Why mandatory delistments should be removed: Flexibility Encourages Better Strategy: Mandatory delistments force coaches to make changes even if their squad is performing well. By removing this rule, coaches would have the freedom to develop their players and strategies over time. Successful coaches aren’t just lucky; they are good at building cohesive teams, so they should be allowed to manage their list based on their knowledge and insights. Letting coaches do as they please would encourage more nuanced and long-term planning, leading to better overall gameplay. Unnecessary Disruption of Squad Development: Constant forced changes prevent teams from evolving naturally. Teams develop their chemistry over time, and mandatory delistments can break that rhythm. The rule penalizes teams that have drafted well and built balanced squads by forcing them to disrupt what’s working. Removing the rule would allow coaches to maintain continuity and focus on refining their squads. Rewarding Skill, Not Randomization: The point of the game is to reward good decision-making. While mandatory delistments were intended to level the playing field, they instead create an artificial constraint. The best coaches will always find ways to be competitive, regardless of mandatory changes. Eliminating this rule allows the league to truly reward skill in player selection and team management, rather than punishing successful coaches. Natural Balancing Through Trades and Drafts: There are already existing mechanisms like drafts and trades to balance out teams. These natural elements of the game already provide opportunities for less competitive teams to strengthen their squads. Allowing coaches the freedom to delist players voluntarily—based on form, injury, or other factors—will keep the game competitive without needing forced list changes. By removing the mandatory delistment rule, you would allow coaches to fully control their team's fate, leading to more strategic depth and a better experience for everyone.
I don't mind wb's idea. I think the thing holding auctions back has been the fact that rarely does a player being available end up being the only piece of the trade. As another idea, why dont we loosen the rules around auctions? If a player is offered up for auction, offers can be made for that player and include other picks or players from auctioning coach's team as part of an offer. I think auctioning coach would also need to list which players and picks definitely cannot be considered as part of any offers being put forward.
Im very much on the 'let coaches manage as they want to manage' side on the fence. In terms of the trade nomination and counter offer idea, I'm torn on it. If the time limit is short and that means coaches are on the site more, thats great. But we need strong protection for the initial coach in the trade. Would hate to get coaches offside who have been proactive.
I'm going to steer this conversation on a slight tangent. The way I see it, we're trying to look for rules that will not hamper the good teams / coaches too much (although they'll always find ways to get around them and be good anyway), and give the coaches who are less skilled statisticians a better opportunity of having a competitive team. So, in my mind, to keep the league thriving, we have three steps we need to take. Step 1 is to create hope. If more players are available to be selected (and not hoarded) then poorly performing teams have hope of picking them up and winning games (or only losing by small margins, not being blown away by >300points each game). The psychology of hope can make a big difference (the lack of hope can be very detrimental). Step 2 is to drive engagement. If more coaches are active then the ones that aren't will feel more compelled to get involved, to be part of the ORFFU community. Creating a need to trade and draft is a mechanism to create engagement. The hope for success also creates engagement (and the lack of hope creates alienation). Step 3 is to maintain competitiveness. If everyone can actually win games, then everyone is more likely to take interest. Even if your team is not winning, you're still looking to see who does. But if the same few teams win game after game, year after year, then it gets boring for the rest, and they lose engagement and lose hope, and the league suffers. So I'm an advocate for mandatory delistments because: it gives the lower ranked teams the hope of becoming better, because there's more players available to pick it keeps coaches active and engaged because they have to make changes to their team (the opposite being just sticking with the same 28 players as last year, because "I'm not going to win anyway, so what's the point?") it means that a few teams won't be full of all the best players, and a few teams stuck with the also-rans who don't get regular games, resulting in major blowouts across the season. This isn't a dictatorship, this is a community, and personally, I'd like to see all 18 coaches wanting to being involved in the ORFFU as much as they possibly can. I realise that real-life takes priority, but for me this is fun, and engaging, and I'd like all of your help to make it that way for all of us. One idea that I do have is that we should arrange a video call together, the 18 of us, some time in say March next year, just before the season starts. Most of us don't know each-other, and it can't hurt to sit infront of a computer with your favourite poison for an hour or two, and just generally chat to each-other, get to know everyone. We can't all get to the same place at the same time, but the great thing to come out of COVID was that the world realised that video calls are an effective way of meeting people and getting things done. So my proposal is a Saturday night in March, we all log on and just say hello to each-other. If anyone has any ideas for how to improve the league, please either post them here, or post them to me via PM if you'd rather not do so publicly (I realise that everyone has different tolerances for public communication and feedback). Again, this is not my dictatorship, this is OUR community, so lets all get involved in making it better!
I think it’s shit - I’ve been on a zoom with 15+ people and it’s a fuckin nightmare. Having said that, I’d still join just to be a part of the community activity and to see if anyone is older than @choppers
Yeah it may be a lot of people for a zoom. How about a thread where we can just talk about what we enjoy outside of footy?
it gives the lower ranked teams the hope of becoming better, Your points: it gives the lower ranked teams the hope of becoming better, because there's more players available to pick ( this has been debunked in our previous thread by fresh who provided stats to prove otherwise ) it keeps coaches active and engaged because they have to make changes to their team (the opposite being just sticking with the same 28 players as last year, because "I'm not going to win anyway, so what's the point?") ( debunked also, coaches who stick with the same players will never improve there team ) it means that a few teams won't be full of all the best players, and a few teams stuck with the also-rans who don't get regular games, resulting in major blowouts across the season. ( no team can possibly have ALL the best players, once again stats show the best teams are not ranked number one in all positional lines )
Ways to Improve Engagement in Our League: Choose a Dedicated Draft Day: Pick a specific day and time that everyone can commit to, and hold the draft in one sitting. This creates a sense of excitement and urgency, making the draft more of a live event where all coaches can participate simultaneously. A dedicated draft day also eliminates delays and ensures everyone has an equal chance to strategize in real time, fostering competition and engagement. In-Season Player Trading: Encourage in-season player trading to keep things dynamic throughout the year. Allowing trades during the season brings another level of strategy, as coaches can make adjustments based on their team’s performance, injuries, or unexpected form slumps. This adds a layer of excitement and encourages more interaction between coaches, who will negotiate deals to strengthen their squads. Free Agency Pool Open After Every Round: To make free agency more competitive and engaging, open up the free agency pool for limited hours on Monday and Tuesday after each round. Implement a "snooze-you-lose" rule where each coach has only one hour after their turn to make a pick. Coaches can only make one selection per round, with a strict 1-for-1 pick rule to keep it fair. This creates a fast-paced, high-stakes environment where timing and quick decisions become crucial, adding excitement to post-round activity. No Mid-Season Draft: To keep the focus on the strategies established during the pre-season, agree to eliminate the mid-season draft. This prevents teams from overhauling their squads halfway through the year and ensures the early-season draft and in-season trades carry more weight, making the initial draft and ongoing trades more critical to long-term success. By implementing these changes, the league can maintain a competitive edge while ensuring that every coach remains engaged, involved, and strategic throughout the entire season.
love 1 & 2. Absolutely love love love it. I used to have a different keeper league “in real life” and the best day of the year was draft day. Everyone brought a slab and draft/trading was awesome fun
Some good ideas there for engagement, but they sound like they would be moving our keeper league closer towards how single season draft leagues are currently played, with post round free agency and trading available at all times. I've been involved in plenty of single season draft leagues, and they have all had a lot less trading than we do. Also I believe many of the rules in our league are there to be as close to the real AFL as possible. The real AFL doesn't allow trading at all times, no free agency after each round and has a MSD. My suggestions would be: 1. Reduce the time between draft picks to 4 or 6 hours, with a stoppage from midnight to 6am. This guarantees more draft picks made in a day, forces pick trades to happen more quickly and should keep more coaches on the site more often. 2. Depending on the fixture, maybe we could have two MSD's a season. The current MSD is pretty late in the season. If a coach has a bad run with injury in round 2, it can't be fixed until round ~15. That's season over. Could we make a 'bye week' around round 7 or 8, give coaches a chance to trade for 2 weeks and hold an MSD? 3. We need to find a way to make a big trade fortnight leading up to our PSD and a big trade week leading up to our MSD draft (or drafts). In the real AFL, players nominate to be traded but we obviously can't replicate that. Could we have a date 2 weeks before our PSD, where all coaches have needed to have posted a minimum combination of 6 players & draft picks they are interested in trading? That would give us a starting platform of at least 108 players/picks to get us talking about. If coaches only list their upcoming delists and 5th round draft picks, and complain nobody contacts them, well that's their choice.
"Also I believe many of the rules in our league are there to be as close to the real AFL as possible. The real AFL doesn't allow trading at all times, no free agency after each round and has a MSD" I wasn’t aware of the single-season draft leagues, but if we want to boost engagement, wouldn’t it make sense to consider implementing ideas like I suggested? Being in an online space, I think sticking too closely to AFL rules may have actually hurt our league. In the AFL, fans only get games on weekends ( we post our teams ), and the trade period ( like our draft ) is painfully slow—dragging out over two weeks with little action until a last-minute flurry of deals. It’s mostly boring, which is why I've suggested more engaging options. We've provided dates and timeframes outside of season well in advance, giving plenty of notice for coaches to be active before the season starts, but it still feels like we’re missing opportunities to keep everyone involved in season.
I'm going to put on my dictator hat for a minute and say that I will not be shortening the time period given for taking a draft pick. We're all here voluntarily, because we want to be here, not because we get paid to be here. We all have real lives that will take priority, be it family or work. It is unfair to penalise someone between the general hours of 9am and 5pm because they were busy working, and couldn't get on TS for the 6 hours (or whatever) that they were on the clock. Yes, this slows things down sometimes, and we all just have to live with it. I do like the idea of a draft day - where we're all online at the same time and we get through a lot of trading and drafting very efficiently. I'd love to see this work, but the pessimist in me says...