The Champions League

[BB67th]

You would be able to do this fairly easily with the other scoring systems as well couldn't you C4? I think the idea works all right.

[Maca24]

Agree with C4, much better approach. :)

[AFEV]

Your model has my full support c4. :)

[Colliwobblers]

I will go along with whatever, I still think the champions league should by definition be the top 4 teams from each competition from the previous seasons ladder.

In the case of the Asians and the British, the only way to qualify 4 teams for the 2013 champions league is either to rate the teams lists or to go off (British and Asian) NAB cup pre-season tournament results.

Won't be that accurate but it's the only way.

How I would rank the British and Asian team lists is straight out of the prospectus which rates players. Again not entirely accurate for fantasy scoring, but again it is set in stone and cannot be argued unfair or biased. And can have all teams in each competition ranked rated and a top 4 for each (British/Asians) can be determined to go into 2013 champions league.

And as for the Holz knockout cup, well that can be seeded in the way that either of you has laid out, again I don't really care, but c4 seems to have been rather thorough in his formula.

[c4v3m4n]

You would be able to do this fairly easily with the other scoring systems as well couldn't you C4? I think the idea works all right.

Problem with your competitions is the ratio.

I'd need VS and SB scores for every player for every round from 2012 in order to be able to work out rankings and more importantly, a fair ratio.

c. 800 players x 22 rounds x 2 competitions = 35,200 data points.

That's um, quite a lot.

We'd need a collective group effort on that one...could be tricky.

I will go along with whatever, I still think the champions league should by definition be the top 4 teams from each competition from the previous seasons ladder.

In the case of the Asians and the British, the only way to qualify 4 teams for the 2013 champions league is either to rate the teams lists or to go off (British and Asian) NAB cup pre-season tournament results.

Won't be that accurate but it's the only way.

How I would rank the British and Asian team lists is straight out of the prospectus which rates players. Again not entirely accurate for fantasy scoring, but again it is set in stone and cannot be argued unfair or biased. And can have all teams in each competition ranked rated and a top 4 for each (British/Asians) can be determined to go into 2013 champions league.

And as for the Holz knockout cup, well that can be seeded in the way that either of you has laid out, again I don't really care, but c4 seems to have been rather thorough in his formula.

You do make a fair argument there CW.

As for AXV and BXV team entries, see above.

As for EXV and WXV team entries, the biggest issue is trades made in the off-season. Teams ie mine are already radically different from the past season, and because of this, my overall WXV team ranking will have also changed. Some teams may have become quite stronger, some quite weaker. Now if a team that missed out on the top 4 last year dominates this year, then really, the should be challenging for the Champions League as they'd most likely be the Champions for that year. Similarly for weaker teams, I don't want to see imbalances in the Champions League because a team has decided to rebuild in the off-season.

Hence why the team rankings made at the start of the year makes sense. It then allows those post-season stronger teams to compete. I'd hate to dominate a season and not be a part of the Champions League until the following year, too much goes on in the post-season.

[Ziplock]

sorry, but what about a round robin over like the first 4 rounds to identify what teams are in? like EVERYONE plays EVERYONE in those rounds, and the top 16 with the most wins get into the champion league for the remainder of the season?

then next year do the top 16 thing?

[Holz]

I will have to have a re read of your scoring system. I just want to clarify something which appears to have been interpreted wrong.

The scores I gave were a test run to see how balanced it could separate the worlds and euro teams and it looks fairly successful in that. I will be doing the calculations for all comps when we are halfway through the 2013 season. So this will get rid of issue 1 and 3 as it will account for all team changes over the off season as it will be just based on your 2013 performance.

The changing of teams each week however are not taken into account in my scoring system. However I feel as the comp is ran over 7 weeks if you make it all the way. Than I don't see the harm in averaging out the season from weekly scores becasue it is a 7 week knock-out comp. 


To be honest i have issues with your scoring system. I can see your point of saying the 27 euro squad is equal to a 21 worlds squad and based on numbers yes it is. However once you get a team of say 20 so you have your 15 and bench options than you start taking more speculative picks so I would say a  top 21 world team is stronger than a top 27 euro team.

I will go with public opinion but I always say the simplest way is the easiest way I worry that actually counting for team size increases bias in the stats.


If we were doing a champs league where the top 4 from each club play, your method perhaps is superior but in the clubs world cup method where it relies on that seasons permanence I much prefer my model.

Are you opposed to a clubs world cup with my method and a champs league with your method.

[Colliwobblers]

Fair points Holz and C4. I guess I don't mind however you work it out, as long as you get all 15's teams in the knockout cup. And an even spread of teams from all four 15's competitions in the champions league then it will be fine by me.

Still if you cannot work out a way to rank all teams from all competitions evenly for the knockout cup then all that will effect is the seeding...

But if you can't work out a way to balance and rate all teams in all competitions equaly for the champions league DON'T just rate all teams in each competition evenly for each individual competition and take the 4 highest ranked teams from each competition.

I understand you need to rank all teams for seeding in the knockout cup.

But I do not understand why you need to rank teams across all competitions for the champions league, shouldn't you just be taking the top 4 ranked teams in each competition into the champions league? Regardless of how or when you rank the teams?

[Holz]

Fair points Holz and C4. I guess I don't mind however you work it out, as long as you get all 15's teams in the knockout cup. And an even spread of teams from all four 15's competitions in the champions league then it will be fine by me.

Still if you cannot work out a way to rank all teams from all competitions evenly for the knockout cup then all that will effect is the seeding...

But if you can't work out a way to balance and rate all teams in all competitions equaly for the champions league DON'T just rate all teams in each competition evenly for each individual competition and take the 4 highest ranked teams from each competition.

I understand you need to rank all teams for seeding in the knockout cup.

But I do not understand why you need to rank teams across all competitions for the champions league, shouldn't you just be taking the top 4 ranked teams in each competition into the champions league? Regardless of how or when you rank the teams?

Thats what I would like Colli

Champs league: just the top 4 teams from each comp play a round robin before the byes. Than after the byes comes the final.
Seeding based on last years finishing.

Club World Cup: starts after the byes rankings on that season and its knock-out and every team in the comp is in it.

[tbagrocks]

Perfect...

but wait.. what's that?

sneaking up... is it? it's.......

[Colliwobblers]

Yes i agree but if you can work out a rating system between you and C4 to rate the teams in each 15's competition to slect the "current season" top 4 - GREAT, that's fine too.

[meow meow]

Holz, while I appreciate all of the effort you have put into your ranking system, there are a couple of constructive criticisms that I have.

Your ranking doesnt take into account the following:

• LTI to key players that will be involved in 2013 season
• Your averages are based in scores each week and teams change each week.
• The massive amount of trades that have occurred in the post-season

Holz's rankings will be based on performance of teams in the first half of season 2013.
The rankings he put up are just a guide of how it will work. He'll work out averages based on the first half of next season, so if LeCras is averaging 80 it will be included.
The scores of players traded into teams will be included if they are representing their teams in the first half of season 2013.

If you're going to base rankings/seeds on lists ahead of the 2013 season then that has one major flaw. First year players will have an average of 0. The next Toby Greene isn't included in C4's model, but his scores would be taken into account in Holz's model.

The performance of players outside the playing 15 shouldn't matter. Your whole squad doesn't play. You can only play 15 every week. My 20th best player could be averaging 65 and not even be a realistic chance of making my team. Everyone has a chance to trade for/draft a strong list, and those who choose not to should not be rewarded.

You would be able to do this fairly easily with the other scoring systems as well couldn't you C4? I think the idea works all right.

Problem with your competitions is the ratio.

I'd need VS and SB scores for every player for every round from 2012 in order to be able to work out rankings and more importantly, a fair ratio.

c. 800 players x 22 rounds x 2 competitions = 35,200 data points.

That's um, quite a lot.

We'd need a collective group effort on that one...could be tricky.

Holz's version is fairly simple, and very fair. You don't need to over complicate it. The SB and VS scores wouldn't need to be entered into a spreadsheet, all we'll need is the average of their first 10 games or so.

[c4v3m4n]

Holz, while I appreciate all of the effort you have put into your ranking system, there are a couple of constructive criticisms that I have.

Your ranking doesnt take into account the following:

• LTI to key players that will be involved in 2013 season
• Your averages are based in scores each week and teams change each week.
• The massive amount of trades that have occurred in the post-season

Holz's rankings will be based on performance of teams in the first half of season 2013.
The rankings he put up are just a guide of how it will work. He'll work out averages based on the first half of next season, so if LeCras is averaging 80 it will be included.
The scores of players traded into teams will be included if they are representing their teams in the first half of season 2013.

If you're going to base rankings/seeds on lists ahead of the 2013 season then that has one major flaw. First year players will have an average of 0. The next Toby Greene isn't included in C4's model, but his scores would be taken into account in Holz's model.

The performance of players outside the playing 15 shouldn't matter. Your whole squad doesn't play. You can only play 15 every week. My 20th best player could be averaging 65 and not even be a realistic chance of making my team. Everyone has a chance to trade for/draft a strong list, and those who choose not to should not be rewarded.

You would be able to do this fairly easily with the other scoring systems as well couldn't you C4? I think the idea works all right.

Problem with your competitions is the ratio.

I'd need VS and SB scores for every player for every round from 2012 in order to be able to work out rankings and more importantly, a fair ratio.

c. 800 players x 22 rounds x 2 competitions = 35,200 data points.

That's um, quite a lot.

We'd need a collective group effort on that one...could be tricky.

Holz's version is fairly simple, and very fair. You don't need to over complicate it. The SB and VS scores wouldn't need to be entered into a spreadsheet, all we'll need is the average of their first 10 games or so.

Valid point meow, I didn't take into account draftees. But you yourself said it that with no GWS or GC, draftees aren't going to be given instant opportunities anymore, just look at all the other draftees from last year. So, the next Greene probably wont happen again until Tassie is brought in.

Also, if we then look at ranking the teams after 10 weeks, then neither comp can start until after the byes. Which means that both comps would have to run concurrently, which IMO will be FAR too messy for those coaches who have more than one team involved. Therefore, IMO, there should only be one competition . And really, this is beginning to get out of hand with the idea of multiple best of comps plus regular fixtues and I'm sure people agree with me.

Plus, my proposal for the Champions League requires 11 weeks to run. Now, I dont want take anything away from the final series of either comps, so it would have to finish before Round 20 of the AFL. Which means that it would have to start at latest in Round 7. Now, do you believe that you will be able to have a fair and accurate assessment of all teams and their players by the end of Round 6? Maybe, but that is hell of a lot of work. Far far too much to organise in the space of a week.  :-\

Look, I've stated my case.

IMO, I think my model works and so do others.

IMO, two competitions running concurrently is too messy for coaches involved and getting a little out of hand. Should only be one competition.

If others feel differently, then that is perfectly fine and I accept that. Just stating my opinions. :)

[Ziplock]

2009 Draft- no GWS/ GC

Scully, Trengove and Martin all averaged 80 odd that could very well slide in as a second utility

more importantly though- Michael Barlow- 113 average

[Maca24]

Take C4's idea guys, it will ensure the league is as strong as can be.
Teams that score really well can always end up lower on the ladder than they should be. This way they will be included.