I’ve left it a bit late, but @Len asked the question of me reading are we going to do anything to cover for Covid related player impacts (players isolating etc) My current thought is we temporarily increase list sizes this year by 2, to allow for any disruption. Team size will revert to 28 at season end (so 8 delists before next seasons PSD) Anyone have an opinion/objection either way?
Would it be easier to just grab a temporary FA on the fly as it happens? Some teams could get hit with 2-3 or even 4 one week. You could base it on reverse ladder at the time ? This hopefully wouldn’t dilute the FA pool from the start of the season…..
For simplicity sake, we could go with your proposal Bandit, but I do like Snoz’s idea. In the ORFFW at the moment, teams are allowed to select topup players from the free agent pool each week to replace any of their players missing from a postponed game. The topup players can only be used for the 1 round and then they go back into the free agent pool. It seems to be working well so far. I’m a little concerned that if we increase list sizes it might not be enough for some teams, but the free agent pool will be diluted so those problems will be harder to fix at the time if we decide to allow topups at a later stage. Also, if we do increase list sizes, it is important that they are selected in a separate draft at the end of our PSD. It would not be fair to allow the picks during the PSD because we’ve all been trading picks without knowing about this. I also wonder whether those additional players should be auto-delists at PSD, like on a one year contract. If anyone wanted to delist one at MSD, then we could do the same sort of supplementary draft after the MSD to replace any of those players delisted, and the new ones would be auto-delists at end of season.
Good reading Anth……top ups ‘on the fly’ - we have a separate thread running all season stating who what when. For example, “”with player X out for covid this week, I am picking up player Y for the week.”” Once protocols are over, you post again releasing said player. The only hurdle I can see is priority. Reverse ladder at the time would be great, but not all coaches are online as much as others. It wouldn’t be good to have a higher placed team have to wait to grab the top up player all week. The only way around it is really first in best dressed if you lose players to covid.
In the ORFFW, we have it as first in best dressed, but they can only be selected after midday on a Friday (even when there’s Thursday games), and they can only replace players from teams in a game which has been postponed. If any games are subsequently postponed after midday Friday, then we award player averages as their scores for that round, but this hasn’t had to happen yet, because the postponements have always been announced early enough so far, allowing time for topups to be selected.
I am in the suck it up camp. Treat covid like an injury and then we do not have the difficulty of finding an equitable solution for those not frequently online. Indifferent between list size of 28 and 30.
Oh, another important part of the ORFFW setup is that topup signings can only be announced once per round. This brings in strategy in that you could announce early to knab the best free agents available, or you can wait until later in the round to see all the team selections to give yourself a better chance of avoiding donuts.
Like the concept @snoz and @anthak , but it tastes someone to manage it and run it, every week, and keep on top of it. I don’t have the time, if one of you wants to volunteer to be on top of it, chase the coaches who have the pick etc etc then I’m all ears. Waiver/draft rankings are always hard to keep on top of, as people are in here periodically… I am actually in the suck it up camp too, like my mate from across the ocean, but I’m trying to be balanced. Simplicity rules here. I am proposing we go with two extra players, as an insurance policy. If a team gets decimated more than that then stiff shit, just like an instance company only giving you current market value I do agree however, that the two top up players come at the end of the draft… so I will ask @Len to factor that in. No other special roles for those players though. They do not have to be the ones delisted at season end, they can be traded, delisted at MSD etc , just we need to have everyone back to 22 this time next year. We good?
That sounds good. Nice and easy. I’m happy with that. but I should mention that the topup system doesn’t take any admin in the ORFFW. Nobody is managing it, except the individual coaches. There were 3 of us planning the system behind the scenes and we intentionally devised a system that required no admin, because none of us had time to do more. TTH does repost the topup rules each week, but that’s not required. The only issue is if someone forgets to remove the topups from their squad at the end of the round, but hopefully their opponent would spot it and raise alarm. Anyway, just wanted to clarify that, but I’m happy with just increasing list sizes and then suck it up from there
I'd recomend that all coaches draft depth players with the 2 extra slots, ie one of the 150 plus players that average 60 plus but never get drafted, and that they select from teams they are not already strong in. Whilst I agree the FW system works, it's inherently unfair thanks to the variable release of teams