FWIW, I agree there should be harsh penalties, and I also agree that if a team changes owners, those penalties should be waived. I also agree that the front page writeups are important. And next year, there should be finals, which will be much better I reckon. This year was a bit different to how it will usually be I would imagine.
That's a total of 4 ticks ant, all of which I (for one ) and most others support. Taking Fitzy's point, we could consider the possibility of 1 failure to enter team, drop 1 place in the draft. But we need a proviso for people who do try/let us know/apologise, etc.
People get it wrong from time to time <img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UzxTg2Zwm74/T0DLZpbdEmI/AAAAAAAACGQ/0FPU4_XSNV8/s1600/funny%252Bnewspaper%252Bcorrections%252Band%252Bapology.jpg" /> But serial offenders need to be addressed <img src="http://reason.com/assets/mc/mattwelch%40reason.com/2011_09/Cartman_authoritah.jpg" />
Maybe it could be set to 'auto enter' the week befores team? This way there would be no '0' scores which totally root things up. I guess it could be argued thats unfair to the guy who did enter a team if you were to beat them with an auto team. But really thats no different than how SC actually works... dont change your team and your week before team stays set. Maybe these 'auto entries' could still be counted to gauge activity levels as well and inactive coaches could still be penalised.
Dunno JB. My reading of the ORRFL rules suggested that this was the plan. And for a moment there I also assumed that is what would happen. But apparently not and I suggest it is an issue with software, which could probably be readily overcome. The downside is; we want active coaches who get in here and make a lot of noise. It would be very easy for someone to set and forget and not actually participate.
<blockquote>Quote from jimbowan on August 28, 2012, 15:44 Maybe it could be set to 'auto enter' the week befores team? This way there would be no '0' scores which totally root things up. I guess it could be argued thats unfair to the guy who did enter a team if you were to beat them with an auto team. But really thats no different than how SC actually works... dont change your team and your week before team stays set. Maybe these 'auto entries' could still be counted to gauge activity levels as well and inactive coaches could still be penalised. </blockquote> This was my thought also, in my original post I was thinking we would do that for at least one or two weeks, it would be better if people use a buddy system to cover for each other though (suggest all of us should do that). Once the absence is deemed permanent on whatever grounds are applicable than other more aggressive solutions apply.
As far as penalties go, I just think we add the 4 points to their rank for draft purposes but not for positional ones.
<blockquote>Quote from TerryinBangkok on August 28, 2012, 16:06 Dunno JB. My reading of the ORRFL rules suggested that this was the plan. And for a moment there I also assumed that is what would happen. But apparently not and I suggest it is an issue with software, which could probably be readily overcome. The downside is; we want active coaches who get in here and make a lot of noise. It would be very easy for someone to set and forget and not actually participate.</blockquote> Can't recall what the original ORFFL plan was now Terry. But I do recall that when the question was raised early in the actual season, we took a vote and decided on no "auto" selections. General reasoning was that if you take all the decision-making out of the keeper league, there is precious little left to hold people's interest. Decision-making each week, even minor adjustments from previous week's team, keeps it interesting.
Thanks for that Jason. We will be looking at a 'buddy' system as suggested by Len, I think, so that there can be no excuses next year and if people still fail to enter, a penalty system should be in place. The underlying principle remains we want people to actively participate, not to give full reign to our authoritarian ego. FWIW Bandit, yes have mailed X to no avail. This week the absentees are Nungas (now 4), Frogs (2) and Penguins (3).
Round 17 Results Home Away 1167.5 Marble Bar Def By Cradle Mountain 1191 1025 Gundagai Def Mawson Base 0 1392 Foul Bay Def Charlies Opening 1160 1002 Venus Bay Def By Mount Beauty 1132 0 Far Kew Def By Iron Knob 1302 1488 Powlett Plains Def Waikickamoocow 1159 1000 Nunnawading Def By Darraweit Guim 1286 1080.5 Whitsundays Def Namatjira 0 1419 Birdsville Def Gariwerd 1218 Round 17 Final Ladder Foul Bay 68 22537 Iron Knob 60 21073 Mount Beauty 44 19561 Gundagai 44 19518 Charlie's Opening 44 19273 Darraweit Guim 44 19031 Birdsville 40 18440 Mawson Base 40 15688 Cradle Mountain 36 19714 Gariwerd 28 19153.5 Venus Bay 28 17756.5 Far Kew 28 14955 Waikikamoocow 24 18095.5 Powlett Plains 24 18066 Whitsundays 20 16148.5 Marble Bar 16 18243.5 Namitjara 16 14212 Nunawading 8 14413.5
My overall points are not too bad, H2H though the MB management clearly have work to do for next year, teams kept finding new ways to knobble us, the lowest being turning off the bar fridge so we had no beers at half time... We need to trade in 3 good men and a rabbid dog.
<blockquote>Quote from Simonoz on September 2, 2012, 22:12 Nungas on 4 and Penguins on 3 ?? Both out in my op....Frogs on life support.</blockquote> Not having lived in the United States, far be it from to suggest there is a prevailing attitude of kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out. However, it has been my experience with mob rule that all they seek is the ouster of the incumbent without any thought to the replacement. This leads to system failure. Think we all prefer a fully subscribed league. We do not currently have anyone (firmly) waiting in the wings to take up a franchise. Once we have that, we can afford to be ruthless. As the clock ticks down I can only think that X has befallen some horrible fate and have pretty much made up my mind we won't be hearing from him anytime soon. That means at least one franchise will be up for grabs. Cheers bama and thanks again.
Guys, Is it worth advertising on the board or a new thread if anyone is interested in running a team before a lot of guys shut up shop until next year?
I stress that I am merely playing devils advocate here... Do we need 18 teams? Could we be creative with fixturing and play with less? I only ask because it might be hard to get new people in, particularly when they are just handed a team who they have no affinity with. I see us running into problems. My enjoyment has come through picking a team from scratch and watching plans fall into place. If you get lumped with a team you lose that a bit. If we can think about how we would fixture it, I almost think we are better off disbanding teams from people who no longer have the time/interest and putting the players up for draft. Helps equalization of the comp also (albeit at my own personal expense) Again, I have no real opinion, just throwing it out there for thought.
I agree it would be hard to get people to take over teams already picked, most of the enjoyment is creating your list.
Chief and bama, I agree with you from the enjoyment perspective. I would not be difficult to design a programme with a four week finals series, preceeded by a one round complete round robin that did not play through the bye rounds. The start week would depend on the number of teams and could incorporate a bye if there were an odd number. That may well be stating the obvious. I would love a draft of players from "disbanded" teams as many of us have different positional needs.
I am confident that we would find an interested party or two if we asked, I recall Fitzy posting somewhere, unsolicited, that he had someone interested. I don't feel 18 is a finite number by any means, and I have a lot to gain by picking over a demised teams carcass, but I also feel that finding a replacement manager is ideal. End of season is also ideal as they are able to impact significantly via trading or drafting on the team to take the field prior to R1 2013.
It's an interesting one. IF it is determined that a coach (or coaches) has abandoned a team, then I imagine we would need to make a call about what the preferred number of teams is "moving forward". It's inevitable that interest will wane for some, or that circumstances may prevent others from continuing to participate. Given that eventuality, we really can't keep putting the players from abandoned teams in the draft pool. If enough teams abandon without being replaced, then overall interest is likely to decline as well. But it may be a viable option initially, particularly if a replacement coach proves hard to come by. I mean, after all, if a replacement coach doesn't like the look of the list they're getting, we could be looking at Gold Coast/GWS type incentives to get them onboard!