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 17, 2014, 05:27:24 PM
What about us teams ranked between 8-14 this would really hurt us as would see the combined teams zoom past us and we also lose our yools to try and bridge our gap to the top 8.
Quote from: AaronKirk on August 17, 2014, 05:34:16 PM
I'm all for equalisation Oz but this would totally ruin our plans to strengthen our side that we have been working on for the last month or 2.
I tend to agree, my first preference would actually be to create two divisions and let time sought it out. Way too many one sided games atm
Div 1 top 10
Div 2 bottom 8
Quote from: ossie85 on August 17, 2014, 05:36:34 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 17, 2014, 05:27:24 PM
What about us teams ranked between 8-14 this would really hurt us as would see the combined teams zoom past us and we also lose our yools to try and bridge our gap to the top 8.
Quote from: AaronKirk on August 17, 2014, 05:34:16 PM
I'm all for equalisation Oz but this would totally ruin our plans to strengthen our side that we have been working on for the last month or 2.
I tend to agree, my first preference would actually be to create two divisions and let time sought it out. Way too many one sided games atm
Div 1 top 10
Div 2 bottom 8
Will never, ever support that.
Sorry for the negativity... watching Melbourne atm. Feel I should give my thoughts in this 3 hour window every week, because I'd say what I really think.
I'm up for equalisation. Would prefer a 18 club comp rather than the current 14 club comp.
Yeah I'm really starting to like the sounds of a tiered competition. While this merger idea is relatively strong in theory, I think it could be a bit rough to the teams already existing, especially those in the lower half of the ladder. Pacific Warriors and Beijing Tigers would certainly ruffle a few feathers with that squad which would make things hard for sides from 8th or so down as JB says.
I say we revisited the idea of tiers.
Quote from: roo boys! on August 17, 2014, 05:44:26 PM
Yeah I'm really starting to like the sounds of a tiered competition. While this merger idea is relatively strong in theory, I think it could be a bit rough to the teams already existing, especially those in the lower half of the ladder. Pacific Warriors and Beijing Tigers would certainly ruffle a few feathers with that squad which would make things hard for sides from 8th or so down as JB says.
I say we revisited the idea of tiers.
Is it fair to the bottom 4 now? The lists the coaches have?
Think the other bottom 10 clubs should cop it, have more of an even comp.
I like the idea of equalisation too, but as AK said it would be brutal right now
JB also raises a valid point about how these new teams could overtake the 8-14 range teams, so here's an idea
You introduce the new teams as suggested, but AFTER the trade period
That way, the rest of us can continue to trade etc, then the new teams can be formed after that
We would need to ensure the new team coaches who currently coach the active teams you are looking to merge don't sandbag, but they wouldn't, because they will continue to talk trades as they still need to improve their lists
So, this merger after the trade period works for me :)
I like this.
FYI I'm not keen on Christchurch Saints as a team name
Saints don't do very well in this sport :P
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on August 17, 2014, 05:59:01 PM
FYI I'm not keen on Christchurch Saints as a team name
Saints don't do very well in this sport :P
I'm sure the names are somewhat up for debate. :P
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on August 17, 2014, 05:59:01 PM
FYI I'm not keen on Christchurch Saints as a team name
Saints don't do very well in this sport :P
Christchurch Sheeps?
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 17, 2014, 06:04:16 PM
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on August 17, 2014, 05:59:01 PM
FYI I'm not keen on Christchurch Saints as a team name
Saints don't do very well in this sport :P
Christchurch Sheeps?
Sheep is the plural of sheep. :P
Basically if this goes ahead we can throw our deals out of the door, which will completely screw New York.
So if this goes ahead I will not be a co-coach at New York. All this will do is strengthen the 2 lower clubs, screw the next 3-4 teams above them and the status quo remains for the rest.
Think the priority picks this year will go a long way to helping them if they use them right. Look last year pot got deledio with #1 so if the teams want to start winning then they can if they make the right trades. We cant have mergers everytime a team goes shower.
Quote from: AaronKirk on August 17, 2014, 06:06:21 PM
Basically if this goes ahead we can throw our deals out of the door, which will completely screw New York.
So if this goes ahead I will not be a co-coach at New York. All this will do is strengthen the 2 lower clubs, screw the next 3-4 teams above them and the status quo remains for the rest.
You're not going anywhere :P
Thoughts on my suggestion of doing this AFTER the trade period?
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 17, 2014, 06:06:34 PM
Think the priority picks this year will go a long way to helping them if they use them right. Look last year pot got deledio with #1 so if the teams want to start winning then they can if they make the right trades. We cant have mergers everytime a team goes shower.
This sums it up.
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 17, 2014, 06:08:03 PM
Quote from: AaronKirk on August 17, 2014, 06:06:21 PM
Basically if this goes ahead we can throw our deals out of the door, which will completely screw New York.
So if this goes ahead I will not be a co-coach at New York. All this will do is strengthen the 2 lower clubs, screw the next 3-4 teams above them and the status quo remains for the rest.
You're not going anywhere :P
Thoughts on my suggestion of doing this AFTER the trade period?
Look at the proposal for the draft picks from Oz. We would have to scrap the deals we have done.
How about this.....
instead of any kind of poaching, the two new teams will get the first 2 picks of each draft round
AND
10 retired WXV players each. These players will have a score allocated to them based on a random selection of previous scores they did. Can only play if they can't field a team?
Btw nobody has any deals atm officially
No, this is not needed. The teams will balance themselves out over time when the kids that Pacific, Beijing and NDT have start hitting their primes and the old guys that the Suns and Dongs have start dropping off.
There's always going to be bad teams, let the coaches fix it with smart trading and drafting.
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 17, 2014, 06:04:16 PM
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on August 17, 2014, 05:59:01 PM
FYI I'm not keen on Christchurch Saints as a team name
Saints don't do very well in this sport :P
Christchurch Sheeps?
http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/zoomify/10593/weevils
toughest beetles going around in New Zealand lol
Quote from: Jayman on August 17, 2014, 06:12:08 PM
No, this is not needed. The teams will balance themselves out over time when the kids that Pacific, Beijing and NDT have start hitting their primes and the old guys that the Suns and Dongs have start dropping off.
There's always going to be bad teams, let the coaches fix it with smart trading and drafting.
I agree, but am really hating the games where teams have basically no chance of winning
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 17, 2014, 06:06:34 PM
Think the priority picks this year will go a long way to helping them if they use them right. Look last year pot got deledio with #1 so if the teams want to start winning then they can if they make the right trades. We cant have mergers everytime a team goes shower.
I was thinking this as well but judging by some of the deals offered to us for Pick #1 which were quite frankly ridiculous, I'm not sure we'll be able to get our hands on a player of the calibre of Deledio this year. We will see though I guess
Quote from: ossie85 on August 17, 2014, 06:14:16 PM
I agree, but am really hating the games where teams have basically no chance of winning
I'm sure the coaches are even more
I'd say the easiest, and most effective way to fix this is to see if all the other coaches will agree, but give the bottom teams more higher picks then usual
Come up with a proposal for a new draft pick order, one that will genuinely help the bottom teams, but wont hurt the mid range teams too much, then put it to all coaches
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 17, 2014, 06:16:42 PM
Quote from: ossie85 on August 17, 2014, 06:14:16 PM
I agree, but am really hating the games where teams have basically no chance of winning
I'm sure the coaches are even more
I'd say the easiest, and most effective way to fix this is to see if all the other coaches will agree, but give the bottom teams more higher picks then usual
Come up with a proposal for a new draft pick order, one that will genuinely help the bottom teams, but wont hurt the mid range teams too much, then put it to all coaches
Well, I'm happy to hear proposals RD.....
better picks doesn't guarantee it will help teams improve though
This would just flowering ruin WXVs.
So what if there's games with teams having like no chance of winning? Demons have like no chance of beating Hawks right now. e.g. Pacific have no chance beating pumas now, but in 5 years they might once their kids develop, same as Pacific.
Let them merge now? These teams are full of kids, they'll be 10x better than any teams we have now. Buenos Aires are probably going to be terrible next year. We're going to be a bottom 2-4 team very soon. Can we merge with somebody when all our players retire?
When does it end? As soon as a team ends up going terribly they merge? Start now and it never ends.
Right now the bottom teams have 4 wins in the AFL. In worlds our bottom have 3 wins but in less games played. This is meant to represent AFL and currently it's doing it perfectly.
I don't see what the big problem is. My BXVs team came 2nd last, IDEC, we'll be better in the future.
How about something less drastic like if you make finals you dont get a first round pick? This would also make finals teams more likely to trade the lower teams a player for a pick
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on August 17, 2014, 06:19:33 PM
better picks doesn't guarantee it will help teams improve though
Coaches using the picks right should.
I was speaking with Ele recently and told him that I actually LOL'd after looking at their team for the first time. How that team even exists has me stumped, but those poor blokes have no chance
Now, what if they had something like 4 of the Top 10 draft picks? I'm sure they could get use a few of them to get genuine A graders from other teams
The trades would need to be used to get Guns from other sides, but also invest in the lists future too
At the end of the day, every league has teams that just struggle all the time, but we can at least try to bridge the gap, and I don't see any other way besides giving them more draft picks
Any other way, like merging etc is most likely going to be a band aid solution, and will effect other teams
There is no quick fix
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 17, 2014, 06:23:06 PM
How about something less drastic like if you make finals you dont get a first round pick? This would also make finals teams more likely to trade the lower teams a player for a pick
I don't mind that idea.
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 17, 2014, 06:25:16 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 17, 2014, 06:23:06 PM
How about something less drastic like if you make finals you dont get a first round pick? This would also make finals teams more likely to trade the lower teams a player for a pick
I don't mind that idea.
I'm sure that proposal would win 10 votes to 8... but something worth considering...
.... not fair for this trade period though really.
Quote from: Toga on August 17, 2014, 06:16:31 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 17, 2014, 06:06:34 PM
Think the priority picks this year will go a long way to helping them if they use them right. Look last year pot got deledio with #1 so if the teams want to start winning then they can if they make the right trades. We cant have mergers everytime a team goes shower.
I was thinking this as well but judging by some of the deals offered to us for Pick #1 which were quite frankly ridiculous, I'm not sure we'll be able to get our hands on a player of the calibre of Deledio this year. We will see though I guess
I'm happy if teams don't want Pick 1 and are trading away their picks for chips. I know of at least two teams who are going to have terrible depth in 1-2 seasons. What happens then? Just merge them?
The issue is the majority of teams all want short term success when in reality only one team can win the flag... if teams don't give a crap about the future and picks well that's fine. The bottom "4" clubs are going to be stuck with their great young players, and they will dominate in 5 years if the comp is still going by then.
I can't speak for the other bottom clubs, but I actually think we will be more competitive next year.
Quote from: Master Q on August 17, 2014, 06:28:29 PM
I can't speak for the other bottom clubs, but I actually think we will be more competitive next year.
Me too, if people trade fairly
Quote from: Toga on August 17, 2014, 06:29:18 PM
Quote from: Master Q on August 17, 2014, 06:28:29 PM
I can't speak for the other bottom clubs, but I actually think we will be more competitive next year.
Me too, if people trade fairly
Same with New York. If New York had 4 forwards that play each week we probably would have made finals this year. Lost a lot of games because we played 1, sometimes 2 players OOP.
Quote from: ossie85 on August 17, 2014, 06:26:04 PM
.... not fair for this trade period though really.
I don't think any solution will be fair for this period. Whatever is decided, it needs to be with the thoughts of being implemented next year/after the trade period
Quote from: Master Q on August 17, 2014, 06:28:29 PM
I can't speak for the other bottom clubs, but I actually think we will be more competitive next year.
Me too. AK especially, and I have been working really hard and tirelessly on improving, and I think our team is going to improve next year too :)
Quote from: Toga on August 17, 2014, 06:29:18 PM
Quote from: Master Q on August 17, 2014, 06:28:29 PM
I can't speak for the other bottom clubs, but I actually think we will be more competitive next year.
Me too, if people trade fairly
I think I know who you're talking about :P
I don't watch Worlds that much, but how has it gotten so uneven? I know in British it's far more even the bottoms can beat the top teams on their day...
Quote from: whatlez on August 17, 2014, 06:37:43 PM
I don't watch Worlds that much, but how has it gotten so uneven? I know in British it's far more even the bottoms can beat the top teams on their day...
Questionable coaching by coaches that, for the most part, are not involved any more.
It is a similar situation to EXV. All the teams in EXV are even except for the Dinos who literally go into the game with no chance of winning. Holz is looking into a way to fix this but not sure some will be happy with the best way to do it IMO.
Like your thinking Os but do not think this is needed. Priority picks should help and it is more than likely that coaches of those teams have a succession plan or way in which they want to rebuild. So they probably do not want to just concede and merge. Think they will be fine in time, just need to make some good trades and draft well.
Quote from: Toga on August 17, 2014, 06:38:59 PM
Quote from: whatlez on August 17, 2014, 06:37:43 PM
I don't watch Worlds that much, but how has it gotten so uneven? I know in British it's far more even the bottoms can beat the top teams on their day...
Questionable coaching by coaches that, for the most part, are not involved any more.
for the most part? The coaches that stuffed up teams are long gone. :P
Quote from: Torp on August 17, 2014, 06:53:37 PM
Quote from: Toga on August 17, 2014, 06:38:59 PM
Quote from: whatlez on August 17, 2014, 06:37:43 PM
I don't watch Worlds that much, but how has it gotten so uneven? I know in British it's far more even the bottoms can beat the top teams on their day...
Questionable coaching by coaches that, for the most part, are not involved any more.
for the most part? The coaches that stuffed up teams are long gone. :P
Not really. You stuffed up NDT, yet you're still here :P
Quote from: Jayman on August 17, 2014, 07:06:50 PM
Quote from: Torp on August 17, 2014, 06:53:37 PM
Quote from: Toga on August 17, 2014, 06:38:59 PM
Quote from: whatlez on August 17, 2014, 06:37:43 PM
I don't watch Worlds that much, but how has it gotten so uneven? I know in British it's far more even the bottoms can beat the top teams on their day...
Questionable coaching by coaches that, for the most part, are not involved any more.
for the most part? The coaches that stuffed up teams are long gone. :P
Not really. You stuffed up NDT, yet you're still here :P
I didn't stuff up NDT, Fisher did. I wanted to take full control of the team so Fisher wouldn't continue with deals that were crazy. Sadly for some reason that wasn't allowed.
Quote from: Torp on August 17, 2014, 07:36:30 PM
Quote from: Jayman on August 17, 2014, 07:06:50 PM
Quote from: Torp on August 17, 2014, 06:53:37 PM
Quote from: Toga on August 17, 2014, 06:38:59 PM
Quote from: whatlez on August 17, 2014, 06:37:43 PM
I don't watch Worlds that much, but how has it gotten so uneven? I know in British it's far more even the bottoms can beat the top teams on their day...
Questionable coaching by coaches that, for the most part, are not involved any more.
for the most part? The coaches that stuffed up teams are long gone. :P
Not really. You stuffed up NDT, yet you're still here :P
I didn't stuff up NDT, Fisher did. I wanted to take full control of the team so Fisher wouldn't continue with deals that were crazy. Sadly for some reason that wasn't allowed.
Pretty sure both coaches have to agree on a trade. On co-coach stuffs up, so does the other.
Quote from: Master Q on August 17, 2014, 07:43:18 PM
Quote from: Torp on August 17, 2014, 07:36:30 PM
Quote from: Jayman on August 17, 2014, 07:06:50 PM
Quote from: Torp on August 17, 2014, 06:53:37 PM
Quote from: Toga on August 17, 2014, 06:38:59 PM
Quote from: whatlez on August 17, 2014, 06:37:43 PM
I don't watch Worlds that much, but how has it gotten so uneven? I know in British it's far more even the bottoms can beat the top teams on their day...
Questionable coaching by coaches that, for the most part, are not involved any more.
for the most part? The coaches that stuffed up teams are long gone. :P
Not really. You stuffed up NDT, yet you're still here :P
I didn't stuff up NDT, Fisher did. I wanted to take full control of the team so Fisher wouldn't continue with deals that were crazy. Sadly for some reason that wasn't allowed.
Pretty sure both coaches have to agree on a trade. On co-coach stuffs up, so does the other.
it wasn't like that then, he made trades I didn't even hear about. So does that work the same way for cheating for draft picks? If so firing Tbag was quite unfair.
Two tiered Comp
Division 1:
Dublin, Sao Paulo, Mexico City, Buenos Aires, Moscow, Cape Town, PNL, Toronto, Cairo, Berlin
^ aka the teams that have made finals the last 2 years
Play each other home & away. Top 4 make the finals. Bottom 2 relegated.
Division 2:
London, Seoul, Tokyo, New York, Wellington, New Delhi, Pacific, Beijing
Play each other 3 times (home, away, neutral). No finals. Top 2 promoted.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH TEAMS THAT ONLY WIN THREE GAMES IN THE SEASON.
THAT'S LIFE
WE DON'T NEED flowerING TIERS.
Quote from: Nails on August 17, 2014, 07:53:16 PM
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH TEAMS THAT ONLY WIN THREE GAMES IN THE SEASON.
THAT'S LIFE
WE DON'T NEED flowerING TIERS.
I firmly feel that equalisation can occur by picks. Think the idea that JB raised needs further development.
This is thinking out loud and can be debated.
Round 1 Teams finshing 15 - 18 based on finishing order
Ropund 2 Teams finishing 11 - 18 based on finishing order
Round 3. Teams finishing 5 - 18 based on finishing order
Round 4. Teams finishing 1 - 18 based on finishing order.
With not having a pick till the late 30's Top 4 teams will have to trade for early picks if they want to build depth and this mean giving up a high scoring pick for early picks thus strengthening the bottom teams. With this system not sure whether to also allow Priority picks.
Not a fan of a 2 tiered system at all.
Whilst there are lopsided mtaches as you say how many would be the result of injuries or in Londons case unable to field a full team in position eg no Ruck.
Agree with Ringo, as that's the suggestion I was talking about earlier on, but like the idea Ringo has in terms of who gets what trades
Os, I know you love to always make changes (You should get a job on the AFL Rule Committee hehehe) but Draft Picks is the only way to go
As Ringo said, the better teams will offer good players to get earlier picks, and the poorer teams will now have something to offer the better teams to improve their lists a lot quicker. It wont take years and years, but if it takes a year or so, then so be it
Cant be reactive, need to think long term
If you just want closer games, you could just lower the home ground advantage for higher scoring teams and/or increase the advantage to lower teams. Based on the previous season.
(I dont follow WXV's, so gather theres a home ground advantage. Also dont know how big the gap is between teams.)
Any equalization seems to just be a way of rewarding bad coaching/planning.
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 17, 2014, 08:20:43 PM
Any equalization seems to just be a way of rewarding bad coaching/planning.
This, the new coaches that have come in will want to earn their way into finals/not being shower. They'll be fine.
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 17, 2014, 08:20:43 PM
Any equalization seems to just be a way of rewarding bad coaching/planning.
But those coaches are gone. So who are we punishing now? No, in fact we are rewarding the teams that were complicit in making the competition uneven.
I also think the voting on trades as was the case in the first years also contributed to the imbalance as thewre were trades that should have been negated and rules in place to negate made it hard. This hs now been rectified, just another statement as well.
Quote from: Ringo on August 17, 2014, 08:27:38 PM
I also think the voting on trades as was the case in the first years also contributed to the imbalance as thewre were trades that should have been negated and rules in place to negate made it hard. This has now been rectified, just another statement as well.
That Liberatore deal last year that 13 teams let through gives me doubts. Here's hoping for harsher vetoing.
Quote from: ossie85 on August 17, 2014, 08:25:48 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 17, 2014, 08:20:43 PM
Any equalization seems to just be a way of rewarding bad coaching/planning.
But those coaches are gone. So who are we punishing now? No, in fact we are rewarding the teams that were complicit in making the competition uneven.
Yeah good point. I guess a new Coach takes on the job knowing what is in store though.
And if a previous Coach ruined a squad so bad, the question has to be asked, why did the rest of the league allow it? Surely there must of been uneven trades taking place, for this situation to of happened.
The problem with voting is that some coaches don't give a damn. Yes, even coaches who claim nothing needs to change and never answer PMs.
I don't mind the idea, but why does KB get the team? He quit wxv before, why should he get a team before others who haven't had teams? Call me bias about cause I don't have a team and all, but I think its unfair.
Not against the deal but I don't think anyone really cares about my opinion :P
Quote from: ossie85 on August 17, 2014, 08:35:08 PM
The problem with voting is that some coaches don't give a damn. Yes, even coaches who claim nothing needs to change and never answer PMs.
I actually neg trades unlike others though ;)
I was the biggest whingey dog with that Libba trade.
Quote from: Nails on August 17, 2014, 08:37:45 PM
Quote from: ossie85 on August 17, 2014, 08:35:08 PM
The problem with voting is that some coaches don't give a damn. Yes, even coaches who claim nothing needs to change and never answer PMs.
I actually neg trades unlike others though ;)
I was the biggest whingey dog with that Libba trade.
I think you're just the biggest, whingey dog in general tbh. :P
Hahaha
I think Ringo's idea should be explored further.
In theory this will encourage stronger teams to trade better players for earlier picks.
In reality though I don't think it will work. The stronger teams will on-trade these picks to other sides to keep their teams stronger.
The other area which needs to be looked at is the trading voting. I think that Oz should have the power to veto any trade he thinks is unfair and imbalanced to ensure what has happened in the past does not happen in the future.
People say the Libba trade was bad, but Ossie himself approved of it considering Ball was a 90ish averaging mid (although injury prone) and we did give up #6 pick (which landed Jack Billings, who many teams rate highly from that draft class). I'm all for Ossie perhaps having a small board of people who will help decide if trades will be veto'd or not, rather than coaches who may be biased. Think BXVs and possibly AXVs may have similar system (One of the XVs have besides EXV/WXV).
I'll just continue reading all this though, before I actually comment as been talking with Daz about it earlier when the thread started.
We should just have a whole redraft. :P ::)
In BXV:
Ringo rules on trades and his call is often final.
But after that, teams can appeal to a trade committee which is made up of three people who I cannot remember. Two are Zip and Mr Craig.
Quote from: nrich102 on August 17, 2014, 08:36:08 PM
I don't mind the idea, but why does KB get the team? He quit wxv before, why should he get a team before others who haven't had teams? Call me bias about cause I don't have a team and all, but I think its unfair.
Not against the deal but I don't think anyone really cares about my opinion :P
i didn't want to quit at all but wasnt enjoying being co-coach with Boomz, Ossie knows the circumstances which is why he is happy for me to have another team
Obviously if any positions become vacant i'll have to apply, but i think Ossie knows how dedicated i would be and put in the required time and effort to be successful
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on August 18, 2014, 12:36:21 AM
Quote from: nrich102 on August 17, 2014, 08:36:08 PM
I don't mind the idea, but why does KB get the team? He quit wxv before, why should he get a team before others who haven't had teams? Call me bias about cause I don't have a team and all, but I think its unfair.
Not against the deal but I don't think anyone really cares about my opinion :P
i didn't want to quit at all but wasnt enjoying being co-coach with Boomz, Ossie knows the circumstances which is why he is happy for me to have another team
Obviously if any positions become vacant i'll have to apply, but i think Ossie knows how dedicated i would be and put in the required time and effort to be successful
Whoever said that Vinny, or myself wouldn't be as dedicated as you? Just cause cause we're not on 24/7 doesn't mean we can't be as dedicated as you or put the appropriate time into it. (Vin was just an example of someone who I think may want the job). You've had your go and you quit cause you were fussy about boomz not wanting to trade so early or something.
By Os' post, it more seemed to be you getting straight in :P
although it seemed like it i never meant to say it like i would be more dedicated then you or Vinny i was just saying why i deserve another team
Quote from: nrich102 on August 18, 2014, 08:22:18 AM
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on August 18, 2014, 12:36:21 AM
Quote from: nrich102 on August 17, 2014, 08:36:08 PM
I don't mind the idea, but why does KB get the team? He quit wxv before, why should he get a team before others who haven't had teams? Call me bias about cause I don't have a team and all, but I think its unfair.
Not against the deal but I don't think anyone really cares about my opinion :P
i didn't want to quit at all but wasnt enjoying being co-coach with Boomz, Ossie knows the circumstances which is why he is happy for me to have another team
Obviously if any positions become vacant i'll have to apply, but i think Ossie knows how dedicated i would be and put in the required time and effort to be successful
Whoever said that Vinny, or myself wouldn't be as dedicated as you? Just cause cause we're not on 24/7 doesn't mean we can't be as dedicated as you or put the appropriate time into it. (Vin was just an example of someone who I think may want the job). You've had your go and you quit cause you were fussy about boomz not wanting to trade so early or something.
By Os' post, it more seemed to be you getting straight in :P
Attacking people wont get you a job ;)
Quote from: nrich102 on August 18, 2014, 08:22:18 AM
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on August 18, 2014, 12:36:21 AM
Quote from: nrich102 on August 17, 2014, 08:36:08 PM
I don't mind the idea, but why does KB get the team? He quit wxv before, why should he get a team before others who haven't had teams? Call me bias about cause I don't have a team and all, but I think its unfair.
Not against the deal but I don't think anyone really cares about my opinion :P
i didn't want to quit at all but wasnt enjoying being co-coach with Boomz, Ossie knows the circumstances which is why he is happy for me to have another team
Obviously if any positions become vacant i'll have to apply, but i think Ossie knows how dedicated i would be and put in the required time and effort to be successful
Whoever said that Vinny, or myself wouldn't be as dedicated as you? Just cause cause we're not on 24/7 doesn't mean we can't be as dedicated as you or put the appropriate time into it. (Vin was just an example of someone who I think may want the job). You've had your go and you quit cause you were fussy about boomz not wanting to trade so early or something.
By Os' post, it more seemed to be you getting straight in :P
Just throwing it out there, maybe best not to cast judgement about a situation you don't know in full ;)
Ok I guess NDT better weigh in on this since I guess this team is one of the main reasons this has come up.
The first thing I want to say is that I love the fact XVs reflects real life and any movement towards that I support, anything away from that I'll tend to disagree with.
Its kind of funny this has all come up actually, because for weeks now Ele and I have been planning to make a formal application for priority pick(s). Because we felt that 1) we deserved some help and 2) its what is seriously needed for both NDT and the good of the competition. Now we're not crying out for help for the sake of it, we knew what we were taking over when we took over NDT last year, but we feel we've done everything we can so far to improve this team and it still needs a little help. The list was disgusting when we took over. The older players weren't guns (apart from Montags), they were just old. Guys like JPod, Gia, LRT, Rutten, Cassissi. And the kids weren't gun kids. So we didn't have a lot to work with. I mean this team has scored the least amount of points of all teams over the history of this comp. But we still looked to improve it. Here are all the trades we have completed since taking over...
New Delhi trade: Jarryd Blair, Terry Milera and Pick 25
Pacific trade: Shane Savage, Zach Williams, Daniel Talia and Pick 42
While all three players we received haven't had great years, they all have plenty of potential. Savage in particular could gain defender status next year and score very well.
Sao Paulo trade: Mitch Duncan and Pick 57
New Delhi trade: Jake Stringer and Ben Jacobs
Stringer will be a good player, but we have received a gun Geelong mid who will be a premo Mid/Fwd in 2015
New Delhi trade: Garrick Ibbotson and Pick 42
Tokyo trade: Shaun Hampson, Ben Stratton and Pick 5
Trade suited our strategy. Hampson has shown serious scoring potential with Maric out of the side and Pick 5 was used in a deal later.
New Delhi trade: Pick 43
London trade: Tom Sheridan
Another good kid with potential.
New Delhi trade: Nick Duigan
Cairo trade: Rohan Bail and Pick 34
Again, chasing good kids.
New York trade: Andrew Gaff, Toby Greene and Pick 29
New Delhi trade: Picks 4, 5 and 63
THe big one for us. Two gun kids who we can build the team around.
New Delhi trade: Rookie draft pick 22
Sao Paulo trade: Andrew Raines and International draft pick 93
Was to simply get us over the minimum points cap.
New Delhi receive: Picks 11, 14, 31, 32
New Delhi give: Nick Vlastuin, Picks 34 and 57
After giving up 4 and 5, we needed picks in the draft to strengthen our ruck stocks and pick up some quality. Unfortunately Garlett was a risk that didn't turn out, but Nankervis will definitely be a decent player.
So I guess my first point here is that one step towards equalisation is having coaches that are there to win/improve and not destroy teams. Which I hope is what we have been doing.
From our experience to improve a team, you need ammo to trade with. And thats my second point on making this comp equal. You need to either already have gun players or you need high draft picks. Gun players can get you 2 good kids for example. Looking at our trades last year. Ibbotson was a premo scorer (unfortunately injury has destroyed his year this year), and he got us Shaun Hampson (a ruckman that we desperately needed who averaged 94unsubbed without Maric in the Tigers team) and pick 5 (which got us Greene). Then there are high picks. While most coaches will not value picks and would rather players, high picks do give you more trade ammo. Again looking at last year where 4 and 5 got us Gaff and Greene. Or if not traded, you are picking up gun kids that can have an immediate impact like Dunstan, LMac, Billings, Bontempelli, Kolodjashnij, Aish, Sheed, etc.
My next point is that the weaker teams need freedom to trade. Last year we had heaps of great deals lined up but we were unable to get them through because of the minimum points cap. For example, Montagna held great value coming off a good year and only being 29 still. While he would greatly help a top club as a premo mid, at his age he was no use to us because we wouldn't be challenging in the next 3 years. Because we were below the minimum cap, we couldn't trade him for gun kids as it would bring our total points down lower. Now Montags has had a poor year and his value has decreased. I mean we had to bring in bloody Raines because he had played every game just to get our points up. How is he going to help us going forward? This was probably hurt us the most last year, because we did have a lot of trades lined up that couldn't go through.
And my last point is time. We need time to build this team. While everyone wants success right now, maybe this needs to be reassessed in another year or two from now. The top teams will have their 32+ year olds who will either be retiring or dropping off and we'll have guys like Greene and Gaff coming into their prime.
So i guess to summarise
- We don't like the merger idea. We're working towards improving NDT and have some goals in place to do so. As long as you have decent coaches who are actively trying to trade/improve, teams will become competitive.
- We feel we deserve some priority pick(s) to help us improve, and this is the way to move towards equalisation
- NDT's list has less potential than the other bottom teams who have a lot more gun kids, but we are still improving through trades. Those other weaker teams also need help
- The minimum points cap needs to be looked at to give us that freedom to trade
- Teams need ammo to trade to improve, which is where priority picks will help
- Lets keep this as close to real life as possible. There will always be weak teams and strong teams. But like the AFL giving compo picks to weak teams, this is where we can improve the comp.
Ric and Ele.
Quote from: ossie85 on August 17, 2014, 06:14:16 PM
Quote from: Jayman on August 17, 2014, 06:12:08 PM
No, this is not needed. The teams will balance themselves out over time when the kids that Pacific, Beijing and NDT have start hitting their primes and the old guys that the Suns and Dongs have start dropping off.
There's always going to be bad teams, let the coaches fix it with smart trading and drafting.
I agree, but am really hating the games where teams have basically no chance of winning
I tend to agree with Jay but can see where this is coming from. Think it would really hurt the mid range teams though so I'd be more against it than for it at this stage. I think give it another season at least.
So you want equalization, but bringing 2 new teams in willguarantee that there is at least 2 free games a year for all teams. What's the difference?
Quote from: elephants on August 18, 2014, 11:44:44 AM
Quote from: nrich102 on August 18, 2014, 08:22:18 AM
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on August 18, 2014, 12:36:21 AM
Quote from: nrich102 on August 17, 2014, 08:36:08 PM
I don't mind the idea, but why does KB get the team? He quit wxv before, why should he get a team before others who haven't had teams? Call me bias about cause I don't have a team and all, but I think its unfair.
Not against the deal but I don't think anyone really cares about my opinion :P
i didn't want to quit at all but wasnt enjoying being co-coach with Boomz, Ossie knows the circumstances which is why he is happy for me to have another team
Obviously if any positions become vacant i'll have to apply, but i think Ossie knows how dedicated i would be and put in the required time and effort to be successful
Whoever said that Vinny, or myself wouldn't be as dedicated as you? Just cause cause we're not on 24/7 doesn't mean we can't be as dedicated as you or put the appropriate time into it. (Vin was just an example of someone who I think may want the job). You've had your go and you quit cause you were fussy about boomz not wanting to trade so early or something.
By Os' post, it more seemed to be you getting straight in :P
Just throwing it out there, maybe best not to cast judgement about a situation you don't know in full ;)
Goes both ways.
Quote from: Boomz on August 18, 2014, 12:59:21 PM
Quote from: elephants on August 18, 2014, 11:44:44 AM
Quote from: nrich102 on August 18, 2014, 08:22:18 AM
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on August 18, 2014, 12:36:21 AM
Quote from: nrich102 on August 17, 2014, 08:36:08 PM
I don't mind the idea, but why does KB get the team? He quit wxv before, why should he get a team before others who haven't had teams? Call me bias about cause I don't have a team and all, but I think its unfair.
Not against the deal but I don't think anyone really cares about my opinion :P
i didn't want to quit at all but wasnt enjoying being co-coach with Boomz, Ossie knows the circumstances which is why he is happy for me to have another team
Obviously if any positions become vacant i'll have to apply, but i think Ossie knows how dedicated i would be and put in the required time and effort to be successful
Whoever said that Vinny, or myself wouldn't be as dedicated as you? Just cause cause we're not on 24/7 doesn't mean we can't be as dedicated as you or put the appropriate time into it. (Vin was just an example of someone who I think may want the job). You've had your go and you quit cause you were fussy about boomz not wanting to trade so early or something.
By Os' post, it more seemed to be you getting straight in :P
Just throwing it out there, maybe best not to cast judgement about a situation you don't know in full ;)
Goes both ways.
... Not that I've made any assumptions... :P
just want to point out Boomz and i got along fine and i still consider him a mate we just didn't see things the same way regarding the team and was doing my head in this year and last year
Agree with Rico here, with the right reading you can pull yourself from the bottom. Also the min point cap does seem to do more damage than good, I would have paid a lot more for montagna last year than they are going to get this year, guys Luke Raines only further hurt them.
Not sure on the precedence of merging weak squads. Can only speak for the euro but 12/14 teams are pretty even. The way I'm fixing up the weak team is via priority picks and making sure those in charge have a clear strategy forward.
Luke Raines.... Shame on you Holz :P.
Quote from: Hellopplz on August 18, 2014, 02:21:40 PM
Luke Raines.... Shame on you Holz :P.
Stupid phone keeps changing like to Luke
I don't want a team right now haha.
Quote from: ///////////////////////// on August 18, 2014, 02:40:49 PM
Give me a team. I can build a list like no other.
Only if I can get Toby Greene though.
CHRISTCHURCH SLASHERS
Quote from: ///////////////////////// on August 18, 2014, 02:40:49 PM
Give me a team. I can build a list like no other.
Only if I can get Toby Greene though.
Go away Meow. :P
Take back Moscow. Im sure Ric and ele will trade you Greene for Nic Nat, Omeara and Griffen plus a few draft picks to make it fair.
Great post ric.
Sticking with the brother though with the minimum points cap though. Yes monty had value at the end of last year, but if you had traded him, this year would have been even worse.
Raines had every chance to get the same amount of points this year, and if he did, you would have had one more player to choose from. You didn't pay anything that would have you better anyway. Getting depth players was the reason I went up from 16th to 4th... and probably the horrible reign of some coaches.
But agree with everything else! You guys actually had a really good trading period. Didn't realise till now.
Let's not turn this into a trade brag thread :P
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 17, 2014, 08:32:07 PM
Quote from: Ringo on August 17, 2014, 08:27:38 PM
I also think the voting on trades as was the case in the first years also contributed to the imbalance as thewre were trades that should have been negated and rules in place to negate made it hard. This has now been rectified, just another statement as well.
That Liberatore deal last year that 13 teams let through gives me doubts. Here's hoping for harsher vetoing.
i'm kinda getting sick of people pointing out this trade
this trade is what needs to be done imo everyone complains of the poor lower clubs
NY need forwards we needed another big mid
yet NY have libba, macrae, treloar, bennell, stokes, let alone other youth
but for fowards theyhave? oh travis cloke
but let's break it down a little
ok libba is a gun and averages 110.3 which atm makes him 14th for mids
Mckenzie averages 81 which is 35 for defenders
and yes ball gone down alot averaging only 74.7 at 129th for mids
bust westy averages 90.3 which is 16th for forwards
and pick 6 was jack billings a mid/fwd with huge potential who averages 61 already
my point is yes libba and cannon younger but not as bad as everyone makes out because the teams were TRADING for needs
if this is viewed as unfair to NY then i'm sorry Ossie you cap idea where you want to put a cap and say s forwards are worth more is the exact reason it is total crap
as everyone here views libba worth twice as much so there for we should not get such penaltyies with the way you want it structured as in trade everyone expects same for same
(BTW i know you pointed out how easy it was for us to get under the cap so that isn't the issue the issue is this proves as much as you say forwards are hard ot come by i see no one offering alot for high averaging forwards)
now i'm not saying that trade is perfectly even but the way everyone keeps saying this is whats wrong with the comp is the exact reason it is lopsided
you can not value the same for a straight forward or back as a mid
and i'm totally against loss of picks for clubs that make the finals
PNL made the finals for the first time ever so i wouldn't say we are dominate enough to lose a pick
Quote from: Master Q on August 18, 2014, 06:14:38 PM
Let's not turn this into a trade brag thread :P
Haha, that wasn't the point of our post :P
Quote from: Jayman on August 17, 2014, 06:12:08 PM
No, this is not needed. The teams will balance themselves out over time when the kids that Pacific, Beijing and NDT have start hitting their primes and the old guys that the Suns and Dongs have start dropping off.
There's always going to be bad teams, let the coaches fix it with smart trading and drafting.
This ^
Trying to equalise the comp now is a mistake.
In other XV comps (BXV, AXV) I like that I have a very poor team and have to work to improve my situation.
As long as stupid trades are not put through from here on in and managers care about their teams the bottom sides should naturally come to the top.
If they don't then perhaps we need to consider 'manager/coach' sackings in real life which happens when a club is not satisfied with their performance.
If it looks like a coach is not actively trying to improve the team in the offseason (for example the bottom clubs do no trades) then they could be on the chopping block.
I vote to get rid of minimum cap :-X prevents teams from properly rebuilding imo. Currently with a minimum cap the dildos (can we officially change our name to dildos? I'm guessing no) are going to run into trouble rebuilding. We'll have to trade out a bunch of our old farts now but we won't be able to traded all out otherwise we'll hit the minimum cap. We'll still be useless but the problem we'll have is we'll lose half our players that we can't move on due to retirement next year. Therefore also hurting our future because we couldn't trade all the imminent retirees out. If there was no minimum cap yes we'll still be terrible but at least we'll be able to establish our future better.
Quote from: Memphistopheles on August 18, 2014, 06:33:42 PM
Quote from: Jayman on August 17, 2014, 06:12:08 PM
No, this is not needed. The teams will balance themselves out over time when the kids that Pacific, Beijing and NDT have start hitting their primes and the old guys that the Suns and Dongs have start dropping off.
There's always going to be bad teams, let the coaches fix it with smart trading and drafting.
This ^
Trying to equalise the comp now is a mistake.
In other XV comps (BXV, AXV) I like that I have a very poor team and have to work to improve my situation.
As long as stupid trades are not put through from here on in and managers care about their teams the bottom sides should naturally come to the top.
If they don't then perhaps we need to consider 'manager/coach' sackings in real life which happens when a club is not satisfied with their performance.
If it looks like a coach is not actively trying to improve the team in the offseason (for example the bottom clubs do no trades) then they could be on the chopping block.
Start replying some PMs, kthx.
Quote from: Nails on August 18, 2014, 06:39:16 PM
I vote to get rid of minimum cap :-X prevents teams from properly rebuilding imo. Currently with a minimum cap the dildos (can we officially change our name to dildos? I'm guessing no) are going to run into trouble rebuilding. We'll have to trade out a bunch of our old farts now but we won't be able to traded all out otherwise we'll hit the minimum cap. We'll still be useless but the problem we'll have is we'll lose half our players that we can't move on due to retirement next year. Therefore also hurting our future because we couldn't trade all the imminent retirees out. If there was no minimum cap yes we'll still be terrible but at least we'll be able to establish our future better.
there has to be a short term long term balance. I don't want teams to only be able to field 10 players a week for the sake of long term
Quote from: ossie85 on August 18, 2014, 06:56:28 PM
Quote from: Nails on August 18, 2014, 06:39:16 PM
I vote to get rid of minimum cap :-X prevents teams from properly rebuilding imo. Currently with a minimum cap the dildos (can we officially change our name to dildos? I'm guessing no) are going to run into trouble rebuilding. We'll have to trade out a bunch of our old farts now but we won't be able to traded all out otherwise we'll hit the minimum cap. We'll still be useless but the problem we'll have is we'll lose half our players that we can't move on due to retirement next year. Therefore also hurting our future because we couldn't trade all the imminent retirees out. If there was no minimum cap yes we'll still be terrible but at least we'll be able to establish our future better.
there has to be a short term long term balance. I don't want teams to only be able to field 10 players a week for the sake of long term
at least they'll be truly competitive in 5 seasons time as opposed to permanently struggling in 8th due to losing half our trade-able players to retirement :(
Don't let the dildos go floppy, ban the minimum cap!
I don't like the minimum cap either. Teams aren't crazy enough to trade their guys out so they have no XV you gotta rebuild within reason of course.
Quote from: NigeyS on August 18, 2014, 06:42:17 PM
Quote from: Memphistopheles on August 18, 2014, 06:33:42 PM
Quote from: Jayman on August 17, 2014, 06:12:08 PM
No, this is not needed. The teams will balance themselves out over time when the kids that Pacific, Beijing and NDT have start hitting their primes and the old guys that the Suns and Dongs have start dropping off.
There's always going to be bad teams, let the coaches fix it with smart trading and drafting.
This ^
Trying to equalise the comp now is a mistake.
In other XV comps (BXV, AXV) I like that I have a very poor team and have to work to improve my situation.
As long as stupid trades are not put through from here on in and managers care about their teams the bottom sides should naturally come to the top.
If they don't then perhaps we need to consider 'manager/coach' sackings in real life which happens when a club is not satisfied with their performance.
If it looks like a coach is not actively trying to improve the team in the offseason (for example the bottom clubs do no trades) then they could be on the chopping block.
Start replying some PMs, kthx.
Went away this weekend and Mondays/Tuesdays are very busy at the moment.
Slowly getting through them all now.
New Idea
Thanks to meow (or forward slash - man), for this idea. Though I've adjusted his idea somewhat.
Meow's idea was to merge 2 teams, and create a new team with draft concessions (with the ability to poach at an extremely minor level. i.e. The top team can nominated 15 untouchables, 2nd team 16, 3rd team 17, up to the 8th team).
I'd like to propose that we merge the FOUR teams (Wellington, Pacific, New Delhi, Beijing) into 3. Wellington and Pacific merging in name only to the 'Pacific Warriors' (name negotiable lol) with Jayman and pothead merging as co-coaches (if they consent), and a 4th team created (Christchurch Saints :P lol). The Christchurch Saints will be co-coaches by meow and kilbluff (if they concent)
Wellington, New Delhi and Beijing.
- Name 15 players to keep.
Pacific
Lose its entire player list.
Pacific Warriors, New Delhi and Beijing
These 3 teams complete its squad with a mini draft. Drafted from players from the Pacific squad, and the remaining squads of Wellington, New Delhi and Beijing.
Beijing will receive pick 1, New Delhi pick 2, and Pacific Warriors pick 3.
The three teams do NOT receive any further draft picks to use (unless they have any unexpected AFL delistings or retirements, which would happen at the end of the draft).
Basically turning 160ish players into 120ish players. This has to improve the playing list dramatically.
Christchurch Saints
Get the remaining players, which should constitute at 20 to 30 players.
They will get picks 4, 5 and 6. And basically all picks originally allocated to Wellington, New Delhi, Pacific and Beijing. Picks 21, 22, 23, 24 in 2nd round, 39, 40, 41, 42 in 3rd round, etc.
SO NONE OF THE TOP 14 TEAMS LOSE ANY PLACE IN DRAFT PICKS.
The top 8 teams would also lose 1 player.
The top ranked team would nominate 15 untouchables. Christchurch can select any other player.
The second ranked team would nominate 16 untouchables. Christchurch can select any other player.
The third ranked team would nominate 17 untouchables. Christchurch can select any other player.
The fourth ranked team would nominate 18 untouchables. Christchurch can select any other player.
The fifth ranked team would nominate 19 untouchables. Christchurch can select any other player.
The sixth ranked team would nominate 20 untouchables. Christchurch can select any other player.
The seventh ranked team would nominate 21 untouchables. Christchurch can select any other player.
The eight ranked team would nominate 22 untouchables. Christchurch can select any other player.
yeah i'm not going to be co coach with a troll
Doesn't harm us, so I'm all for it. :P
flower off with this merging bullshower. Dillos are likely a bottom 4 team next year, who can I merge with?
NO
flower MERGING.
If the bottom teams are ok with it, so am I.
dont like the merging idea, sets a precedence I think.
Dont like any merging
Quote from: Holzman on August 19, 2014, 05:23:44 PM
dont like the merging idea, sets a precedence I think.
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 19, 2014, 06:01:11 PM
Dont like any merging
agree
like nails says his team is about to get in alt of trouble due to age so what happens then?
i know they are behind but i think the coaches are making fantastic in roads to being able to get competitive judging by the deals they are looking at making
Not for it at all. Just leave all the clubs how they are.
Quote from: Jayman on August 19, 2014, 06:36:42 PM
Not for it at all. Just leave all the clubs how they are.
Agree with the general consensus. I am against merging.
Quote from: Nails on August 19, 2014, 03:42:45 PM
flower off with this merging bullshower. Dillos are likely a bottom 4 team next year, who can I merge with?
NO
flower MERGING.
+1 to this.
Quote from: AaronKirk on August 19, 2014, 07:47:58 PM
Quote from: Jayman on August 19, 2014, 06:36:42 PM
Not for it at all. Just leave all the clubs how they are.
Agree with the general consensus. I am against merging.
I'm only an assistant but I agree with this as well.
A competition will always be uneven whether it's AFL or fantasy. Let things even out over time with draft picks etc.
The AFL drafting is now good enough where pretty much all Top 20 picks turn out all right with the exception of a few each year and there are some gems picked later in the draft/in the rookie draft.
I even actually think that with good drafting and trading in the long term (I'm talking 5+ seasons) the teams who get priority draft picks now will be significantly better than those who just miss out or are mid table for several seasons.
If you want to increase the player pool of undrafted players I think the answer is simple - reduce team lists by a few players. Even cutting 2 guys per team will mean 32 extra players in the pool.
Maybe, and I'm not an advocate of changing anything, there could be a rule whereby if you finish in the bottom four or have less than X number of wins you can have an extra two players on your list the following year. But, when you move out of the bottom four or win more games you lose those extra squad spots.
Whats the strength of the pool of remaining players not on WXV list atm? I know in other comps the top 10 can be pretty decent sometimes. Maybe only the bottom 4 teams should have access to this pool to increase depth. Along with priority picks, it will certainly help. Like others, not a fan of merging at all
Quote from: Ricochet on August 20, 2014, 11:20:34 AM
Whats the strength of the pool of remaining players not on WXV list atm?
All players are listed. Zero strength
Quote from: ossie85 on August 20, 2014, 11:21:51 AM
Quote from: Ricochet on August 20, 2014, 11:20:34 AM
Whats the strength of the pool of remaining players not on WXV list atm?
All players are listed. Zero strength
Ah yeh of course
You know, there's another way to being the comp closer. Add two teams and allow a cap for them to take certain players from positions from the top teams. It's all up to Oss though.
What so you want it to be a 20 team comp?
Quote from: Torp on August 21, 2014, 10:50:25 PM
You know, there's another way to being the comp closer. Add two teams and allow a cap for them to take certain players from positions from the top teams. It's all up to Oss though.
Don't think that's a good idea maybe in short term it's ok but won't be good long term with things like drafting
Just look at BXV we're reducing the comp to 16 teams to make it more even
Well to be honest that will even things out in the end as long as totally crazy trades can get blocked by Oss. They're what ruined teams before. I'm not really keen on it, I love how the comp is at the moment.
Quote from: Torp on August 21, 2014, 11:04:31 PM
I love how the comp is at the moment.
That's because you're not at NDT anymore :P
I toyed with a 20 team comp also,, not just yet though
Quote from: elephants on August 22, 2014, 02:08:37 AM
Quote from: Torp on August 21, 2014, 11:04:31 PM
I love how the comp is at the moment.
That's because you're not at NDT anymore :P
honestly, NDT are doing fine. Look at how Dublin improved. :P
If we went to a 20 team comp we would all have to reduce lists as there would no be enough players to go round. Then we would have the same arguments as we are having no about redistribution.
Quote from: Torp on August 22, 2014, 07:55:27 AM
Quote from: elephants on August 22, 2014, 02:08:37 AM
Quote from: Torp on August 21, 2014, 11:04:31 PM
I love how the comp is at the moment.
That's because you're not at NDT anymore :P
honestly, NDT are doing fine. Look at how Dublin improved. :P
Not sure if srs. Dublin had 500x the ammo we have.
Quote from: elephants on August 22, 2014, 11:34:50 AM
Quote from: Torp on August 22, 2014, 07:55:27 AM
Quote from: elephants on August 22, 2014, 02:08:37 AM
Quote from: Torp on August 21, 2014, 11:04:31 PM
I love how the comp is at the moment.
That's because you're not at NDT anymore :P
honestly, NDT are doing fine. Look at how Dublin improved. :P
Not sure if srs. Dublin had 500x the ammo we have.
Come on LE - we both know Dildos are going to turn you into a finals team.
Quote from: Nails on August 22, 2014, 11:37:15 AM
Quote from: elephants on August 22, 2014, 11:34:50 AM
Quote from: Torp on August 22, 2014, 07:55:27 AM
Quote from: elephants on August 22, 2014, 02:08:37 AM
Quote from: Torp on August 21, 2014, 11:04:31 PM
I love how the comp is at the moment.
That's because you're not at NDT anymore :P
honestly, NDT are doing fine. Look at how Dublin improved. :P
Not sure if srs. Dublin had 500x the ammo we have.
Come on LE - we both know Dildos are going to turn you into a finals team.
Haha, we can hope ey ;)