On your 2nd point I agree that the available player pool should be the players not on ORFFU club lists sorted alphabetically. Positions, averages etc should require research by the ORFFU coaches. If some coaches want to share with others that would be their perogative. I know how pissed I get every preseason when the Hun publishes its supercoach watch lists, they effectively hand most teams the research that the more committed player spends time collating themselves (not that it would have helped me last season!).
My two bobs worth fwiw. very quickly. I'm for leaving list sizes at 26. With the green/red vest getting the boot next year, that should make team selection a lot easier and scores more competitive as it affected some teams more than others. I had players get the vest 27 times in 17 games, In those games the average per vested player was 35, with a low of 7 and high of 74. And while I'm at it I think YAD would make a great Commish, as has Tomster over the past 2 seasons.....
My $0.02: 1. I like the suggestion of the free agent pool list not including averages and positions. 2. I've long been an advocate of keeping the list at 26 and having mandatory delistments. Injuries will happen and even if we increase by 2 some teams will struggle to be competitive because of them - unfortunately that's just part of the game. The negative in my mind of 'locking up' more players, which leads to less talent in drafts, which in turn leads to less trading,is greater than the benefit we gain from injury cover. I also think mandatory delistments would be a good idea - as among other benefits, they would mean that the later draft picks have currency, unlike now - which would again encourage more trading. But I know that idea hasn't been popular in the past, but wanted to float it for discussion again given the FU is constantly evolving.
I'm still struggling to see the benefits of mandatory delistings. Why else would you have players on your list other than 'stockpile talent'. If someone has drafted and traded well enough to a point where every player on the list is required isn't that a job well done and not something they should be punished for by being forced to get rid of his hard earned talent?
bryzza wrote: does mandatory delistings include players traded , retirements and the like? This is what I raised earlier. Do we say you have to cut 2 players?Do we say 2 list changes (this would include trades & retirements)? All valid questions, something else to consider when making a decision.
wrightbrendan wrote: I'm still struggling to see the benefits of mandatory delistings. Why else would you have players on your list other than 'stockpile talent'. If someone has drafted and traded well enough to a point where every player on the list is required isn't that a job well done and not something they should be punished for by being forced to get rid of his hard earned talent? here, here! If you're good enough to get a perfect team together, and think that there is nothing more you can do to improve it, then why should you be forced to drop players?
Weren't mandatory delistments only part of the discussion if we increase squad sizes?, i don't believe we should introduce them otherwise.
JPK wrote: wrightbrendan wrote: I'm still struggling to see the benefits of mandatory delistings. Why else would you have players on your list other than 'stockpile talent'. If someone has drafted and traded well enough to a point where every player on the list is required isn't that a job well done and not something they should be punished for by being forced to get rid of his hard earned talent? here, here! If you're good enough to get a perfect team together, and think that there is nothing more you can do to improve it, then why should you be forced to drop players? My view (and I realise I'm in the minority here) is that while it may punish certain squads it is beneficial for the comp as a whole. It's part equalisation measure (think salary cap equivalent) as it works asboth JPK and WB state that some stronger squads could be forced to offload quality players which will then be available in the draft. It also creates more value in draft picks and encouragestrading.As things currently stand there is little to no value in 3rd round and beyond draft picks. If each team had to recruit 4-5 players in the draft, draft order in the later rounds becomes more important, and instantly worth trading for. As someone who enjoys the trading/drafting aspect of the game I think this should be encouraged, however as I said, I know it's not the view of the majority.
That is a good view Damo, and I like the idea of having greater value further down the draft. I still however don't agree that we should force teams to drop players. Especially if they think that there are no players available in FA or for trade that are better than the 26 they currently have on their list.
Great discussion. I don't want to increase list sizes for similar reasons Damo stated. Also I don't think there has been a draft where someone hasn't delisted a player, so that is sort of pointless. For now, continue the discussion, then once the new commish and board is finalised we can open voting threads.
Yep, discussion is great. Squad size is always and interesting topic, I really like the size of our squads in terms of its balance between not too big to hoard players and not too small that with a couple of injuries you're stuffed. In one of the other leagues theymoved to a bigger squad and it really didn't help the injury issue. I also like the fact that there is still a good player pool available taking into account for retirements & delistings and new rookies. The natural attrition works well, some stat's re: previous MSD's & PSD. MSD 2014 35picks, PSD 2015 53 picks & MSD 2015 36 picks.I expect that PSD 2016 will be around the 40-45 mark with the movement already taking place in the real world.
Only 5 hours to go in the premium forward auction with Dusty and Lidsavailable. SC's top averaging forward and the highest finishing forward in the BAFFU - would be a sensational addition to any team. No bids to date, so you mightget a bargain!
DamoH wrote: Only 5 hours to go in the premium forward auction with Dusty and Lidsavailable. SC's top averaging forward and the highest finishing forward in the BAFFU - would be a sensational addition to any team. No bids to date, so you mightget a bargain! Was looking forward to watching a bidding war going on here, that's some premium talent! Disappointing lack of action so far, c'mon people jump in and have a crack! (no premium mids in the Serengeti for us to get involved...)
i like your second point Bryzza. im a big fan of reward for effort, so id support anything that makes it more of a challenge!
Hi Coaches, Would like to add a few more items for discussion in this thread so if you all could comment, like dislike, should or shouldn't have etc. Squad size - has been covered so far but not by all coaches Mandatory delistment - another that has been covered but not by all coaches Round Review - It appeared to be a bit of a task for some to do a review when they were the home team. Possible solution each coach is given a round to do a review of the matches that week, therefore only doing it once for the season. Catastrophic Event - with the passing of Phil Walsh ORFFU did a fantastic job in improvising, should any other event come about do we need a rule? or adhoc and let the Commissioner & Board deal with it if it comes up? Non-Filling of teams - with the auto-fill on it seems only the first round is an issue, the previous Commissioner & Board had discussed a rule that would have a score of zero for the round and for MSD draft that those rounds would be supplemented with a score of 1,500 so as not to gain a benefit from zero score (i.e. Tanking) Team entry post each week - nearly all coaches did this, there was one that didn't all year and one that was always late. Do we need to have this rule now that auto-filling is here? PSD & MSD ranking - with a little bit of confusion with PSD ranking which I think is sorted is there any feedback comments regarding how it's worked out? Loop holing - as in SC Thursday night games & split round there is an opportunity to loop hole a players score, our currently rules doesnt state you cant do it, what are coaches opinions on this what the possible solutions if any are required. I'd like to get a poll up by mid October regarding any changes to the rules if any need to be done so that they are bedded down by the end of October. My expectations are that ALL coaches shouldput their 2 cents in and any poll require for rule changes will be mandatory. Thanks in advance for your comments and opinions, cheers
should we get a separate thread for each discussion item mate or you happy to just wade thru posts on this thread?