Champions League (ORFFL & ORFFA)

Cool, EddieV, thats great to hear. If this goes ahead, it hasnt been decided yet how it would be determined who qualifies to play in the Champions League. I personally think it should be the top 8 teams from the previous season. <div>
For ORFFL, it was Warburton, Milikapati, Mallacoota, Sarah Island, Merton, Poowong, Coulta, Mount Buggery. Results here:http://tooserious.net/Blog/tabid/90/E... <div>
For ORFFA; Foul Bay, Iron Knob, Mount Beauty, Gundagai, Charlies Opening, Darraweit Guim, Birdsville, Mawson Base (now Wagga Wagga). from http://tooserious.net/forum/Forum/tab... <div>
We've got 15 more rounds this year... Assuming we dont get anything up and running this week, we would have 14 potential game weeks. We would need 4 for a simple knockout comp. If we split into 4 groups of 4 for round robins and then had top 2 of each group qualify for final 8, knockout, we would need a minimum of 6 weeks, or 9 if we played round robin home and away against each opponent. And if we made the grand final best of 3, we would need 8 (3 round robin games) or 11 (6 round robin games). I propose the format as follows (with further tweaking needed on rankings etc, cause im purposefully being broad): <ul> <li>2012 top 8 from each comp make up the 16 Champions League participants.</li> <li>split into 4 groups of 4 teams in each group.</li> <li>play 6 round robin matches against others in group, home and away against each opponent.</li> <li>top 2 from each group qualify for knockout.</li> <li>quarters and semis = 1 game each.</li> <li>Champions League grand final = best of 3 games.</li> </ul> If we go with this format we would need 11 of the remaining rounds. If we could get it up and running to start in round 7, we would avoid having Champions League games on when each comp is in their own respective finals series, but whether that is important or essential, I'm not sure. Round robin group games: Rounds 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15. Quarter finals: round 16 Semi final: Round 17 Grand final (best of 3): Rounds 18, 19; and Round 20 if required. What do yas all think? Could we get it up and going? If we go with the top 8s from '12, I would not qualify, but I'd be happy to organise it and do the reviews etc, unless someone else really wanted to do that stuff, or we could also get a group of us helping each other.

 

Ah, this. Yeah, nice in concept but I think the league's are different and with every new rule or decision made, they're going to get further apart. So it's a case of where you draw a line in the sand? A 4-game sample-size isn't proof of anything, let alone a Shroud of Turin to be waving about. I don't really care what people do amongst themselves, I think H and CR has something going last year, but any 'official' CL between the two comps gets a nay vote from me.

 

good to hear from you P_L.
Can I ask both you and Lucas, if there is anything that could happen in order to reach some sort of a compromise?
It was attempted by some to explore Lucas' comment and there has not been a lot of discussion about it. I agree that 4 weeks is not a huge sample size. For example, Iron Knob in the ORFFA was a clear standout in the first 4 weeks, but came crashing down in round 5 and lost their first game of the year. But 4 rounds was all we had at the time of calculating, so it was fair to present it in my opinion - but, yes, it is valid that it may not be a sufficient sample size - in my opinion too. Do you think it would be helpful if we keep tracking and comparing scores over a longer period of time? Do you think it may help us to work out some way to get 100% buy in on the CL concept?
Or is there something else we could do that would make the concept more appealing to you both?
P_L, you mentioned about differing rules. Can you expand on that? Would there be any rules that could/should be changed in your opinion that would make it more appropriate to play against each other? And, you also mentioned future rules... maybe we could arrange a consultation process between the League and Association for any new rules or rule changes in the future that could potentially affect the Champions League. That could be tricky to organise and implement, (and I reckon there may be dissent to that as well) but just trying to think of ways to compromise.
Or would either or both of you be willing to give the ok for your teams to take part in it, as long as you didnt have to take on any more responsibility with your teams than you already do?
Is there a different format that would make it better from your perspective? Most that have indicated that they are willing to take part have also indicated they are open to whatever format, so maybe we could work out a format that takes into consideration the dissent from both of you.
If either of you are unwilling to budge on your views that we should not have a Champions League, I personally will respect that and move on. Given that many other coaches have shown interest in competing in it, I feel that it is necessary to explore the possibility of a compromise.
What are your thoughts, fellas?

 

FWIW - and I'd forgotten that I would be one of the teams involved based on last year's efforts (rather than my rather more low scoring, injury riddled 2013 endeavours) - in reading through this thread it is plainly obvious that there is a noticeable attitude of antipathy from some in the ORFFL towards the CL concept. That's fine - that's those coaches' call and if that is their belief, then I don't know if anything will sway that belief if they hold it strongly enough. Though personally any claims of one league 'sullying another' and the like are, well ... yeah. Anyway, from my end, I have developed a distinct level of apathy towards the concept after reading through this thread. I appreciate the great work of those trying to draw something together, but it seems clear that not everyone is interested or even receptive to the idea, nor receptive to any data in regards to scoring averages, even-ness of teams, etc. Again, that's fine. But I don't think trying to push this onto people is going to result in success. I, personally, would rather concentrate on the ORFFA and the coming games that Darraweit Guim have - and the return of a whole heap of injured players. My 2c, which is probably not quite worth 2c anyway.

 

port_leschenault wrote:
Ah, this. Yeah, nice in concept but I think the league's are different and with every new rule or decision made, they're going to get further apart. So it's a case of where you draw a line in the sand? A 4-game sample-size isn't proof of anything, let alone a Shroud of Turin to be waving about. I don't really care what people do amongst themselves, I think H and CR has something going last year, but any 'official' CL between the two comps gets a nay vote from me. In the immortal words of that denizen of New York, 'nice gimmick, didn't work, let's move on'. Efforts of everyone involved appreciated, but for me personally I will pursue my kicks getting that round peg into the square hole. Sand???? ORFFL has sand???? Why weren't we told?

 

anthak wrote:
good to hear from you P_L. Can I ask both you and Lucas, if there is anything that could happen in order to reach some sort of a compromise? It was attempted by some to explore Lucas' comment and there has not been a lot of discussion about it. I agree that 4 weeks is not a huge sample size. For example, Iron Knob in the ORFFA was a clear standout in the first 4 weeks, but came crashing down in round 5 and lost their first game of the year. But 4 rounds was all we had at the time of calculating, so it was fair to present it in my opinion - but, yes, it is valid that it may not be a sufficient sample size - in my opinion too. Do you think it would be helpful if we keep tracking and comparing scores over a longer period of time? Do you think it may help us to work out some way to get 100% buy in on the CL concept? Or is there something else we could do that would make the concept more appealing to you both? P_L, you mentioned about differing rules. Can you expand on that? Would there be any rules that could/should be changed in your opinion that would make it more appropriate to play against each other? And, you also mentioned future rules... maybe we could arrange a consultation process between the League and Association for any new rules or rule changes in the future that could potentially affect the Champions League. That could be tricky to organise and implement, (and I reckon there may be dissent to that as well) but just trying to think of ways to compromise. Or would either or both of you be willing to give the ok for your teams to take part in it, as long as you didnt have to take on any more responsibility with your teams than you already do? Is there a different format that would make it better from your perspective? Most that have indicated that they are willing to take part have also indicated they are open to whatever format, so maybe we could work out a format that takes into consideration the dissent from both of you. If either of you are unwilling to budge on your views that we should not have a Champions League, I personally will respect that and move on. Given that many other coaches have shown interest in competing in it, I feel that it is necessary to explore the possibility of a compromise. What are your thoughts, fellas? The leagues are different, how can you compromise that? I don't want the ORFFL to change for any accommodating and I don't expect the ORFFA too for any reason either. I don't really see the differences as that big a deal. Has the ORFFA copied the ORFFL letter-by-letter? I'm interested to know if you think that. I don't think it has. The initial draft was done at a different time, the was/is different processes in place for drafting, the organisational structure is different, de-listments and future drafts are different, rules for missing draft picks are different, standards for trades are different, and now there's talk of expanding lists. That's just at the top of my head. I'm sure there's more, I wont ever claim to be fully knowledgeable about the ORFFA. There's no centralisation here, when either league makes a rule change, that affects their league and is another step in another direction away from commonality. I don't really think it's that big a deal or a bad thing, each league has its different coaches and its own identity. Like I said before, if people want to run a competition now that's up to them but I don't agree with any official comp. Like you brought up, you could be doing you're own 'CL' with a spreadsheet and c+p'ing the scores each week. You don't even need any other coaches. What you do is up to you. I don't know what Lucas thinks, or will presume to think I know what he thinks. You could very well be making all this grandstanding and mountains out of mole hills about him over a throw-away line, I don't know. And I don't appreciate being hounded by PM.

 

chris88 wrote:

Though personally any claims of one league 'sullying another' and the like are, well ... ...your own assumptions, inferences and conclusions.

 

port_leschenault wrote: chris88 wrote: Though personally any claims of one league 'sullying another' and the like are, well ... ...your own assumptions, inferences and conclusions. Hornsy wrote: 5 or 6 coaches from each league have expressed interest in the concept while from the ORFFL 3 coaches have expressed clear reservations about the worth of participating - SKT and P_L owing to not wanting to sully the ORFFL with the ORFFA (in the original lost thread that thokash refers to in his OP) Then P_L - I suggest you take up those 'assumptions, inferences and conclusions' with the person who first mentioned them in this thread. If you have an issue with me simply quoting what has been said previously, or believe you've been quoted wrongly, then take it up with Hornsy - he's doing the quoting, I'm merely repeating it. And in the meantime, if I'm repeating it wrongly, please, genuinely, let me know what was actually said.

 

Simonoz - a rather fitting response to just about everything and anything.

 

I'm just sort of wondering, yew no, if Hornsy can even see that nuclear holocaust on his itty bitty cell phone. Will he put his foot firmly in the bucket and downsize?

 

anthak wrote:... If either of you are unwilling to budge on your views that we should not have a Champions League, I personally will respect that and move on. Given that many other coaches have shown interest in competing in it, I feel that it is necessary to explore the possibility of a compromise. ... This is why I was trying to continue the discussion. But I see now that it will be hard to compromise and I respect the points of view of all involved. I was personally very excited about having a Champions League, and it is a shame for me that it will not happen this year; although, I accept the reasons why it can not be.It seems that a lot of people just want to drop the discussion and move on, so I'll go with that flow too. I have been a part of many groups/teams that encourage and even celebrate dissent. In my opinion, the strength of a group is in how it handles dissent. I have been a tad concerned about the lack of, and manner of, discussion around the dissent here, but not to worry; Lets move on, and hopefully we can work better together in the future.

 

port_leschenault wrote:
anthak wrote:
good to hear from you P_L. Can I ask both you and Lucas, if there is anything that could happen in order to reach some sort of a compromise? It was attempted by some to explore Lucas' comment and there has not been a lot of discussion about it. I agree that 4 weeks is not a huge sample size. For example, Iron Knob in the ORFFA was a clear standout in the first 4 weeks, but came crashing down in round 5 and lost their first game of the year. But 4 rounds was all we had at the time of calculating, so it was fair to present it in my opinion - but, yes, it is valid that it may not be a sufficient sample size - in my opinion too. Do you think it would be helpful if we keep tracking and comparing scores over a longer period of time? Do you think it may help us to work out some way to get 100% buy in on the CL concept? Or is there something else we could do that would make the concept more appealing to you both? P_L, you mentioned about differing rules. Can you expand on that? Would there be any rules that could/should be changed in your opinion that would make it more appropriate to play against each other? And, you also mentioned future rules... maybe we could arrange a consultation process between the League and Association for any new rules or rule changes in the future that could potentially affect the Champions League. That could be tricky to organise and implement, (and I reckon there may be dissent to that as well) but just trying to think of ways to compromise. Or would either or both of you be willing to give the ok for your teams to take part in it, as long as you didnt have to take on any more responsibility with your teams than you already do? Is there a different format that would make it better from your perspective? Most that have indicated that they are willing to take part have also indicated they are open to whatever format, so maybe we could work out a format that takes into consideration the dissent from both of you. If either of you are unwilling to budge on your views that we should not have a Champions League, I personally will respect that and move on. Given that many other coaches have shown interest in competing in it, I feel that it is necessary to explore the possibility of a compromise. What are your thoughts, fellas? The leagues are different, how can you compromise that? I don't want the ORFFL to change for any accommodating and I don't expect the ORFFA too for any reason either. I don't really see the differences as that big a deal. Has the ORFFA copied the ORFFL letter-by-letter? I'm interested to know if you think that. I don't think it has. The initial draft was done at a different time, the was/is different processes in place for drafting, the organisational structure is different, de-listments and future drafts are different, rules for missing draft picks are different, standards for trades are different, and now there's talk of expanding lists. That's just at the top of my head. I'm sure there's more, I wont ever claim to be fully knowledgeable about the ORFFA. There's no centralisation here, when either league makes a rule change, that affects their league and is another step in another direction away from commonality. I don't really think it's that big a deal or a bad thing, each league has its different coaches and its own identity. Like I said before, if people want to run a competition now that's up to them but I don't agree with any official comp. Like you brought up, you could be doing you're own 'CL' with a spreadsheet and c+p'ing the scores each week. You don't even need any other coaches. What you do is up to you. I don't know what Lucas thinks, or will presume to think I know what he thinks. You could very well be making all this grandstanding and mountains out of mole hills about him over a throw-away line, I don't know. And I don't appreciate being hounded by PM. Hey mate, thanks heaps for responding. I respect your point of view. It seems that we are moving on now, so I wont worry about responding to you. Thanks again tho!! IMO, its good you spoke up on this.

 

chris88 wrote:
port_leschenault wrote: chris88 wrote: Though personally any claims of one league 'sullying another' and the like are, well ... ...your own assumptions, inferences and conclusions. Hornsy wrote: 5 or 6 coaches from each league have expressed interest in the concept while from the ORFFL 3 coaches have expressed clear reservations about the worth of participating - SKT and P_L owing to not wanting to sully the ORFFL with the ORFFA (in the original lost thread that thokash refers to in his OP) Then P_L - I suggest you take up those 'assumptions, inferences and conclusions' with the person who first mentioned them in this thread. If you have an issue with me simply quoting what has been said previously, or believe you've been quoted wrongly, then take it up with Hornsy - he's doing the quoting, I'm merely repeating it. And in the meantime, if I'm repeating it wrongly, please, genuinely, let me know what was actually said. Thanks, I must've over-looked the part where it was Hornsy saying it, there is a lot of text in this thread. I can't recall exactly what was said in any past discussions so can't say one way or the other what exactly H is quoting/remembering but again, feel free to draw your own conclusions.