Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 30, 2016, 06:20:30 PMId hope so or ill be calling for a recount
Will Danger win it?
Quote from: iZander on August 30, 2016, 06:35:51 PMHe has done a remarkable job convincing everyone he is a nice person, but leading the stats? Someone had more ball in the AXV ;)Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 30, 2016, 06:20:30 PMId hope so or ill be calling for a recount
Will Danger win it?
Quote from: tbagrocks on August 30, 2016, 07:20:58 PM2 players had more ball, but no1 had more points!!! :DQuote from: iZander on August 30, 2016, 06:35:51 PMHe has done a remarkable job convincing everyone he is a nice person, but leading the stats? Someone had more ball in the AXV ;)Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 30, 2016, 06:20:30 PMId hope so or ill be calling for a recount
Will Danger win it?
Quote from: Nige on August 30, 2016, 07:28:31 PMOur format is a Colliwobblers tradition!
I'd kinda like to just be able name teams in the format we do in all the other comps if that's a rule we can maybe change?
1st Option 1st Round 1. 16th 2. 15th 3. 14th 4. 13th 5. 12th 6. 11th 7. 10th 8. 9th 9. 8th 10. 7th 11. 6th 12. 5th Like normal Then 13. 16th 14. 15th 15. 14th 16. 13th 2nd round 17. 12th 18. 11th 19. 10th 20. 9th 21. 8th 22. 7th 23. 6th 24. 5th 25. 4th 26. 3rd 27. 2nd 28. 1st 29. 16th Etc... | Or a second more extreme option 1st Round 1. 16th 2. 15th 3. 14th 4. 13th 5. 12th 6. 11th 7. 10th 8. 9th Like normal Then the bottom 4 again to help them out 9. 16th 10. 15th 11. 14th 12. 13th Then the rest of the 8 13. 8th 14. 7th 15. 6th 16. 5th 2nd round 17. 12th 18. 11th 19. 10th 20. 9th 21. 8th 22. 7th 23. 6th 24. 5th 25. 4th 26. 3rd 27. 2nd 28. 1st 29. 16th Etc... |
Quote from: iZander on August 30, 2016, 10:10:17 PMNDT in worlds went from last to 6th largely due to priority picks. It can be done
The teams on top are way way to far ahead for this to have a significant impact in the next few years, think a cap would be alot more effect.
Having said that i think i dont care if there is nothing done tbh :)
iZander
Quote from: Ricochet on August 30, 2016, 10:12:19 PMThere was a cap in place in worlds....how do you know it wasnt because of the cap?Quote from: iZander on August 30, 2016, 10:10:17 PMNDT in worlds went from last to 6th largely due to priority picks. It can be done
The teams on top are way way to far ahead for this to have a significant impact in the next few years, think a cap would be alot more effect.
Having said that i think i dont care if there is nothing done tbh :)
iZander
A cap simply reduces depth. It doesn't reduce guns. Unless it is ridiculously tight. It does work but giving teams more to trade with is more effective
Quote from: iZander on August 30, 2016, 10:17:40 PMBecause I coach NDT lol. And it allowed us to trade for established players.Quote from: Ricochet on August 30, 2016, 10:12:19 PMThere was a cap in place in worlds....how do you know it wasnt because of the cap?Quote from: iZander on August 30, 2016, 10:10:17 PMNDT in worlds went from last to 6th largely due to priority picks. It can be done
The teams on top are way way to far ahead for this to have a significant impact in the next few years, think a cap would be alot more effect.
Having said that i think i dont care if there is nothing done tbh :)
iZander
A cap simply reduces depth. It doesn't reduce guns. Unless it is ridiculously tight. It does work but giving teams more to trade with is more effective
They both obviously would help, to say which one was more effective seems difficult :P
But i think the cap would be better in such a heavily uneven comp :)
Quote from: Ricochet on August 30, 2016, 10:21:24 PMBeing a coach of NDT doesnt mean you know who which factor it was that made the improve/decrease (yes, decrease, it makes top teams harder to improve), lets be honest it was a factor of both (and a factor of good trading if your scully trade is anything like your last years ones). To, which one was the strongest factor i dont think we will ever know.Quote from: iZander on August 30, 2016, 10:17:40 PMBecause I coach NDT lol. And it allowed us to trade for established players.Quote from: Ricochet on August 30, 2016, 10:12:19 PMThere was a cap in place in worlds....how do you know it wasnt because of the cap?Quote from: iZander on August 30, 2016, 10:10:17 PMNDT in worlds went from last to 6th largely due to priority picks. It can be done
The teams on top are way way to far ahead for this to have a significant impact in the next few years, think a cap would be alot more effect.
Having said that i think i dont care if there is nothing done tbh :)
iZander
A cap simply reduces depth. It doesn't reduce guns. Unless it is ridiculously tight. It does work but giving teams more to trade with is more effective
They both obviously would help, to say which one was more effective seems difficult :P
But i think the cap would be better in such a heavily uneven comp :)
With a cap, top teams simply trade away depth for picks or lesser depth and keep their guns. It does hurt them because injuries obviously happen, but in terms of their starting XV strength, it doesn't really impact them too much
Quote from: iZander on August 30, 2016, 10:31:37 PMI agree a cap can help. Just don't agree its the quickest way :PQuote from: Ricochet on August 30, 2016, 10:21:24 PMBeing a coach of NDT doesnt mean you know who which factor it was that made the improve/decrease (yes, decrease, it makes top teams harder to improve), lets be honest it was a factor of both (and a factor of good trading if your scully trade is anything like your last years ones). To, which one was the strongest factor i dont think we will ever know.Quote from: iZander on August 30, 2016, 10:17:40 PMBecause I coach NDT lol. And it allowed us to trade for established players.Quote from: Ricochet on August 30, 2016, 10:12:19 PMThere was a cap in place in worlds....how do you know it wasnt because of the cap?Quote from: iZander on August 30, 2016, 10:10:17 PMNDT in worlds went from last to 6th largely due to priority picks. It can be done
The teams on top are way way to far ahead for this to have a significant impact in the next few years, think a cap would be alot more effect.
Having said that i think i dont care if there is nothing done tbh :)
iZander
A cap simply reduces depth. It doesn't reduce guns. Unless it is ridiculously tight. It does work but giving teams more to trade with is more effective
They both obviously would help, to say which one was more effective seems difficult :P
But i think the cap would be better in such a heavily uneven comp :)
With a cap, top teams simply trade away depth for picks or lesser depth and keep their guns. It does hurt them because injuries obviously happen, but in terms of their starting XV strength, it doesn't really impact them too much
Plus if top teams have less depth than that depth is moved to other teams, which are then starters and helps even up the comp. Also it gives top teams a weakness, and they might rethink having a killer best 15 in search of depth since injuries do happen.
Basically you nailed what a cap does above, which is why i think its better :) Its the quickest way to even up the comp imo :D
Quote from: Ricochet on August 30, 2016, 10:44:04 PMAh well we can agree to disagree :)Quote from: iZander on August 30, 2016, 10:31:37 PMI agree a cap can help. Just don't agree its the quickest way :PQuote from: Ricochet on August 30, 2016, 10:21:24 PMBeing a coach of NDT doesnt mean you know who which factor it was that made the improve/decrease (yes, decrease, it makes top teams harder to improve), lets be honest it was a factor of both (and a factor of good trading if your scully trade is anything like your last years ones). To, which one was the strongest factor i dont think we will ever know.Quote from: iZander on August 30, 2016, 10:17:40 PMBecause I coach NDT lol. And it allowed us to trade for established players.Quote from: Ricochet on August 30, 2016, 10:12:19 PMThere was a cap in place in worlds....how do you know it wasnt because of the cap?Quote from: iZander on August 30, 2016, 10:10:17 PMNDT in worlds went from last to 6th largely due to priority picks. It can be done
The teams on top are way way to far ahead for this to have a significant impact in the next few years, think a cap would be alot more effect.
Having said that i think i dont care if there is nothing done tbh :)
iZander
A cap simply reduces depth. It doesn't reduce guns. Unless it is ridiculously tight. It does work but giving teams more to trade with is more effective
They both obviously would help, to say which one was more effective seems difficult :P
But i think the cap would be better in such a heavily uneven comp :)
With a cap, top teams simply trade away depth for picks or lesser depth and keep their guns. It does hurt them because injuries obviously happen, but in terms of their starting XV strength, it doesn't really impact them too much
Plus if top teams have less depth than that depth is moved to other teams, which are then starters and helps even up the comp. Also it gives top teams a weakness, and they might rethink having a killer best 15 in search of depth since injuries do happen.
Basically you nailed what a cap does above, which is why i think its better :) Its the quickest way to even up the comp imo :D
On the bold though. Most depth moved from top teams is pretty weak from what i've seen. So its just shifting guys like say a Frawley-type to a bottom team. Which really doesn't help them too much in the long run. His value won't dramatically increase and he won't help them tooooo much on field.
Plus bottom teams will value youth over establish depth
Also on the weakness (lack of depth). A team would be unlucky to missing 4-5+ of their starting XV in a GF. So top teams would most likely just risk it without quality depth.
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 30, 2016, 10:57:10 PMA few more good points :)
Strong Clubs will have the same amount of premiums, but depth is hurt under a Cap. Without a Cap, strong Clubs can have depth as well.
A Cap stops the big Clubs from getting to big and over powered.
Stopping bad trades is what is needed to keep the Comp. relatively even.
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 30, 2016, 10:57:10 PMAgree 100%
Strong Clubs will have the same amount of premiums, but depth is hurt under a Cap. Without a Cap, strong Clubs can have depth as well.
A Cap stops the big Clubs from getting to big and over powered.
Stopping bad trades is what is needed to keep the Comp. relatively even.
Quote from: iZander on August 30, 2016, 10:55:18 PMYep, that's what the discussion is for :)Quote from: Ricochet on August 30, 2016, 10:44:04 PMAh well we can agree to disagree :)Quote from: iZander on August 30, 2016, 10:31:37 PMI agree a cap can help. Just don't agree its the quickest way :PQuote from: Ricochet on August 30, 2016, 10:21:24 PMBeing a coach of NDT doesnt mean you know who which factor it was that made the improve/decrease (yes, decrease, it makes top teams harder to improve), lets be honest it was a factor of both (and a factor of good trading if your scully trade is anything like your last years ones). To, which one was the strongest factor i dont think we will ever know.Quote from: iZander on August 30, 2016, 10:17:40 PMBecause I coach NDT lol. And it allowed us to trade for established players.Quote from: Ricochet on August 30, 2016, 10:12:19 PMThere was a cap in place in worlds....how do you know it wasnt because of the cap?Quote from: iZander on August 30, 2016, 10:10:17 PMNDT in worlds went from last to 6th largely due to priority picks. It can be done
The teams on top are way way to far ahead for this to have a significant impact in the next few years, think a cap would be alot more effect.
Having said that i think i dont care if there is nothing done tbh :)
iZander
A cap simply reduces depth. It doesn't reduce guns. Unless it is ridiculously tight. It does work but giving teams more to trade with is more effective
They both obviously would help, to say which one was more effective seems difficult :P
But i think the cap would be better in such a heavily uneven comp :)
With a cap, top teams simply trade away depth for picks or lesser depth and keep their guns. It does hurt them because injuries obviously happen, but in terms of their starting XV strength, it doesn't really impact them too much
Plus if top teams have less depth than that depth is moved to other teams, which are then starters and helps even up the comp. Also it gives top teams a weakness, and they might rethink having a killer best 15 in search of depth since injuries do happen.
Basically you nailed what a cap does above, which is why i think its better :) Its the quickest way to even up the comp imo :D
On the bold though. Most depth moved from top teams is pretty weak from what i've seen. So its just shifting guys like say a Frawley-type to a bottom team. Which really doesn't help them too much in the long run. His value won't dramatically increase and he won't help them tooooo much on field.
Plus bottom teams will value youth over establish depth
Also on the weakness (lack of depth). A team would be unlucky to missing 4-5+ of their starting XV in a GF. So top teams would most likely just risk it without quality depth.
Alot of trades not happening in worlds atm because of the cap and also alot of older players being traded around because of it (alot better than frawley)
Also ofcourse the benefit of having to trade above the cap if you're under, making teams have to trade in more proven performers to become competitive quicker :P
Quote from: Ricochet on August 30, 2016, 10:44:04 PM:'( :'(
A team would be unlucky to missing 4-5+ of their starting XV in a GF.
Quote from: Rusty00 on August 30, 2016, 11:26:39 PMI was so tempted to mention you here earlier hahaQuote from: Ricochet on August 30, 2016, 10:44:04 PM:'( :'(
A team would be unlucky to missing 4-5+ of their starting XV in a GF.
Quote from: GoLions on August 30, 2016, 11:51:42 PMhaha yeah we were all thinking it :PQuote from: Rusty00 on August 30, 2016, 11:26:39 PMI was so tempted to mention you here earlier hahaQuote from: Ricochet on August 30, 2016, 10:44:04 PM:'( :'(
A team would be unlucky to missing 4-5+ of their starting XV in a GF.
Quote from: nostradamus on August 31, 2016, 08:14:59 PMAt no point did we say we wanted to do it to be like worlds.....
l want to be blunt.
The cap is an absolute nonsense.
I was one of the initial coaches of AXV and drafted strategically from the outset. the team that is now the Crabs is the result of a long laid plan. Since then Rids and l have traded and drafted accordingly.
Now it seems that this may all be undermined by a garbage rule from another comp. This is our unique comp, our unique scoring system and damn good as it is ......... why would we want to alter it to conform to another XV's system.
Quote from: iZander on August 31, 2016, 08:17:01 PMQuote from: nostradamus on August 31, 2016, 08:14:59 PMAt no point did we say we wanted to do it to be like worlds.....
l want to be blunt.
The cap is an absolute nonsense.
I was one of the initial coaches of AXV and drafted strategically from the outset. the team that is now the Crabs is the result of a long laid plan. Since then Rids and l have traded and drafted accordingly.
Now it seems that this may all be undermined by a garbage rule from another comp. This is our unique comp, our unique scoring system and damn good as it is ......... why would we want to alter it to conform to another XV's system.
Quote from: fanTCfool on August 31, 2016, 08:26:21 PMWhat other XV comp was he talking about then?Quote from: iZander on August 31, 2016, 08:17:01 PMQuote from: nostradamus on August 31, 2016, 08:14:59 PMAt no point did we say we wanted to do it to be like worlds.....
l want to be blunt.
The cap is an absolute nonsense.
I was one of the initial coaches of AXV and drafted strategically from the outset. the team that is now the Crabs is the result of a long laid plan. Since then Rids and l have traded and drafted accordingly.
Now it seems that this may all be undermined by a garbage rule from another comp. This is our unique comp, our unique scoring system and damn good as it is ......... why would we want to alter it to conform to another XV's system.
I don't think Nostra mentioned Worlds either...
Quote from: iZander on August 31, 2016, 08:27:32 PMQuote from: fanTCfool on August 31, 2016, 08:26:21 PMWhat other XV comp was he talking about then?Quote from: iZander on August 31, 2016, 08:17:01 PMQuote from: nostradamus on August 31, 2016, 08:14:59 PMAt no point did we say we wanted to do it to be like worlds.....
l want to be blunt.
The cap is an absolute nonsense.
I was one of the initial coaches of AXV and drafted strategically from the outset. the team that is now the Crabs is the result of a long laid plan. Since then Rids and l have traded and drafted accordingly.
Now it seems that this may all be undermined by a garbage rule from another comp. This is our unique comp, our unique scoring system and damn good as it is ......... why would we want to alter it to conform to another XV's system.
I don't think Nostra mentioned Worlds either...
Quote from: fanTCfool on August 31, 2016, 08:28:34 PMQuote from: iZander on August 31, 2016, 08:27:32 PMQuote from: fanTCfool on August 31, 2016, 08:26:21 PMWhat other XV comp was he talking about then?Quote from: iZander on August 31, 2016, 08:17:01 PMQuote from: nostradamus on August 31, 2016, 08:14:59 PMAt no point did we say we wanted to do it to be like worlds.....
l want to be blunt.
The cap is an absolute nonsense.
I was one of the initial coaches of AXV and drafted strategically from the outset. the team that is now the Crabs is the result of a long laid plan. Since then Rids and l have traded and drafted accordingly.
Now it seems that this may all be undermined by a garbage rule from another comp. This is our unique comp, our unique scoring system and damn good as it is ......... why would we want to alter it to conform to another XV's system.
I don't think Nostra mentioned Worlds either...
I didn't say he wasn't talking about Worlds
Quote from: Rusty00 on August 30, 2016, 11:26:39 PMTibet missed at leased 4 in the prelim :-\Quote from: Ricochet on August 30, 2016, 10:44:04 PM:'( :'(
A team would be unlucky to missing 4-5+ of their starting XV in a GF.
Quote from: Rids on September 04, 2016, 04:42:09 PM
Is there any update on when things will start happening in AXV? I now we are waiting for the new coach to be done but there are no threads for the drafts etc.
If people are time poor that is fine because I am sure others like myself are more than willing to help out to get things rolling.
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on September 07, 2016, 09:00:40 AMA few things:
The majority has spoken, we are keeping as is!
Quote from: nrich102 on September 07, 2016, 09:04:35 AM
Can we have the numbers to see how much of a minority I was in?
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on September 07, 2016, 11:35:44 AMYep just checking that 9 was reached :)
No i didn't receive a vote from you but the majority of 9 was reached.
We can only vote on whats presented.....
Quote from: upthemaidens on October 23, 2016, 07:49:55 PMI fear change!
An idea that may even up the Comp a little(if a Cap isn't introduce). Clubs nominate one(or two) players from their best ten averagers(position dependant).
Now that Ten would have stipulations on them i.e. under 30yo, have played X amount of games to qualify, perhaps can't be re-sold etc. etc.
All players go into a draft and are selected by all Clubs in the same order as the other drafts.
Lower Clubs should get an upgrade to their best ten, higher teams will get a downgrade and Mid Clubs stay pat.
...Just an idea, don't be offended if you fear change. lol :)
Quote from: fanTCfool on October 23, 2016, 09:15:00 PMYou would still get a player in return, possibly a better one than you gave up.
Yep I'd rather have a cap than donate my good players for charity
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on October 23, 2016, 09:39:00 PMGee it would be so helpful if there was a way to force the bottom teams to do this as well as force the top teams to not get too overpowered....
Heres an idea
If you are awarded a priority pick it must be on traded for a player over the age of 23.
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on October 23, 2016, 09:39:00 PM
Heres an idea
If you are awarded a priority pick it must be on traded for a player over the age of 23.
Quote from: upthemaidens on November 27, 2016, 10:02:57 PMMatt De Boer I assume the reason behind this?
Don't know if it's been brought up before. Can we hold off finalising our squads until after the AFL draft?
Quote from: PowerBug on November 27, 2016, 10:05:41 PMDe Boer is the reason it came to mind, yes. Also that the WXV lists aren't due until the 30th.Quote from: upthemaidens on November 27, 2016, 10:02:57 PMMatt De Boer I assume the reason behind this?
Don't know if it's been brought up before. Can we hold off finalising our squads until after the AFL draft?
it would have to do with the draft picks everyone can use I assume. Although could make a rule that if you use a pick in the NAT draft, who you select can't be delisted immediately? (I'm just thinking and rambling here I may make no sense lol)
Quote from: upthemaidens on November 27, 2016, 10:19:48 PMQuote from: PowerBug on November 27, 2016, 10:05:41 PMDe Boer is the reason it came to mind, yes. Also that the WXV lists aren't due until the 30th.Quote from: upthemaidens on November 27, 2016, 10:02:57 PMMatt De Boer I assume the reason behind this?
Don't know if it's been brought up before. Can we hold off finalising our squads until after the AFL draft?
it would have to do with the draft picks everyone can use I assume. Although could make a rule that if you use a pick in the NAT draft, who you select can't be delisted immediately? (I'm just thinking and rambling here I may make no sense lol)
There are other scenarios though...
let's say you have to delist a player because of squad size and have two candidates, a forward and a defender.
In the draft you manage to grab some new forwards and decide that you now need the defender more than the forward.
Quote from: fanTCfool on November 27, 2016, 10:38:57 PMSure, but we don't follow what the AFL do in many other areas.Quote from: upthemaidens on November 27, 2016, 10:19:48 PMQuote from: PowerBug on November 27, 2016, 10:05:41 PMDe Boer is the reason it came to mind, yes. Also that the WXV lists aren't due until the 30th.Quote from: upthemaidens on November 27, 2016, 10:02:57 PMMatt De Boer I assume the reason behind this?
Don't know if it's been brought up before. Can we hold off finalising our squads until after the AFL draft?
it would have to do with the draft picks everyone can use I assume. Although could make a rule that if you use a pick in the NAT draft, who you select can't be delisted immediately? (I'm just thinking and rambling here I may make no sense lol)
There are other scenarios though...
let's say you have to delist a player because of squad size and have two candidates, a forward and a defender.
In the draft you manage to grab some new forwards and decide that you now need the defender more than the forward.
AFL clubs finalise their list before the draft. They might go into drafting looking for forwards but only have defenders available, that's the way it goes.
Quote from: Ricochet on November 27, 2016, 11:22:01 PMI'm probably being a bit harsh here, but I'm not a huge fan of the rule.
Another thing to put forward that's in other comps.
-24hr rule doesnt apply to first round picks.
Missing out on your first rounder a pretty high cost if you're not in for that 24hrs initially
Quote from: Ricochet on November 27, 2016, 11:22:01 PMWhat comp (or comps) has this rule?
Another thing to put forward that's in other comps.
-24hr rule doesnt apply to first round picks.
Missing out on your first rounder a pretty high cost if you're not in for that 24hrs initially
Quote from: Nige on November 27, 2016, 11:27:21 PMYeh it would rarely happen anyway and it's only the first round.Quote from: Ricochet on November 27, 2016, 11:22:01 PMI'm probably being a bit harsh here, but I'm not a huge fan of the rule.
Another thing to put forward that's in other comps.
-24hr rule doesnt apply to first round picks.
Missing out on your first rounder a pretty high cost if you're not in for that 24hrs initially
As a coach in one of these comps, there's only two real tasks that you pretty much have to do. Team selection and list management (which encompasses delistings/drafting/trading etc). With the drafts, we're all footy fans and every coach should know when the draft is and when the draft they're coach in is starting, so I feel like coaches really should be making the best effort they can to be on within 24 hours of their comp's draft starting to at least see where it's at and when their pick may come about. Don't get me wrong, I know people have lives, activity decreases and this time of year can be particularly busy, but I don't think it's too much to ask.
That's my two cents on it anyway.
Quote from: Ricochet on November 27, 2016, 11:35:08 PMThat's only the 2hr rule I thought? Not applying the 24hr rule would be madness imho :PQuote from: Nige on November 27, 2016, 11:27:21 PMYeh it would rarely happen anyway and it's only the first round.Quote from: Ricochet on November 27, 2016, 11:22:01 PMI'm probably being a bit harsh here, but I'm not a huge fan of the rule.
Another thing to put forward that's in other comps.
-24hr rule doesnt apply to first round picks.
Missing out on your first rounder a pretty high cost if you're not in for that 24hrs initially
As a coach in one of these comps, there's only two real tasks that you pretty much have to do. Team selection and list management (which encompasses delistings/drafting/trading etc). With the drafts, we're all footy fans and every coach should know when the draft is and when the draft they're coach in is starting, so I feel like coaches really should be making the best effort they can to be on within 24 hours of their comp's draft starting to at least see where it's at and when their pick may come about. Don't get me wrong, I know people have lives, activity decreases and this time of year can be particularly busy, but I don't think it's too much to ask.
That's my two cents on it anyway.
But with SR today. Wasnt on yesterday for the start of the draft and didn't get on until mid today. So would have been skipped if Jay had picked. Luckily i got hold of him in twitter
At such a high pick it's pretty costly and yeh would rarely happen or we wouldn't have to wait long for them to get back in generally.
2hr rule after being online would still apply
But yeh something to discuss anyway
@GL
World's man
Quote from: GoLions on November 27, 2016, 11:36:26 PMOh yeh sorry 2hr rule in worldsQuote from: Ricochet on November 27, 2016, 11:35:08 PMThat's only the 2hr rule I thought? Not applying the 24hr rule would be madness imho :PQuote from: Nige on November 27, 2016, 11:27:21 PMYeh it would rarely happen anyway and it's only the first round.Quote from: Ricochet on November 27, 2016, 11:22:01 PMI'm probably being a bit harsh here, but I'm not a huge fan of the rule.
Another thing to put forward that's in other comps.
-24hr rule doesnt apply to first round picks.
Missing out on your first rounder a pretty high cost if you're not in for that 24hrs initially
As a coach in one of these comps, there's only two real tasks that you pretty much have to do. Team selection and list management (which encompasses delistings/drafting/trading etc). With the drafts, we're all footy fans and every coach should know when the draft is and when the draft they're coach in is starting, so I feel like coaches really should be making the best effort they can to be on within 24 hours of their comp's draft starting to at least see where it's at and when their pick may come about. Don't get me wrong, I know people have lives, activity decreases and this time of year can be particularly busy, but I don't think it's too much to ask.
That's my two cents on it anyway.
But with SR today. Wasnt on yesterday for the start of the draft and didn't get on until mid today. So would have been skipped if Jay had picked. Luckily i got hold of him in twitter
At such a high pick it's pretty costly and yeh would rarely happen or we wouldn't have to wait long for them to get back in generally.
2hr rule after being online would still apply
But yeh something to discuss anyway
@GL
World's man
Quote from: Ricochet on November 27, 2016, 11:37:05 PMBecause then the first round could potentially take over a week hahaQuote from: GoLions on November 27, 2016, 11:36:26 PMOh yeh sorry 2hr rule in worldsQuote from: Ricochet on November 27, 2016, 11:35:08 PMThat's only the 2hr rule I thought? Not applying the 24hr rule would be madness imho :PQuote from: Nige on November 27, 2016, 11:27:21 PMYeh it would rarely happen anyway and it's only the first round.Quote from: Ricochet on November 27, 2016, 11:22:01 PMI'm probably being a bit harsh here, but I'm not a huge fan of the rule.
Another thing to put forward that's in other comps.
-24hr rule doesnt apply to first round picks.
Missing out on your first rounder a pretty high cost if you're not in for that 24hrs initially
As a coach in one of these comps, there's only two real tasks that you pretty much have to do. Team selection and list management (which encompasses delistings/drafting/trading etc). With the drafts, we're all footy fans and every coach should know when the draft is and when the draft they're coach in is starting, so I feel like coaches really should be making the best effort they can to be on within 24 hours of their comp's draft starting to at least see where it's at and when their pick may come about. Don't get me wrong, I know people have lives, activity decreases and this time of year can be particularly busy, but I don't think it's too much to ask.
That's my two cents on it anyway.
But with SR today. Wasnt on yesterday for the start of the draft and didn't get on until mid today. So would have been skipped if Jay had picked. Luckily i got hold of him in twitter
At such a high pick it's pretty costly and yeh would rarely happen or we wouldn't have to wait long for them to get back in generally.
2hr rule after being online would still apply
But yeh something to discuss anyway
@GL
World's man
Why madness?
Quote from: GoLions on November 27, 2016, 11:45:40 PMHaha potentially but it wouldn'tQuote from: Ricochet on November 27, 2016, 11:37:05 PMBecause then the first round could potentially take over a week hahaQuote from: GoLions on November 27, 2016, 11:36:26 PMOh yeh sorry 2hr rule in worldsQuote from: Ricochet on November 27, 2016, 11:35:08 PMThat's only the 2hr rule I thought? Not applying the 24hr rule would be madness imho :PQuote from: Nige on November 27, 2016, 11:27:21 PMYeh it would rarely happen anyway and it's only the first round.Quote from: Ricochet on November 27, 2016, 11:22:01 PMI'm probably being a bit harsh here, but I'm not a huge fan of the rule.
Another thing to put forward that's in other comps.
-24hr rule doesnt apply to first round picks.
Missing out on your first rounder a pretty high cost if you're not in for that 24hrs initially
As a coach in one of these comps, there's only two real tasks that you pretty much have to do. Team selection and list management (which encompasses delistings/drafting/trading etc). With the drafts, we're all footy fans and every coach should know when the draft is and when the draft they're coach in is starting, so I feel like coaches really should be making the best effort they can to be on within 24 hours of their comp's draft starting to at least see where it's at and when their pick may come about. Don't get me wrong, I know people have lives, activity decreases and this time of year can be particularly busy, but I don't think it's too much to ask.
That's my two cents on it anyway.
But with SR today. Wasnt on yesterday for the start of the draft and didn't get on until mid today. So would have been skipped if Jay had picked. Luckily i got hold of him in twitter
At such a high pick it's pretty costly and yeh would rarely happen or we wouldn't have to wait long for them to get back in generally.
2hr rule after being online would still apply
But yeh something to discuss anyway
@GL
World's man
Why madness?
Quote from: Ricochet on November 27, 2016, 11:49:05 PMQuote from: GoLions on November 27, 2016, 11:45:40 PMHaha potentially but it wouldn'tQuote from: Ricochet on November 27, 2016, 11:37:05 PMBecause then the first round could potentially take over a week hahaQuote from: GoLions on November 27, 2016, 11:36:26 PMOh yeh sorry 2hr rule in worldsQuote from: Ricochet on November 27, 2016, 11:35:08 PMThat's only the 2hr rule I thought? Not applying the 24hr rule would be madness imho :PQuote from: Nige on November 27, 2016, 11:27:21 PMYeh it would rarely happen anyway and it's only the first round.Quote from: Ricochet on November 27, 2016, 11:22:01 PMI'm probably being a bit harsh here, but I'm not a huge fan of the rule.
Another thing to put forward that's in other comps.
-24hr rule doesnt apply to first round picks.
Missing out on your first rounder a pretty high cost if you're not in for that 24hrs initially
As a coach in one of these comps, there's only two real tasks that you pretty much have to do. Team selection and list management (which encompasses delistings/drafting/trading etc). With the drafts, we're all footy fans and every coach should know when the draft is and when the draft they're coach in is starting, so I feel like coaches really should be making the best effort they can to be on within 24 hours of their comp's draft starting to at least see where it's at and when their pick may come about. Don't get me wrong, I know people have lives, activity decreases and this time of year can be particularly busy, but I don't think it's too much to ask.
That's my two cents on it anyway.
But with SR today. Wasnt on yesterday for the start of the draft and didn't get on until mid today. So would have been skipped if Jay had picked. Luckily i got hold of him in twitter
At such a high pick it's pretty costly and yeh would rarely happen or we wouldn't have to wait long for them to get back in generally.
2hr rule after being online would still apply
But yeh something to discuss anyway
@GL
World's man
Why madness?
Like Nost said we should be able to get hold of everyone within 24hrs
But like with SR today, a few hrs could have been costly. Especially if he had say pick 2-3
I wouldn't imagine it would ever happen but thought it should be considered just incase
Quote from: Ricochet on November 27, 2016, 11:35:08 PMQuote from: Nige on November 27, 2016, 11:27:21 PMYeh it would rarely happen anyway and it's only the first round.Quote from: Ricochet on November 27, 2016, 11:22:01 PMI'm probably being a bit harsh here, but I'm not a huge fan of the rule.
Another thing to put forward that's in other comps.
-24hr rule doesnt apply to first round picks.
Missing out on your first rounder a pretty high cost if you're not in for that 24hrs initially
As a coach in one of these comps, there's only two real tasks that you pretty much have to do. Team selection and list management (which encompasses delistings/drafting/trading etc). With the drafts, we're all footy fans and every coach should know when the draft is and when the draft they're coach in is starting, so I feel like coaches really should be making the best effort they can to be on within 24 hours of their comp's draft starting to at least see where it's at and when their pick may come about. Don't get me wrong, I know people have lives, activity decreases and this time of year can be particularly busy, but I don't think it's too much to ask.
That's my two cents on it anyway.
But with SR today. Wasnt on yesterday for the start of the draft and didn't get on until mid today. So would have been skipped if Jay had picked. Luckily i got hold of him in twitter
At such a high pick it's pretty costly and yeh would rarely happen or we wouldn't have to wait long for them to get back in generally.
2hr rule after being online would still apply
But yeh something to discuss anyway
@GL
World's man
Quote from: nostradamus on November 27, 2016, 11:54:25 PMNo i didnt, i know your against it. I just used a part of what you said, in that we SHOULD be able to get hold of everyone.Quote from: Ricochet on November 27, 2016, 11:49:05 PMQuote from: GoLions on November 27, 2016, 11:45:40 PMHaha potentially but it wouldn'tQuote from: Ricochet on November 27, 2016, 11:37:05 PMBecause then the first round could potentially take over a week hahaQuote from: GoLions on November 27, 2016, 11:36:26 PMOh yeh sorry 2hr rule in worldsQuote from: Ricochet on November 27, 2016, 11:35:08 PMThat's only the 2hr rule I thought? Not applying the 24hr rule would be madness imho :PQuote from: Nige on November 27, 2016, 11:27:21 PMYeh it would rarely happen anyway and it's only the first round.Quote from: Ricochet on November 27, 2016, 11:22:01 PMI'm probably being a bit harsh here, but I'm not a huge fan of the rule.
Another thing to put forward that's in other comps.
-24hr rule doesnt apply to first round picks.
Missing out on your first rounder a pretty high cost if you're not in for that 24hrs initially
As a coach in one of these comps, there's only two real tasks that you pretty much have to do. Team selection and list management (which encompasses delistings/drafting/trading etc). With the drafts, we're all footy fans and every coach should know when the draft is and when the draft they're coach in is starting, so I feel like coaches really should be making the best effort they can to be on within 24 hours of their comp's draft starting to at least see where it's at and when their pick may come about. Don't get me wrong, I know people have lives, activity decreases and this time of year can be particularly busy, but I don't think it's too much to ask.
That's my two cents on it anyway.
But with SR today. Wasnt on yesterday for the start of the draft and didn't get on until mid today. So would have been skipped if Jay had picked. Luckily i got hold of him in twitter
At such a high pick it's pretty costly and yeh would rarely happen or we wouldn't have to wait long for them to get back in generally.
2hr rule after being online would still apply
But yeh something to discuss anyway
@GL
World's man
Why madness?
Like Nost said we should be able to get hold of everyone within 24hrs
But like with SR today, a few hrs could have been costly. Especially if he had say pick 2-3
I wouldn't imagine it would ever happen but thought it should be considered just incase
l think you are misinterpreting my words.
I think the change you suggest is just catering for laziness and/or incompetence.
I want it to stay as is.
Quote from: Ricochet on November 28, 2016, 12:01:52 AMQuote from: nostradamus on November 27, 2016, 11:54:25 PMNo i didnt, i know your against it. I just used a part of what you said, in that we SHOULD be able to get hold of everyone.Quote from: Ricochet on November 27, 2016, 11:49:05 PMQuote from: GoLions on November 27, 2016, 11:45:40 PMHaha potentially but it wouldn'tQuote from: Ricochet on November 27, 2016, 11:37:05 PMBecause then the first round could potentially take over a week hahaQuote from: GoLions on November 27, 2016, 11:36:26 PMOh yeh sorry 2hr rule in worldsQuote from: Ricochet on November 27, 2016, 11:35:08 PMThat's only the 2hr rule I thought? Not applying the 24hr rule would be madness imho :PQuote from: Nige on November 27, 2016, 11:27:21 PMYeh it would rarely happen anyway and it's only the first round.Quote from: Ricochet on November 27, 2016, 11:22:01 PMI'm probably being a bit harsh here, but I'm not a huge fan of the rule.
Another thing to put forward that's in other comps.
-24hr rule doesnt apply to first round picks.
Missing out on your first rounder a pretty high cost if you're not in for that 24hrs initially
As a coach in one of these comps, there's only two real tasks that you pretty much have to do. Team selection and list management (which encompasses delistings/drafting/trading etc). With the drafts, we're all footy fans and every coach should know when the draft is and when the draft they're coach in is starting, so I feel like coaches really should be making the best effort they can to be on within 24 hours of their comp's draft starting to at least see where it's at and when their pick may come about. Don't get me wrong, I know people have lives, activity decreases and this time of year can be particularly busy, but I don't think it's too much to ask.
That's my two cents on it anyway.
But with SR today. Wasnt on yesterday for the start of the draft and didn't get on until mid today. So would have been skipped if Jay had picked. Luckily i got hold of him in twitter
At such a high pick it's pretty costly and yeh would rarely happen or we wouldn't have to wait long for them to get back in generally.
2hr rule after being online would still apply
But yeh something to discuss anyway
@GL
World's man
Why madness?
Like Nost said we should be able to get hold of everyone within 24hrs
But like with SR today, a few hrs could have been costly. Especially if he had say pick 2-3
I wouldn't imagine it would ever happen but thought it should be considered just incase
l think you are misinterpreting my words.
I think the change you suggest is just catering for laziness and/or incompetence.
I want it to stay as is.
And its not to promote laziness mate. I only suggested it for the very very remote chance that someone isnt on for 24hrs in the early stages of the draft. It wouldnt be hard to do over a weekend
Like i said itd probably never happen so it wouldnt hurt anyone
And i only suggest it for first round so its not like it would hold the draft up for days/weeks
Quote from: nostradamus on November 28, 2016, 12:10:59 AMlol no need to be a dick about it mate, its just a suggestionQuote from: Ricochet on November 28, 2016, 12:01:52 AMQuote from: nostradamus on November 27, 2016, 11:54:25 PMNo i didnt, i know your against it. I just used a part of what you said, in that we SHOULD be able to get hold of everyone.Quote from: Ricochet on November 27, 2016, 11:49:05 PMQuote from: GoLions on November 27, 2016, 11:45:40 PMHaha potentially but it wouldn'tQuote from: Ricochet on November 27, 2016, 11:37:05 PMBecause then the first round could potentially take over a week hahaQuote from: GoLions on November 27, 2016, 11:36:26 PMOh yeh sorry 2hr rule in worldsQuote from: Ricochet on November 27, 2016, 11:35:08 PMThat's only the 2hr rule I thought? Not applying the 24hr rule would be madness imho :PQuote from: Nige on November 27, 2016, 11:27:21 PMYeh it would rarely happen anyway and it's only the first round.Quote from: Ricochet on November 27, 2016, 11:22:01 PMI'm probably being a bit harsh here, but I'm not a huge fan of the rule.
Another thing to put forward that's in other comps.
-24hr rule doesnt apply to first round picks.
Missing out on your first rounder a pretty high cost if you're not in for that 24hrs initially
As a coach in one of these comps, there's only two real tasks that you pretty much have to do. Team selection and list management (which encompasses delistings/drafting/trading etc). With the drafts, we're all footy fans and every coach should know when the draft is and when the draft they're coach in is starting, so I feel like coaches really should be making the best effort they can to be on within 24 hours of their comp's draft starting to at least see where it's at and when their pick may come about. Don't get me wrong, I know people have lives, activity decreases and this time of year can be particularly busy, but I don't think it's too much to ask.
That's my two cents on it anyway.
But with SR today. Wasnt on yesterday for the start of the draft and didn't get on until mid today. So would have been skipped if Jay had picked. Luckily i got hold of him in twitter
At such a high pick it's pretty costly and yeh would rarely happen or we wouldn't have to wait long for them to get back in generally.
2hr rule after being online would still apply
But yeh something to discuss anyway
@GL
World's man
Why madness?
Like Nost said we should be able to get hold of everyone within 24hrs
But like with SR today, a few hrs could have been costly. Especially if he had say pick 2-3
I wouldn't imagine it would ever happen but thought it should be considered just incase
l think you are misinterpreting my words.
I think the change you suggest is just catering for laziness and/or incompetence.
I want it to stay as is.
And its not to promote laziness mate. I only suggested it for the very very remote chance that someone isnt on for 24hrs in the early stages of the draft. It wouldnt be hard to do over a weekend
Like i said itd probably never happen so it wouldnt hurt anyone
And i only suggest it for first round so its not like it would hold the draft up for days/weeks
Ahhh, l see the mistake there........
"Definitely keep as is 2 hr & 24 hour combo is spot on for all rounds.
We all know when the drafts are and are capable of notifying others if there's a problem.
And if by chance anyone forgets well it's their own fault."
......the "we" l was referring to was us all as responsible coaches taking personal responsibility if we had a problem in posting our picks or being online.
Quote from: upthemaidens on November 28, 2016, 01:38:07 AMYup, I'd be in favour of this, with of course the chance to change your pick before the next person picks
Could just change the rule, from being skipped to receiving the next player in AFL order.
That way in the rare occurrence that a Coach misses they will still get a top draft pick, especially if it's only a rule for the first round of picks.
Quote from: SydneyRox on November 28, 2016, 12:11:56 PM
As the person who caused some issues across a few comps, let me throw my 2c in.
It isnt always a case where you forget, cant be a**ed or just lazy. Their is a thing called real life that gets in the way and before you know it 2days have gone by.
Missing a 1st rounder in these sort of comps is a massive negative, and since most of the time the teams with the low picks are the worst teams who need the best players, skipping them doubles the effect.
Its not like we really need to rush it through, by mid Jan trading and everything else comes to an almost complete halt across all these comps.
Drafting and trading are the two best bits of why we are involved IMO and so we shouldnt be in a need to rush
So this isnt me having a whinge that I was almost skipped, this is just me agreeing that some sort of rule adaptation would be a good idea.
Quote from: nrich102 on November 28, 2016, 11:16:01 AMYeh that's probably a fair compromiseQuote from: upthemaidens on November 28, 2016, 01:38:07 AMYup, I'd be in favour of this, with of course the chance to change your pick before the next person picks
Could just change the rule, from being skipped to receiving the next player in AFL order.
That way in the rare occurrence that a Coach misses they will still get a top draft pick, especially if it's only a rule for the first round of picks.
Quote from: Ricochet on November 28, 2016, 12:40:50 PMQuote from: nrich102 on November 28, 2016, 11:16:01 AMYeh that's probably a fair compromiseQuote from: upthemaidens on November 28, 2016, 01:38:07 AMYup, I'd be in favour of this, with of course the chance to change your pick before the next person picks
Could just change the rule, from being skipped to receiving the next player in AFL order.
That way in the rare occurrence that a Coach misses they will still get a top draft pick, especially if it's only a rule for the first round of picks.
Remember boys this proposal is a very minor adjustment to our rules and would rarely happen. The affect on the comp is literally minimal
But in the unlikely event that something extraordinary happens to a coaches life outside of FF, we have something there
It can't hurt to have it can it
Quote from: Rids on November 28, 2016, 12:44:24 PMYep that's the key :)Quote from: Ricochet on November 28, 2016, 12:40:50 PMQuote from: nrich102 on November 28, 2016, 11:16:01 AMYeh that's probably a fair compromiseQuote from: upthemaidens on November 28, 2016, 01:38:07 AMYup, I'd be in favour of this, with of course the chance to change your pick before the next person picks
Could just change the rule, from being skipped to receiving the next player in AFL order.
That way in the rare occurrence that a Coach misses they will still get a top draft pick, especially if it's only a rule for the first round of picks.
Remember boys this proposal is a very minor adjustment to our rules and would rarely happen. The affect on the comp is literally minimal
But in the unlikely event that something extraordinary happens to a coaches life outside of FF, we have something there
It can't hurt to have it can it
The discussion is a good one to have and I am sure we can capture a few scenarios to vote on within it.
I understand both sides. Yes life should always be a priority. But delaying also can be a frustration trigger for others with hectic periods coming up. If everyone just give thought to each other then happy days!
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 07, 2017, 03:12:14 PM
While I'm at it :) Remove the Rookie list and just make it a 46 man squad. If we still have a rookie draft, then those players just go onto the seniors.
AFL might get rid of Rookie lists anyhow, but even if they don't we still should.
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 07, 2017, 02:57:47 PMYeh i like this one too
Has this rule been introduced yet? If a player quits/delisted and returns to the AFL at a later date, that the previous AXV Club gets to match any bids for that player.
If not, we should consider adding it. Basically the same process as WXV. It only occurs now and then, but still is a good rule to have.
Quote from: upthemaidens on January 07, 2017, 03:12:14 PM
While I'm at it :) Remove the Rookie list and just make it a 46 man squad. If we still have a rookie draft, then those players just go onto the seniors.
AFL might get rid of Rookie lists anyhow, but even if they don't we still should.