ORFFU Community, There's been a bit of discussion about how we can reduce the likelihood of teams being short of a full 15, especially for extended periods of time. What we're going to do is increase the player lists on each team. How this'll work: The 2016 Mid Season Trade period will occur as planned, during the byes. The 2016 Mid Season Draft period will occur as planned, also during the byes. The 2016 MSD will be expanded, so that at the end of the trades and drafts each team has a total of 30 players. The draft order will remain the same, there will simply be more rounds and more drafting. Coaches may also trade in players up to their new cap of 30 players, if they choose. A form of mandatory list turnover will be introduced for the future: Since we have added four new players to each team list, it will now be mandatory to turn over a minimum of four players each year - with a year being defined by the end of the AFL / SC seasons. Each coach can make his own decisions on exactly how he manages this list turnover - they can occur in the Pre Season Trade period(s), Pre Season Draft, Mid Season Trade period, or in the Mid Season Draft. The only stipulation is that within these trade and draft periods, a minimum of four players must leave each club, and be replaced, to maintain a team list of 30. (If a coach chooses to delist and then redraft a player, that will count as one of the mandatory four turnover players). Any coach who fails to turn over the minimum four players by the time the MSD comes around, will have the remaining quota of players delisted prior to the MSD in reverse order of year-to-date average score (lowest averaging player for the season will be delisted first). It is hoped that by introducing a larger list size and some mandatory player turnover: 1) teams will be more likely to be able to field 15 players each week. 2) there will be more trading and drafting. 3) we can be more speculative with some players, and it won't ruin our season. 4) ORFFU will be more fun for all of us!!! We will see how this performs over the next year and a half. If further changes need to be made, we'll address them as required. The rules post will be updated shortly. Cheers all, JPK
Like it. Interesting, so if I read that correctly trading out 4 players for 4 other players counts as meeting the mandatory list turnover. The only issue I can see happening is regarding players needing to be delisted on behalf on a coach. Say 4 need to be delisted to meet the minimum turnover requirements but the team has 6 players who have averaged 0 this year and we can't get in touch with the coach. What's the approach taken to delist the 4 players? Maybe based on age (eg oldest 4 get delisted) or based on exerience (eg least experienced go out first) or an approach whereby the player taken the latest in their respective ND/RD get delisted first? Maybe it takes into account the previous year SC average too and lowest SC ave from the previous year means that player gets delisted first? Anyway, just some ideas I'm throwing around.
exactly. 4 is easy to do and doesn't really burden anyone. great way to promote further activity but more importantly to try and get more competitive games week to week
Yes, that is correct - any four players must be turned over in any way you see fit. If you have an old list and four of them retire at the end of the year, then you draft four new players next PSD, you've satisfied your minimum quota. As Holky said, and Insider reiterated, 4 player turnovers in a year should not be a stretch for anyone, especially seeing as there are now going to be four more players on our lists to swing the guillotine at! I'm hoping it never comes to needing to delist a player for a coach who hasn't met his quota, but yes, we do need a solid rule that specifies exactly how this'll be done. I like your suggestions Fresh. We do have more than a year to sort this one out, so if anyone has any alternate ideas, or support for Fresh's idea, please say so. Or simply, make it easy on everyone and just turn over four players!!!
Is middle of the season best time to introduce a rule like this? Can't recall if it happened but were there any MSD picks traded? If it is the case, first impression is that it probably doesn't seem fair to a team that traded a pick that has now changed in value.
Kind of agree with this; there have been some MSD selections traded without knowing how much they are now worth. I know we have some teams that are struggling with numbers but I would have thought the best time to bring in a new rule would have been at the end of the season. The byes are later this year (round 13) so by that stage extra numbers won't help the teams already hurting.
Fortunately all MSD picks involved in trades are only in the first two rounds, so... To maintain stability and not diminish the value of these picks / increase the value of these picks, we will complete the 2016 MSD as would normally occur, until all teams have 26 players on their list. In this way no team is advantaged or disadvantaged as we end up where we would have ended up anyway. Once this has concluded we can then conduct a second MSD for the team expansions to 30 players. Draft order for this will be the same as the regular MSD, based on reverse ladder positions on a points for basis. These draft picks will also be available for trade in the preceding mid season trade period.
Did I miss the conversation on this? Did we have a vote on this? Hope I didn't miss that as well.... I understand why some would like a list increase
I like the idea, but maybe introduce it at the end of the year?? I am happy with the general consensus
Hey dd, I believe it's not so much a list increase that is the important thing here, although that will help a lot of teams, but I believe it's more about player movement, trying to get a more competitive competition. It's only my opinion and I would dearly like to be proved wrong, but I believe that the way we've set up this league benefits those who had the foresight and talent to draft well originally. Unfortunately I'm not one of those and I'll forever be destined to be in the bottom 6 unless there is change, to allow the bottom six a chance, yes only a chance, to climb the ladder. Should we penalise those who drafted well. No of course we shouldn't, but a little bit of help for the not so talented will be more than welcome. As we don't have salary caps, free agency etc, there is no reason for anyone who has a high scoring team to move any of those players on. As a bottom 6 team, as it stands now, the only way I can better my team is by trading, and the only players I have, worth something to higher placed teams, are exactly the players I can't afford to trade. I've tried that previously and don't believe it's feasible to do it. Which leaves the draft as my next best option, to take the chance on a highly talented 18yo, who may or may not succeed such as Weitering av84,Parish 77av or Hopper, Francis who haven't played yet. I went this way in 2014 and took Jarrod Pickett, AFL Draft selection No4, and he still hasn't played. So I believe that, if the 18 coaches of ORFFU want a more competitive league, then moving on 4 players either by trading or delisting is a step in the right direction, and increasing squads to 30, is another step. If the majority feel that ORFFU is fine just the way it is, then let the administrators know that you disagree with the new rule change. I, along with 17 other coaches joined this league primarily to share AFL with other like minded individuals, and to have some fun along the way, with the banter and the cameradrie shared among 18. and overall, I think we're doing OK, and I enjoy reading team news and game reports etc. It makes my day. But I also would like to think that we can keep the same 18 coaches together for many a year, moving forward, so I believe, we now need to accept the fact that some of us need help with our teams. This rule will help to achieve that....... Cheers
Hahaha I understand all that mate, and am more then happy to have a couple more on my list. Was more wondering if I had missed all this convo or vote that may have taken place. I know I'm distant sometimes but I still try to keep my eye on things. It will be great to draft a couple more potentialy injury plagued spuds to my list, can't wait to ruin a few more careers
So I've had a chance to think about this and I have a couple of comments; my thoughts are that list size should ideally stay the same, there's nothing to say that teams won't select 1st & 2nd year players that haven't established themselves and therefore not increase their depth and ability to field a full team. I guess if we allow expanded lists I'd be more inclined to think it should only be 2 more players with potentially 3 player movements per season. This would then ensure we cut into the established 26 on all lists. I fear that if we take an extra 72 players (4 each) from the pool there will be little value in MSD picks outside the first couple making them hold little trade value and making the draft a non event. Not sure how you guys feel but thought I should share my opinion.
Good point EE, I had similar thoughts last night when I started to have a proper look at the free agent pool for the upcoming MSD. I'm a fan of mandatory player movement if we increase list sizes but I also realised that not all of the players are going to go back into the pool and be available for the draft. Yes we can trade for them but it's not always easy trying to grab a player who's performing well above expectations. Not sure how to get around this, perhaps a requirement where each team has to take at least one/two picks in either/both drafts each year?
I haven't put a lot of time into thinking about this yet but my initial thoughts are; 1. any change to rules should definitely be made between seasons 2. significant changes to the structure of the competition should definitely be voted on 3. I have always been in favor of mandatory delisting to help even the competition, however I don't think forced list changes alone will necessarily help. If I trade 4 players for 4 equally valued players it's not going to effect the strength of my team 4. I believe the current list size is large enough for us to field full teams. The reason some cannot is because they have lists chocked with players who aren't in their clubs best 22. There's plenty of available players that play every week who no-one wants.
I'm not too fussed either way on the rule change but think it really has to happen at the end of the season. Understand JPK's comment of starting the top up picks after affected MSD picks that were traded but would a team have even traded that pick if they knew they would be needing to increase their list size? I don't think the answer even matters, the fact that it could have changed their thinking is enough to mean we shouldn't be changing until end of season. Also, Not that I have ever really been in the frame for this but what about a team who is 9th that plays a lower team at the end of the season who now has 15 players playing and loses when the team just above them played that lower team earlier in the season and won only because that lower team wasn't full?
It seems like too big of a change to make in the season... between the seasons would be a more appropriate time. I like the idea of it though, it could even be combined with field size increases like a 5th playing midfielder but that is another matter.