anthak wrote: Whats happening with this?</div> Not much.. After discussing fixture timing with you I figured we had until the end of October, the poll end date is 24th October with nothing clear enough right now to do anything early. I'll give it another couple of weeks and see where it lies then. Right now we have had 15 votes. So far that's; 8 change nothings 5 play through the byes 2 double rounds
[span style='color: #000000; background-color: #ffffff;]In another thread Len noted: 'It's looking like we need to assume we have all the votes we are going to get on the finals changes.' [span style='color: #000000; background-color: #ffffff;] [span style='color: #000000; background-color: #ffffff;]I am bemused by this. Presumably the three who have not voted on this issue re-committed to ORFFA. But are they really committed when presumably Len has sent them messages urging them to be involved. Yet, they have chosen not to take part in this poll. Of course there may be some explanation. C'mon guys, let us know how you would like to see the comp structured.
Ive said it before regarding previous votes, and it didn't go down well with some, but I reckon non votes should indicate a preference for status quo for those coaches. I get that it could indicate they are not fussed if things change, but I am not trying to presume what they would vote for. Its too difficult to know what the go is, so status quo should prevail. Also, i don't think it should be mandatory that everyone votes. But a decision to change shouldn't be made unless a fair few of us do vote. Most of us have voted in this one, which is good.
Len wrote: anthak wrote: Whats happening with this?</div> Not much.. After discussing fixture timing with you I figured we had until the end of October, the poll end date is 24th October with nothing clear enough right now to do anything early. I'll give it another couple of weeks and see where it lies then. Right now we have had 15 votes. So far that's; 8 change nothings 5 play through the byes 2 double rounds </div> Ok, thanks for the update.
Please select your choice. CHOOSE ONLY ONE - MULTIPLES DO NOT WORK Option 1 Leave as is, teams play each other once, three round break at the byes and finals running over rounds 21, 22 and 23. Option 2 Play 1 round through byes. Double chance finals, effectively hold one round of normal season games through the byes bringing the finals forward 1 week, giving a 2nd chance option for the finals Option 3 Play 1 round through byes. No Double chance finals, hold one round of normal season games through the byes bringing the finals forward to finish R22 avoiding some resting. Option 4 Play 2 rounds in byes, giving both a 2nd chance final AND miss a week of resting. Option 5 Double round - 2nd chance finals. Option 6 Double round - Finish R22 Option 7 Reduce the number of teams playing finals We can work out details on any change option if it becomes likely. Given there are a range of options if any single change option gets more than 6 votes (but not 12) we will run another poll putting it head to head with Leave as is. The change option would then need 10 votes to pass, a slight variance on the 2/3 rule we have utilised previously but probably necessary as some coaches wont be back for a month or more and we need to finish this by the end of October. There is a secondary proposal put forward by anthak that should we stay without a double chance that: Ive got an idea instead of top 3 selecting their opponents. I had been thinking this for a while and then it played out this way in finals anyway. I think 1st should play the team ranked 5-8 with lowest total points scored, then 2nd play team with 2nd lowest total and so on. As this can occur on a number of options above I've not listed it for polling, but ant asked for feedback and this would be a good place to discuss it if selecting an option without the double chance.
Voted. Per Ant's secondary proposal, I am in favour of leaving as is with top 3 choosing their opponents.
Suggested it last year, havn't been around to suggest it this year but in round one, having every ORFFA team play 2 games, allows for double chance finals system and not having to play through byes, could do it round 2 as well if wanted to avoid a r23 finish.
I know this may sound like a pain, but with so many options, it may be better to do a preferential type voting system. Voting for favorite option could be a wasted vote if it is no chance to win. Anyway, I spose we see what comes of this vote. there may end up a clear majority winner anyway, which would be happy days anyway. and... On my finals opponent proposal, I am in favour of it
anthak wrote: I know this may sound like a pain, but with so many options, it may be better to do a preferential type voting system. Voting for favorite option could be a wasted vote if it is no chance to win. Anyway, I spose we see what comes of this vote. there may end up a clear majority winner anyway, which would be happy days anyway. and... On my finals opponent proposal, I am in favour of it This is the ORFFA, not parliament, thankfully
Secret ballot so no comment on my choice. However (big smile) the way the poll is set up does feel like a divide and conquer strategy. Where are we if, for example, no more than 50% vote for the status quo but the other (nine) coaches spread their votes around the other six options? Alternatively, is less than 12 or 13 coaches supporting the status quo really a mandate for no change?
graeme wrote: Secret ballot so no comment on my choice. However (big smile) the way the poll is set up does feel like a divide and conquer strategy. Where are we if, for example, no more than 50% vote for the status quo but the other (nine) coaches spread their votes around the other six options? Alternatively, is less than 12 or 13 coaches supporting the status quo really a mandate for no change? Pretty much no option but to provide the choices as given. I can't turn on or off the 'secret ballot' bit. The only option is to select something called show users votes, I assumed that meant it wasn't secret tbh The bit about any option getting 6 votes doesn't look like something specifically put there to address an imbalance at all?? That's less than a third, if a third can't agree on anything other than not changing, we are not changing
I've been advised the vote for 'reduce the number of teams' was selected in error, and the qty for play a double round is 2 not 1. They were grouped when I did it but the tool doesn't permit groups, so; If Play through the byes options get 6 or more or the double round rounds get 6 or more without the leave as is getting 10 then we will run a second poll head to head.
I said, and I don't mind it being ignored, that there are two issues. The first issue was do coaches want a second chance finals system. That needs to be clarified first. A simple yes or no. Not multiple choice - that only comes in should most coaches want second chance - they may not. I voted for playing two of the byes (using the third for State of Origin). Why? Because it is boring having no action for 3 weeks and we are all effected equally (SC top 10 scores or similar would be good). I am in this to compete, not have a rest.
Bandit wrote: Voted... I'm off to have coffee with Peta Credlin /Portals/0/Users/017/57/3857/Borat_Two_thumbs_up_yours.jpg
TerryinBangkok wrote: I said, and I don't mind it being ignored, that there are two issues. The first issue was do coaches want a second chance finals system. That needs to be clarified first. A simple yes or no. Not multiple choice - that only comes in should most coaches want second chance - they may not. I voted for playing two of the byes (using the third for State of Origin). Why? Because it is boring having no action for 3 weeks and we are all effected equally (SC top 10 scores or similar would be good). I am in this to compete, not have a rest. Legitimately any one of the following could be the 'first Issue'; 1. Do coaches want a change from status quo 2. Do coaches want a 2nd chance final 3. Do coaches want to move the finish earlier so as to 'avoid resting' 4. Do coaches want both 2 and 3 I don't see how singling out point 2 is any more or less democratic than singling out any of the other options, for this reason and without ignoring anyone's input (I hoped) I have setup something that will give a reasonably fair chance for any result without requiring a full blown democratic process. I also voted for change.. but as I have stated on a number of occasions I don't think change is going to win, and based on current polling only needs another 3 votes to probably kill off the idea, again.
given it's over 50% voting for no change, if the trend continues none of the options will get up and we can move on
Nice bit of subtle subversive advertising there Banditto. At this point not really a ringing endorsement for the status quo.