I think you’re missing the point with your second…. Point. Pick 68 wasn’t actually pick 68, but with this proposal it might be; as there will be no dead picks. So it could actually have the opposite affect and restrict trading because later picks aren’t as valuable. Anyway it doesn’t really matter until a vote I guess.
I referred to it in my post but might as well raise it as an idea... how about we increase our ability to trade future picks for the next 4 drafts instead of 3? There were a few occasions where picks or players were offered up for future picks. This would allow a coach (pre PSD) to move their PSD pick into the future and receive a combination of future PSD and MSD picks if that's what they prefer rather than only being able to trade for future PSD picks.
I agree that we should be able to trade a little further into the future. But as I do not track future trades, the impost is on others, so just my opinion.
I'm fine with this, and I support the idea of trading further into the future. The only concern is that it becomes harder to monitor. It will require all coaches to be more aware of which picks they have traded in and out, so that we don't have cases of a team trying to trade the same pick twice.
not quite the point I was trying to make with my, errr, point... Pick 68 (and I didn't select this to single you out, it was just a convenient pick) can never be worse than the 68th pick, so a coach should never really be disappointed about being bumped down the order, because they'll only ever fall as far as face value. Never mind that there weren't 13 selections remaining to be taken (55 to 68) so there wouldn't have been that many spots to fall, and even if there was, you'd have the same opportunity as anyone else to keep pushing your way back up the order through trading for whatever picks would otherwise be "dead". Maybe an MSD is a better example, where a lot of coaches don't take picks, so there can be more and bigger gaps filled with otherwise dead picks. Anyway, I'll put together a vote in a couple of days, after everyone has had some time to express their opinions. (I feel like a politician in campaign mode right now!!!)
Nah, coz if someone delists a player right at the end, not everyone will have the opportunity to draft them.
Strongly against making this change. It would open a massive can of worms, with lots of hold ups and possible disputes making the draft drag out to a painful length. I reckon we've got it pretty right in terms of list sizes, management and how quickly we're getting through our drafts currently. If it ain't broke...
As rule changes are being discussed again, it might be a good time to assess the effect of previous changes. About 6/7 years ago (I think) we made 2 changes designed to make the competition more even: teams had to make at least 4 changes to their list each year, and list sizes were increased from 26 to 30. Looking at Fresh's recent in depth analysis I think it's clear these changes haven't had the desired effect. I was against them at the time and I'll explain again why I think they are ineffective, and in the case of increased list sizes actually counter-productive. It seems obvious that the 4 forced changes does absolutely nothing to bring the higher teams back to the field. The idea was to stop those teams from hoarding players, ie the last 4 players on their list might be talented youngsters or starting 15 players for some other teams. Of course to meet the requirement though teams simply need to exchange 4 players with another team for 4 equivalent players. Neither team is worse off so no evening of the competition has occurred. For the rule to be of any effect it needs to be forced delistments so that the players are returned to the pool. The only method the competition actually has of evening is the draft, as obviously the lower finishing teams have higher picks. Increasing list sizes to 30 took the best 72 existing players out of the draft pool. Surely it is obvious that weakening the pool of players available to be drafted makes the advantage to the lower teams and the evening effect of the draft far less? At the time, the concern was many lower teams often not having 15 players to field. To me that was the challenge of the competition, to get the right balance of players scoring well now and potential for the future. Usually those teams not able to field 15 had lists weighted heavily to potential players, which I considered their choice to forego current success in the hope of future success. The increased list size makes it far easier for teams to do both, ie have current success and set up for future success. Therefore remaining near the top, the opposite of evening the competition. I'll admit I'm biased in my opinion on this. The increase made younger players far more valuable than they had been as the extra list places meant they were drafted long before actually performing, it's become very rare to find a player in the draft pool that is already scoring well. I had a list set up for the existing rules and would've been one of, if not the oldest list at the time. So the change particularly hurt my team, along with Blanchetown and Hughendon, who also had older lists. At the other end, it benefitted teams with younger lists, ie Cow Bay, Nuytsland. In the short term, it might appear that the rule had been effective as those older teams that had been relatively successful dropped down and the younger teams that hadn't had much success rose up. However, logic says it was a one-off effect due to the change in value of younger players caused by the rule change. The fact that the draft pool contains far fewer quality players than it did before, makes it harder for lower teams with higher picks to gain any advantage and thus take longer to rise up. My other bias is that I find the draft the most enjoyable part of the competition so it's disappointing to me that it's relevance has been greatly diminished. By contrast, I don't particularly enjoy trading - I don't like ripping others off and I don't like feeling as though I've been ripped off, and it's quite difficult to put together trades where both parties feel they have gained (putting greater value on something you own is a proven psychological effect). By weakening the draft pool, and therefore the impact of the draft, we've made success far more determinant on trading. That's great for those that enjoy the wheeling and dealing, unfortunately I don't. It's no surprise that the teams regularly near the top are those able to negotiate favourable deals and I can't begrudge them playing to win, I just find the competition far less enjoyable now. So anyway, that's far more of an essay than I planned to write. Point is those 2 changes we made in the name of evening the competition did not have the desired effect, as can be seen by both logic and history. If we genuinely care about this competition being more even, rather than the same teams constantly near the top, there are things that could be done. For a start returning lists to their original size of 26 to give the effects of drafts more impact (or in the case of the MSD just some impact as it's currently close to irrelevant, which it wasn't before the change).
A couple of ideas. Teams with less than a certain number of wins over multiple seasons: Hold 28 players whilst others hold 26 Are exempt from the 4 changes per season whilst others are not
In light of Tylo's comments, here's another few options: Reduce maximum list size - the idea being that smaller lists create less flexibility in a team, so there's more need to draft / trade. Increase list turnover - make it say 8 per year - the idea being to create even more opportunity for change, and hopefully adding value to both trades and drafting. Introduce the ability to bring in free agents throughout the season - similar to the SC draft leagues, at the end of each round (or few rounds) teams can drop any player they want and bring in any free agent player they want. Base priority on reverse ladder position. This would need a lot of activity from a lot of coaches, and I'm not sure we each have enough time to do this. It'd probably also dilute the value of the MSD. Remove all restrictions (other than list size), and let coaches run their teams exactly how they want to - the idea being that if you're 100% content with your side, then don't make a player change, but you can still trade draft picks to get future currency, this way we'd have more different potential strategies to win. I haven't looked at all the stats in enough detail, but Fresh's 10-year analysis seemed to indicate that only a few teams really have a chance of winning, the rest of us are generally just making up numbers. So maybe we do need to look at options to make the competition more even, and more fun for all. I don't have the answers... What I would like to try to make better is the ability to trade / draft to your liking, similarly to what Tylo was saying (and I paraphrase) with liking drafting, but not being so keen on trading, yet the changes that we've made may have skewed the "bias" too far towards those who enjoy and are good at trading. Food for thought...!!!
How about EVERYONE, not just the same handful of blokes every week, follow the current rules we have before campaigning for change. Goodness gracious…. Should we abandon scoring too so everyone feels like they’ve won? Better yet, let’s do away with trading and the ability to ‘own’ a player. Everyone can use Max Gawn every week. That should keep the Karen’s satisfied. Also, I’d like to commission fresh to find the correlation between disinterested coaches who don’t follow the rules and give nothing back to the community and finishing position. Going out on a limb here, but there may just be something to it. For those who can’t find the rules thread, I’m happy to post the below in every ORFFU topic just as a refresher. (i) You must post your team in the Weekly Team Thread half an hour prior to the first bounce, as well as entering via TSleagues. This not only helps with record keeping and ensures integrity of scores; it’s also a good thing to do to encourage forum activity. (g) Home teams will be required to post a match review no later than 2 days after the last AFL match (i.e. last game on Sunday, review posted on Tuesday).
Here we go again As predictable as ever, if someone doesn't like something said they have a go at others and throw the toys out the cot. Ever noticed that whenever there's narkiness here, there's ALWAYS one person involved? Somehow the other 17 all manage to communicate in a mature respectful way but one. Or perhaps that the reason some here are deterred from commenting more is they don't want to engage with that sort of toxic immaturity. It seems unfortunate when there is so much fun banter amongst other groups on this site, that we're stuck with the drama-queen. Anyway hero, how about either having some useful input to the discussion or just having your tantrum a bit more quietly in the corner while the adults have a grown-up conversation. And just to clarify for anyone who struggled to follow what I wrote - I was against the changes at the time that were intended to even the competition (interestingly a certain someone wasn't, perhaps as they understood how ineffective the changes would be). All I'm doing now is pointing out that they didn't have the intended effect and we should consider returning to the original rules.
Conveniently missed the point didn’t you? I’m ambivalent to the change, and if someone who actually contributed to our community suggested it then I wouldn’t have posted anything. The useful input is that you take and give nothing, yet think it’s appropriate for you to suggest changing rules to suit yourself. The entitlement is astonishing. You can name-call all you like on your soapbox, you’re just showing your own hypocrisy and vindicating everything I’m saying. I’ll always stand up for those who aren’t comfortable to do it themselves. I’m never perfect but I’m always honest; unrequitedly so. Happy to publicly applaud you for responding to a trade message with class and in a timely fashion, but equally as happy to call out the lack of contribution for 51 weeks of the year.
I don't want the FA swaps as it would make the MSD less important and overall negatively affect the vibe. In TSA, that's a thing and it means that there's not much incentive to hold onto a key player if they get injured or fall out of form for more than 2-3 weeks.
As for match reports, I'll admit after the terrible job I did with trading in last year's preseason, I didn't feel like doing the same report of "oh no, I lost because I did so badly with trading that I don't have a full board" week after week.
Gentlemen, this is your friendly yearly reminder that we all need to try to be civil, please. Banter is perfectly fine. Insulting someone's team is acceptable. Taking personal potshots at other coaches either by name or by insinuation is not. We're not all going to get along all the time, I'm not going to pretend that we will. Its a fact of life that no matter what you do, you will never please 100% of the people 100% of the time. Its fine to have disagreements of opinion - its how we deal with them that make the difference. So lets all try to be civil please, and make this an enjoyable place for everyone (win or lose).