Thanks folks, sadly Gumby has had to withdraw, will wait for the last couple of responses and then get a discussion going on options for moving forward. Given the clusterf*ck the AFL have made of the fixture it may play to our advantage to shrink the # of teams so we can have finals without biting on too many byes..
Four coaches out I believe, though one yet to confirm. As I see it we have two potentially viable options; Option A: Rollup 4 teams and carry on. Option B: Find 2 replacements and rollup 2 teams. I'd suggest a seperate draft for the remaining coaches to pick from 2 at a time in reverse ladder order from 2025 Schedule wise the outcomes would look like some version of this, would appreciate input asap so we can start planning trading etc with knowledge of what's to come. I'll put up a poll once we've established if there are any other preferred approaches. @stripey @Bearfly @JC @Doobs @Tracey @snoz @thokash @Johnson @PhilArthur @JMac @Iain @Paullie @EddieV
Happy with whatever is decided here just as long as we get to have a season! Drafting is my favourite part so wouldn't be too unhappy to have a second one. I do like the look of 14 teams and the way it avoids the byes (could make the first month of the season pretty damn boring though) but the top 4 is a definite comprimise there - is there a reason we can't play Round 1 and still do a top 8 and 3 week finals? Or even play rounds 4 & 13 and have a full finals series with our own ORFFL spin on wildcard finals? I guess one of many things to talk about once we are done confirming coach numbers.
At a guess Option B would be the preferred option for most imho, but finding 2 coaches maybe difficult so we maybe forced into Option A. Therefore, do we just go straight to a 14 team league. I dunno, just spitballing......
Definitely either of those options would be on the table if that's where we end up. Couple of thoughts not meant to influence others, just where my head sits. 1. I think spreading those 4 team's better players amongst the remaining teams would make for a more exciting league week to week as we would have 14 significantly stronger teams. 2. We would have a better FA pool going forward 3. Would have more options available to deal with AFL fixturing, as highligeed above..
While we are at it (and i know this could raise some objections), should we throw @Johnson a priority pick to help equalise things?
Not a massive fan of priority picks typically, but what I do think would benefit the league overall is the dispersion draft being done in picks of 2, in reverse order. That takes nothing away from what the stronger teams would normally draft and means trades made already are unaffected,but provides significant opportunity to boost the struggling teams? The main draft would then run as normal.
Yeah I agree I think with this special draft planned that should be more than enough compensation for any struggling teams at the bottom. I mean bottom place gets immediate calibre players like a Caleb Serong, or go with the absolute best possible youth. I'm actually a little salty I somehow managed to come 8th last year with my below average team (compared to the previous years) and miss out on the juicy picks! So what are you thinking Len? ~4-6 picks from the FA pool created by the 4 teams, plus 6 round normal draft leading to ~30-32 squad sizes?
Two passes of double picks in dispersion draft (ONLY players from those 4 teams to be selected) 6 round standard draft Delist still to 20 so list size of 30. The expansion will allow us flex to deal with byes, potentially this year if we want full finals, but definitely in the future with the rolling bye coming in. Happy to take a vote later on this year about maximum list size prior to future PSDs but my thinking is 22 or 24, retaining the expanded list size.
ok I didnt really read the 2 at a time part of the proposed scenario.... that should level things up a little for sure
Its super annoying when the impacts of the AFL fixture tweaks of the last 5 years means that some ORFF* teams may only be playing 13 rounds out of 25 AFL rounds (52%). Whilst boosting squad sizes, ignoring the byes and ploughing onwards regardless is better in some respects it makes it hard for coaches who don't logon 95-100% of weeks. One way to rejig things if the system allowed it would be to name all listed players as emergencies so you may have D5-7 covering 4 defenders, M5-M7 covering 4 Mids, F5-F7 covering 4 forwards, R2-3 covering the Ruck, and IC3-6 covering the 2 IC's. If 1 replacement on a line then D5/M5/F5/R2/IC3 gets called up, if a 2nd is needed then D6/M6/F6/R3/IC4 gets called up etc. So bye coverage would be simplified as coaches don't need to rotate the bye players in/out each week over a 4/5 week period unless your squad is really light on and you need to bring cover in from the IC. TS allows for re-speccing lineup stuff pretty easily (ie adding emergencies to lines and allowing maximum emergencies) if that is the way comps wish to go, however I don't know whether the emergency scores would apply in sequence as above or some other way, such as highest score from D5-D7 replaces a missing D1-D4.