Its a slim majority, but its a majority of coaches who appear to want to change the list management rule. I'm going to leave this open (can't remember if I put an end date on the vote anyway). It'd also be nice if that 18th coach could stick his head in and vote, please.
I'm liking the idea of allowing bottom teams to have two rounds of draft picks (PSD only I assume - we can discuss), before top teams get one - but I'd advocate that all of these picks can be freely traded if wanted (so the Premiers could still end up with PSD1 if they're shrewd enough to trade for it). I've always thought that delistments should be any player leaving the team. If a team has 1-2 players retire, and they chose to trade out 1-2 players for picks, and then have to delist a further 4 players ontop of that, it cuts VERY deep. Yes, that's an extreme example, but its not impossible. Similarly a coach who trades in 1-2 players would still be forced to delist another 4, so 5-6 in total, and draft players that he simply may not want to draft (with likely very late draft picks). These could end up just becoming dead wood on the list, and we've hamstrung him for no real good reason (in my opinion). So I'm all for letting coaches manage their team however they want. For those who love trading, then trade, for those who love drafting, then draft, and for those who already think they have the perfect team, don't make any changes at all...
I guess I’m one of the coaches that doesn’t contribute enough so I won’t say much on this, other then I’m not sure bottom teams getting 2 picks is a good idea. Simply put some coaches are better at this then others. I don’t think it will matter what we do. Only my opinion, and we all know what opinions are (assholes)
Just a thought….. Teams that make top 8 have to mandatory delist X number of players, depending on how hard we won’t to make it say 4 mandatory delistments adding to draft pool? Top 8 teams will always have to use 4 draft picks in PSD? Keep everything else the same? Just thinking out loud…..something along those lines could work Someone smarter then me can maybe use that idea or throw it in the bin
I like the concept. Maybe could put it together based on the ranked average score table @fresh put together. Example: Average score 1300+ = compulsory 4 changes before PSD (can be delistings or trades) Average score 1200-1299 = compulsory 3 changes before PSD (can be delistings or trades) Average score 1100-1199 = compulsory 2 changes before PSD (can be delistings or trades) Average score <1100 = do what you like
I had a think about the idea of giving bottom sides an extra first round pick today and I reckon that bryzza's idea of making the top picks untradeable is probably the only way for it to work. That's assuming we kept future pick trading if we implemented the idea. Imagine a top 4 side offering their future 1st for a player and then crashing into the bottom 4. Instead of that pick being in the 20s, that coach now has 2 top 20 picks, which one becomes part of the trade? It'd be way easier to go with the idea of the first 1st round pick being untradeable to be able to deal with any trades involving future picks...or you could of course remove future pick trading as an option.
I think if we go down the compensation pick route, then trading future PSD 1st round picks has to be cancelled. 2nd rounders could still be used and it will have to be up to coaches to work out the value of the 2nd round pick on offer.
It’s obviously more of a risk but isn’t the future trading of these potential priority picks similar to now where you trade a pick and it could be pick 18 or pick 1. We might need to change the wording we use but if it is just something like Serengeti’s first selection rather than first round I’m sure we can come up with something. The extra uncertainty seems like it could add an exciting element! FWIW, I like the priority pick idea as a more useful tool. Unless we are willing to go to more extreme numbers e.g. 10+ I have doubts the mandatory delistments will have the effect we are talking about wanting to chase after. I love thinking about building a squad for long term success and if we want to make that more difficult (which I’m happy with if that’s the way we want to go) let’s at least do it in a way that achieves a better goal rather than just take away some of the enjoyment factor that we get from the current system.
Been having another think about this one, and I think much of the difference between teams relates to the rucks. How few good ones there are and how difficult it is to catch up in this area. The table below just relates to the first 5 rounds of this season. Round Average = Every teams weekly average score in rounds 1-5 Ruck Average = Every teams weekly average score in the ruck position in rounds 1-5 Times OOP Ruck Used = Number of times in round 1-5 that a team has needed to use a non ruck in their ruck scoring position. Whilst the median across our league is 0.5, its 0.25 for teams 1-8 on points, and 1.7 for team 9-18 on points. The next column shows the % of scoring gap between AA and other teams driven by the difference in ruck position scoring. The ruck scoring position is 1 out of 15 on our field, so should make a 7% difference to our scores. Clearly its more across the board. I've done a similar thing comparing to NV's team, and its a similar story. The next two columns show that some teams don't even have a ruck, whilst others have up to 5. But the key is to see how efficient the ruck only spots are. Teams 1-8 on points are getting 3.8 games on average from their ruck only players. Teams 9-18 on points are getting 1.9 games on average. I don't see how giving teams 9-18 an extra R1 PSD pick is going to fix the above. There are rarely multiple rucks available in the early picks and its years before they actually play AFL. Compulsory numerical delistings won't fix it either. Coaches will rarely delist rucks as they know how hard it is to find new ones. There just aren't enough competitive rucks in the AFL to keep all of the teams in our league competitive. Some Ideas: - Remove the half point rule for coaches using an OOP player in their ruck position, if they have no ruck available. Let the player they choose count for full points. - Rename all rucks as ruck/fwds, remove the need to name a ruck each week and increase the number of on-field fwds we name each week to five. (Could call them ruck/mids and do the same with naming no rucks and 5 mids each week) - Only allow coaches to name one player each week onfield with ruck in the position title, decentivising coaches from holding more than one or two. - Teams can only hold two players with ruck in the position title heading into PSD's
would like this more than once if I could!! Finally someone has found the Forrest and not just the trees! that’s no sleight on anyone else, just that MY opinion is that every other argument doesn’t address the root cause and it’s throwing bad money after good, so to speak. as an aside, I think equalisation is rubbish, because everyone starts on the same playing field so it’s essentially giving unfair advantage to people who aren’t as good at fantasy footballing; also known as rewarding mediocrity or making sure everyone gets a participation award. fact is, people like wolffy and Bryzza and BF all inherited their teams and have had varying degrees of success; Bryzza immediate and somewhat sustained, Wolffy clearly building for the future and looks scary in 3ish years! if any equalisation were to come, I would only be in favour of granting a one or two season concession to a new coach, so he can shape his own team. all existing coaches have had the same chance as myself or Yad or WB whom have all had success. but I digress, the main point I’m trying to make is IF there are changes (which I would vote against because of reasons made above), then I would only endorse ones which would actually make a difference; which is relating to the ruck position.
Very interesting idea. I like what you are saying but i'd like to see what the difference is for those teams playing currently playing with an OOP in the ruck, changing their OOP scores to full points and what difference this if any would have made points for and wins? Those OOP in ruck did team win or lose? . Those teams with 5 rucks is absurd !!!! If any rule change is to be brought in this one needs to happen " Teams can only hold two players with ruck in the position title heading into PSD'" They are just holding cattle either for trade bait or just in hope one come along sooner than another. I agree "Remove the half point rule for coaches using an OOP player in their ruck position, if they have no ruck available. Let the player they choose count for full points." for this to occur they MUST have two rucks in their team @insider how would this work in the back end? OOP players getting full points only ruck position just for ORFFU ? What if injuries or unavailability happen ? "Only allow coaches to name one player each week onfield with ruck in the position title, decentivising coaches from holding more than one or two." we have an interchange for a reason so i cant see this happening id say insider is only team currently playing two rucks consistently, kudos to him. This could just open a can of worms " Rename all rucks as ruck/fwds, remove the need to name a ruck each week and increase the number of on-field fwds we name each week to five. (Could call them ruck/mids and do the same with naming no rucks and 5 mids each week) " This is football and we try and stay close to AFL as possible teams will just choose not to field rucks at all and load up on midfielders
Thanks for your feedback. They were really just some suggestions to get the ball rolling. Just hoping we can find a rule change that makes things easier from a ruck perspective across the league, and therefore makes the scoring a bit closer. The other behaviour the current setup drives is coaches drafting a young ruck because they need one, rather than drafting a player from another position that is potentially better, likely to play AFL sooner and therefore could help this coach score higher sooner.
I like the idea @Wolffy84 and I think all changes/options/ideas are on the table. I think having 5 rucks is ridic, 2 each is more than enough and should be the minimum everyone has to carry. If one of your rucks is a young bloke, not getting games and your No1 ruck gets a LTI, then you should be able to field anyone in the position and they get full points. We could even try this sooner rather than later without impacting drafts/compensations etc. If you have more than 2 Rucks, then they can be delisted by the PSD, which should create a few good trading scenarios for a few coaches!
I don't think we should be telling coaches how many players they must have from a certain position, especially when positions can change year-to-year (or even within the year) which means that a coach may end up "breaking a rule" through no fault of their own - or through great foresight and planning, giving themselves an advantage. We shouldn't be penalising this. Take this for example: Should a 'FU coach be penalised unnecessarily because a players' position has changed?
Definitely nobody should be getting penalised for position changes... In year. But next PSD if you had Blicavs, then you have the option to keep him as a MID/INT player or trade him out. You would still will need to trade in a RUC, and that person could be a young speculative pick.
I've been focusing on accumulating developing rucks for years because I identified how valuable they are many moons ago. And as a result I am carrying quite a few and have less players in other positions. I'll be a bit annoyed if I'm now going to be penalised for thinking ahead. And "just trade them" doesn't seem like a fair solution because it will be a fire sale scenario.
So last year 37 of the current 70 rucks got a game. Though 6 of them only got 3 or less games. 6 rounds in, 27 have played 2 or more games with a further 7 playing 1 game. That said, rucks were selected in this draft, speculative selections but coaches have at least tried. Additionally, there are 26 rucks in the pool right now. All developmental and may not play but it's really not much of a tradeoff to take a punt on a ruck instead of having the 27-28th player slot containing another project player from a recent draft. Note: I also didn't take a ruck this PSD but I already had 2 (one got injured) that were playable.