Discussion in 'ORFFU' started by JPK, May 12, 2017.
a dislike because youre not old
I suggested this prior to the season starting, but I don't think anything was changed:
"What about taking an approach similar to SC during the bye rounds?
We name a full team (or as full a team as everyone can without Port/Suns) but only count the top 13 scores, irrespective of position.
(Knocking out two players on the basis on 2/18*15 = 1.6, being the average number of Port/Suns players in each starting XV).
It would require manual updating of the ladder for the round I suspect.
Read more at http://tooserious.net/forum/threads/2018-discussion-thread.90015/page-12#oYijwTE3AbXRkIIb.99"
This was considered mate (I'm also badly effected - missing O Wines, B Ebert, T Miller, and J Watts), and while the AFL have done no-one any favours by scheduling things this way, we decided that "fixing" the fixture this year was not the answer. This actually requires a fair amount of shuffling, and because everyone knew this was coming well in advance, there was enough time and opportunity to trade / draft players to cover.
I still hope that the AFL get their shit together, and time this with the other byes (surely its not that difficult), or even get rid of the byes altogether (seriously, players are "managed" these days - isn't that the whole purpose of the bye - to give players a break!?!?!). At this stage there are no plans to alter anything for this year (we're not going to change the rules on the run), or even for next year (we're discussing fixture options right now, to make it as fair as possible on everyone).
Unfortunately, coaches like you and I just have to wear it.
I personally hope Jaeger comes back in, otherwise my entire first-choice midfield is missing, and there's no way I can make up those points!
Fortunately you may not have to grin and bear it for much longer with the AFL looking to introduce a Victorian team as early as next year. Thus drafting players to cover players may not be a solution. It's going to be different for each coach each year @tyze1 has 5 gold coast players, but schrimshaw is not best 22 and Lynch is injured so only missing three to my two which evens it up a bit, but going forward trying to make the fixture fair I can see is a knightmare to work out. I do however like @DamoH suggestion best 13 as its simple, fair and if the AFL want to mix it up with different teams it will always be as fair as possible. We could test theory this round to see if best 13 will actually make a difference to the results.
I thought we did actually decide that we were going with best 13?
Last post I can find directly on the matter. That followed a suggestion from DamoH to go with the 13 player teams and near unanimous support from all the following posts. @JPK I can't find it but was there a separate poll set up?
I think it's too late to change anything now for this year but this definitely needs to be discussed and polled before next season starts.
Maybe I missed setting up a poll for this. Sorry.
For the argument, we can have a (behind the scenes) look at what 13-a-side would result in this week, but unless someone can put together a genius reason to make a change, we won't be like the AFL and make the rules up on the run.
Nothing to be sorry about @JPK , as I see it. I don't even know what all the hullabaloo is about.....we had this same problem last year, and guess what, no one seemed to give a sh*t that only a couple of teams couldn't field a team. And yes, my team was one of them. I had 8 Port/Suns players last year , but it was decided to be just game on, no problems, and no need to change anything, just cop it sweet. Did it affect the ladder last year, I'm sure it did but that didn't seem to matter........so why does it matter now?
We've had enough time since then (a draft period and trade period) to balance our teams out (I got rid of 2) and now have 6, and we all knew there was going to be a stand-alone BYE game this year, something we didn't know last year I might add. So why is this even being discussed.
Cop it sweet and move on, just like we were advised to do last year, and if those imbeciles in charge of the AFL change it again next year, then at least there's another 2 Trade/Draft periods to balance your teams up.
With respect to my learned brother Chop, I’m not quite sure that’s right.
We discussed the best approach last year and had a vote on how to treat it, where it was decided to try and match teams with the same number of outs. However the general feeling was that that didn’t quite work, so we’re now, like last year, discussing options to improve the game.
As I'm sure you're a lot younger than me, your memory should also be a lot better than mine, so I'll take your word for that.
And as long as those who run the AFL continue to have a stand alone bye round, then I don't think there is an answer that's practicable, except for each Coach to reduce the number of players in his/her squad as he/she sees fit, that come from the 2 AFL clubs chosen to go to China.
No hullabaloo here, it was just a query if at seasons end we could review the whole bye situation - And I quote myself:
'Coaches - I think at seasons end the Chinese Bye Virus needs to be revisited'
Seasons end, not now and agree 100% in trying to improve the wonderful comp that is the FU!
Anyway if only my damn players wouldn't trade themselves to Port & GCS I wouldn't have a problem - Rocky, Weller yes I'm talking to you 2!
Yeah, respectfully disagree with @choppers on this one. There was a good discussion about alternatives and the non-viability of the current format.
Very appreciative of the response from commish @JPK though. Admitted an error, apologised and suggested a solution. Sorely lacking in leaders today. Nice work mate, you can have my vote for PM any day!
Well actually.... I do have this niggling thought in the back of my mind that one day I should run for federal parliament with the hope of one day being the PM, and improving this country - so thanks for the support and I'll count on your vote come polling day.
unless youre a female minority lesbian or an a-sexual non gender specific entity, I don't think you can go anywhere in politics anymore
societal definition of employment diversity in 2018: "Gift jobs to people who scream the loudest and are in a minority (gender, religion, background, sexuality are good examples. Candidate must fit at least one, will be looked upon favourably if they fit two or more)"
my dream/definition of diversity: "Award job to the best candidate irrespective of bias of any kind. The end"
In the land of ORFFF, there is no league game and instead a conference game (West v East teams), perhaps that maybe a solution.
Nice suggestion mate, but we need the round. We need 17 H&A games each year, plus 3 weeks of knockout finals. We obviously don't play during the three multi-bye weekends, so we need this Port-GC bye weekend to be part of our regular season. (I believe the ORFFF have only 16 teams, so can afford to lose a weekend).
Once again, its all the fault of the AFL and their inability to manage things properly!
I liked the idea floated pre-season regarding playing two rounds across the three bye weeks and then having a double chance for the top 4. Can't remember who suggested it but it would allow us to have a bye for the china round and have a finals system closer to the real thing.
Help me out here mate, not sure I follow how we can play two rounds over the 3 bye weeks? Also how would these be different to what we have this week with the Port-GC byes?
Separate names with a comma.