Agree we should be looking at the major points first.. First one is how many teams. This affects the list size discussion substantially, if we have 14 or less teams than I see little relevance in whether we have 26 or 28 players. Assume we have 26, but 4 less teams than the other leagues, the 26th best player on each list is arguably ranked between 104 and 118 draft picks higher than in the other leagues, it seems natural to assume we would be far less likely to run into teams being unable to field a full squad of 15 (I believe the named team composition, scoring etc needs to stay the same as the other leagues for coding purposes). 28 is just two extra at that point, I wouldn't be fussed which way we went. The number of teams by necessity also affects the draw and finals structure. I am also in the camp of forced delistments to a number that hurts for exactly the same reasons as Johnny.
I have also put my hand up to join, if numbers are needed. I would like to see 18 teams of 26 and I am also in the forced delistment camp.
OK, my thoughts, for what they're worth. My motivation to participate is largely a selfish one. As an ORFFA franchise interloper, I am very keen to have the opportunity to draft and mould a team from scratch, and see how my chosen talent evolves. Not to debase The Lefties and the behemoth they have become, but they are a far cry from the team I originally inherited (yes they will still be my first love) That aside, I am willing to assist during the off season in any way possible to get this league up and running. During the regular season, I would be happy to work with one or two other coaches on a specific task (MSD coord or trade coord). I like the concept of sharing roles as it spreads the load and ensures back up if someone has real life priorities. Rules League size - my pref is for at least 16 teams Squad size - as alluded by Len, strongly influenced by league size. as a guide I would be keen on the 18 team/28 player scenario. The extra two players adds some variety and compexity to the keeper league with coaches having the option to dabble with more depth, emerging youth or a long term project or two. Delists - firmly in the mandatory delist camp too. 6 works well. A fan of the 4/2 option in the FA but not fazed if strictly 6 prior to PSD. Deity - happy with a single chief (with a deputy or two) with major decisions discussed/voted by league. Draft - pref to see a week or two of NAB prior to draft but this might not be possible for the entire initial draft, I recall someone suggesting we draft a core team and hold a secondary draft mid-NAB to draft the remainder. Commitment - not sold on stringent rules around commitment or responding to trade requests. However I do prefer the use of the forum (i.e. in 'ere) for league discussion and managing drafts/trade activity etc and would expect coaches to stick their head in from time to time. Finals - obviously dependant on league size. If less than 18, then a double chance would be nice. Beyond that, i'm happy with the top of the ladder choosing opponent. I have seen comments from most of the 13 odd coaches in the OP, so are we in a position to make some decisions or cast a vote on: Comp name, Commish nominations...? And most importantly, I reckon committed coaches should start creating their own team threads and get some name reveals happening! (he he I might even kick this off)
I like what you're sayin' there,grav. Not bad for a leftie........Not 100% sold on 28 player squad and 6 mandatory delistments, I myself would prefer 26/3-4 but agree with the rest.
To be honest though, if we're struggling to get 14 coaches and most of hem are double-ups to make the numbers is there any point to starting this now? With three leagues already it could just be that as of the moment the interest in keeper leagues is already at saturation point for this site. It would be better to postpone than start a league prematurely and see it stutter as a result. I think getting 16 coaches is an absolute minimum and ideally would like to be in a 18 team league. The more active coaches involved the merrier. Some thoughts on rules: Keeper league is not a dynasty league so I'd be happy to be on the side of more delistments, not less and don't like the idea of split requirements, should be a forced standard. Especially if going to squad sizes of 28 would suggest 8 mandatory, but would entertain that idea for squad size of 26 too. It's about getting the balance right between not encouraging hoarding of players who wont have a fantasy impact for 3-4 years and letting coaches be rewarded for sticking with those talented youngsters. Initial draft should be early-ish. I see no need to start in November post NAB draft but certainly sometime in January would be best. Draft scheduled after that would be later I imagine with fewer draft picks to get through. Ix-nay on the trading during rafts-day. Don't like that idea at all. Trading times for the 'FL are pre-season starting once CD announces new positions through to the draft, then whatever time we have left to the start of the season there's a post-draft trade period. Mid-Season trade period opens up during the byes before the draft happens. Then there's a draft period post-season whilst the AFL finals are on. I find that one a bit pointless really, not a lot of trading gets done then. Happy with two main periods of trading with a small majority for veto'ing trades. All for trying to prevent extremely lop-sided trades from going through. Not really one for enforcing any specific activity requirement beyond the necessary, certainly not to every request for trade received. Would like to see teams be changed/updated weekly but the rollover of teams in the TS leagues means that this is not always the case but don't want to see it policed unless it gets out of hand. If someone has stopped playing it would be a courtesy to say so before disappearing I think. No activity by the pre-season draft is usually a good clue if someone it not playing. We're incredibly lazy really in the ORFFL. We have a Commie who we all adore as Dear Leader and there's about 4-5 others of us that have posting rights but invariably we're not that active. People chip in when they can. There's usually someone to release an updated spreadsheet or create fixtures, post a blog to remind everyone we're still a thing etc etc Humble bragging should be stamped out immediately.
insider wrote: thokash wrote: Obviously everyone is keen, but my opinion/experience is it's really hard to get anything done before January. That goes for the draft, but more importantly finding coaches that are genuinely interested - I highly doubt too many are lurking around this time of year. I do my finest work lurking in the background! insider - just checking whether this was simply a confession or a veiled expression of interest in the new comp ??
coaches, just checking to confirm my interest, as a coach & board member in the ORFFU I'd like to take a back seat in the set up but happy to be a coach in getting the numbers up. will have a look at the discussion and add any input I think is relevant!! I do like the ORFFF (Federation) as a name fwiw! enjoy the trade period... cmon saints can't pay a bloke squillions and not offer up a 1st rounder.... lets get on with it.
I don't really do 'veiled' tth, I'm more of a sledgehammer sort of guy. Regardless I'm happy to make up the numbers or continue to lurk. Depends on what y'all settle for as the league size and then how many that are keen.
Per P_L's comment:To be honest though, if we're struggling to get 14 coaches and most of hem are double-ups to make the numbers is there any point to starting this now?[span style='color: #000000; background: transparent;] [span style='color: #000000; background: transparent;]It's a valid question and one probably not lost on most of us. I guess the alternative is that the 5-6 prospective 'new' coaches wait in the wings for a few years hoping that someone falls off the perch or perhaps take their business elsewhere. I'm of the view that if TTH is eager and committed enough to kick this off and a reasonable number of current and new coaches jump in fairly quickly then let it have legs. Surely it's got to be a benefit for the site and this keeper brand in general. Granted that this time of year is not the best for trying to recruit SC keeper coaches but time is on our side. From what I have read, choppers and insider have thrown their hat in the ring and Mrs Bear is a possibility too (c'mon Nicky!). That gives us 16 by my count andpotentially2 - 3 months before we need to hold a draft. So let's be at it! I hope that didn't sound too soapboxy...
grav wrote: Per P_L's comment:To be honest though, if we're struggling to get 14 coaches and most of hem are double-ups to make the numbers is there any point to starting this now? It's a valid question and one probably not lost on most of us. I guess the alternative is that the 5-6 prospective 'new' coaches wait in the wings for a few years hoping that someone falls off the perch or perhaps take their business elsewhere. I'm of the view that if TTH is eager and committed enough to kick this off and a reasonable number of current and new coaches jump in fairly quickly then let it have legs. Surely it's got to be a benefit for the site and this keeper brand in general. Granted that this time of year is not the best for trying to recruit SC keeper coaches but time is on our side. From what I have read, choppers and insider have thrown their hat in the ring and Mrs Bear is a possibility too (c'mon Nicky!). That gives us 16 by my count andpotentially2 - 3 months before we need to hold a draft. So let's be at it! I hope that didn't sound too soapboxy... Hey folks great to see the discussion getting going Adding to PL and Grav's comments regarding numbers with choppers, insider and Nicky (Mrs Bear) we do have 16 possibles, with (I think) only 2 or 3 of these yet to logon and comment in this blog. In terms of numbers of teams I expect the majority of us want to avoid having byes which means settling on an even number of teams whether that be 12,14,16 or 18 to commence the comp. Personally I would prefer a smaller number of teams (10-14) for several competitive (basically a greater chance of making prelims, Grand Finals and winning the comp if you are reasonably competent and have a good run with injuries) and list management (greater pool of undrafted players to choose from) reasons. A smaller comp should also provide a bit of variety for coaches doubling up from another ORFF comp. I also believe we want to provide a best fit with the CURRENT demand for teams and not wanting the league have more than 3 doubled up” or roped in” coaches unless they are committed long term (at least 2 years) given in every new ORFF comp so far there has been churn in the first and second years that could mean we are looking for half a dozen new coaches very early in the piece. I would add that to provide fixturing and finals format flexibility I would definitely want entries capped at 16 teams. I understand that others have indicated a preference above for 18 or at least 16 teams and would be keen to know why that is, ie what advantages does this provide ?? If you prefer less than 16 teams or don't care how many teams there are please feel free to provide similar feedback. If we are having trouble filling the desired number of franchises I would encourage all of you to gauge the interest of mates and relatives in real life who are dedicated and/or high calibre SC or other fantasy sport coaches who might be willing to have a crack. Of course we can also request for Walesy to send out an email to the TS community which I would hope should bring some interest if needed. I wish to propose that we all consider starting with a 12 or 14 team league for 2016, with either the option or intention to expand by 2 teams (ie from 12 to 14 teams or from 14 to 16 teams) after 1 or 2 seasons by way of an expansion draft IF we have coaches wishing to join up and no existing franchises available. For those of you unfamiliar with the concept of an expansion draft see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_draft Cheers TTH
Slightly averse to expansion drafts, but agree with your proposal TTH A number of people with their hands up have said they would be happy to start a team for someone else to pickup when a new coach arrives. I believe we prioritise keeping the new coaches who have stuck their hands up already rather than risking losing them over the next 12 months
Hello gentlemen, Sorry for only just getting my account set up and posting something in here, I had to wait for the other half to give me a bit of time on his laptop so I could sort things out. After some convincing from the other half, along with a bit of explaining about how things operate, I am definitely keen to have a go at this new league (I like the idea of ORFFF, or triple F as it could become known as). Not very experienced in this type of format, but I have taken notice of Bear over the past few years with his involvement in the original ORFFL, and I do regularly rank higher than him in Supercoach (3 out of past 4 years I have ranked slightly higher than him). I look forward to being involved and hopefully kicking some gentlemanly butt over the next few years (I will take it easy on Gravenger because he was kind enough to buy us a couple of beers at the footy a few years ago, but look out everyone else, especially to you know who).
Hello gentlemen, Sorry for only just getting my account set up and posting something in here, I had to wait for the other half to give me a bit of time on his laptop so I could sort things out. After some convincing from the other half, along with a bit of explaining about how things operate, I am definitely keen to have a go at this new league (I like the idea of ORFFF, or triple F as it could become known as). Not very experienced in this type of format, but I have taken notice of Bear over the past few years with his involvement in the original ORFFL, and I do regularly rank higher than him in Supercoach (3 out of past 4 years I have ranked slightly higher than him). I look forward to being involved and hopefully kicking some gentlemanly butt over the next few years (I will take it easy on Gravenger because he was kind enough to buy us a couple of beers at the footy a few years ago, but look out everyone else, especially to you know who).
Mrs Bear wrote: Hello gentlemen, Sorry for only just getting my account set up and posting something in here, I had to wait for the other half to give me a bit of time on his laptop so I could sort things out. After some convincing from the other half, along with a bit of explaining about how things operate, I am definitely keen to have a go at this new league (I like the idea of ORFFF, or triple F as it could become known as). Not very experienced in this type of format, but I have taken notice of Bear over the past few years with his involvement in the original ORFFL, and I do regularly rank higher than him in Supercoach (3 out of past 4 years I have ranked slightly higher than him). I look forward to being involved and hopefully kicking some gentlemanly butt over the next few years (I will take it easy on Gravenger because he was kind enough to buy us a couple of beers at the footy a few years ago, but look out everyone else, especially to you know who). Good to hear from you Mrs Bear
anthak wrote: Mrs Bear wrote: Hello gentlemen, Sorry for only just getting my account set up and posting something in here, I had to wait for the other half to give me a bit of time on his laptop so I could sort things out. After some convincing from the other half, along with a bit of explaining about how things operate, I am definitely keen to have a go at this new league (I like the idea of ORFFF, or triple F as it could become known as). Not very experienced in this type of format, but I have taken notice of Bear over the past few years with his involvement in the original ORFFL, and I do regularly rank higher than him in Supercoach (3 out of past 4 years I have ranked slightly higher than him). I look forward to being involved and hopefully kicking some gentlemanly butt over the next few years (I will take it easy on Gravenger because he was kind enough to buy us a couple of beers at the footy a few years ago, but look out everyone else, especially to you know who). Good to hear from you Mrs Bear +1 to the welcome Mrs Bear/Nicky also from reviewing the above we now have 3 nominations for the ORFFF (Federation) so perhaps we should go with this name unless there are any objections by this time next week (Friday 30th October) ?? As Mrs Bear pointed out the comp could be known as the Triple F, and perhaps the participants could be known as either 'Fers or Trippers (I prefer the latter) I'll post regardingsome of the drafting and list management discussion on the weekend If I get time
TheTassieHawk wrote: anthak wrote: Mrs Bear wrote: Hello gentlemen, Sorry for only just getting my account set up and posting something in here, I had to wait for the other half to give me a bit of time on his laptop so I could sort things out. After some convincing from the other half, along with a bit of explaining about how things operate, I am definitely keen to have a go at this new league (I like the idea of ORFFF, or triple F as it could become known as). Not very experienced in this type of format, but I have taken notice of Bear over the past few years with his involvement in the original ORFFL, and I do regularly rank higher than him in Supercoach (3 out of past 4 years I have ranked slightly higher than him). I look forward to being involved and hopefully kicking some gentlemanly butt over the next few years (I will take it easy on Gravenger because he was kind enough to buy us a couple of beers at the footy a few years ago, but look out everyone else, especially to you know who). Good to hear from you Mrs Bear +1 to the welcome Mrs Bear/Nicky also from reviewing the above we now have 3 nominations for the ORFFF (Federation) so perhaps we should go with this name unless there are any objections by this time next week (Friday 30th October) ?? As Mrs Bear pointed out the comp could be known as the Triple F, and perhaps the participants could be known as either 'Fers or Trippers (I prefer the latter) I'll post regardingsome of the drafting and list management discussion on the weekend If I get time Thanks for making Nicky feel welcome Ant & TTH - must admit she felt a tad nervous about posting for first time!!! Not too impressed that she had to point out the recent SC ranking differences though - she'll always have a crack at me when she can so I think I need to show her who's boss here @TTH - love the idea of us being known as the Trippers!!!
Mrs Bear wrote: Hello gentlemen, Sorry for only just getting my account set up and posting something in here, I had to wait for the other half to give me a bit of time on his laptop so I could sort things out. After some convincing from the other half, along with a bit of explaining about how things operate, I am definitely keen to have a go at this new league (I like the idea of ORFFF, or triple F as it could become known as). Not very experienced in this type of format, but I have taken notice of Bear over the past few years with his involvement in the original ORFFL, and I do regularly rank higher than him in Supercoach (3 out of past 4 years I have ranked slightly higher than him). I look forward to being involved and hopefully kicking some gentlemanly butt over the next few years (I will take it easy on Gravenger because he was kind enough to buy us a couple of beers at the footy a few years ago, but look out everyone else, especially to you know who). Great to have you on board Nicky! Another household rivalry is born. Ahh those memorable final frothies at Footy Park. Even sweeter that they weren't that vile West End Soap on Tap that my taste buds vividly recall from the 90's. Trippers Unite!
From the discussion above we seem to all be on the same page that we will be following the classic” team structure for ORFF comps - 15 player teams (4def-4mid-4-fwd-1ruck-2IC) - no doubled up captains or vice captains score - half points for OOP players - IC players can be from any position emergencies don't seem to have been discussed but I am assuming each comp has 4 emergencies with one line (usually ruck or IC) not covered personally I would be OK with adding a 5th emergency to reduce the chance of a match being decided by a late withdrawal donut, assuming the current TS Leagues functionality would allow this Squad Size and PSD Delistments It appears that for most who have commented list sizes will be 26 or 28 and might depend on the number of teams we have while MSD would be optional. Forced PSD delistments seem to be supported (between 3 and 8) but I have noted some coaches are rather vague, it seems that coaches are generally supportive of higher PSD delistment numbers if squad sizes are greater than 26. Assuming for now that we have player list of between 26 and 30 (and no rookie list) and with 15player teams which are in reality squads of 19 including the 4 emergencies I would be comfortable with keeping PSD delistments to a number between 4 and X where X gives each team 19 keepers (or 20 if we go with a 5th emergency) maximum keepers 22 21 20 19 list size 26 4 must be delisted 5 must be delisted 6 must be delisted 7 must be delisted 27 5 must be delisted 6 must be delisted 7 must be delisted 8 must be delisted 28 6 must be delisted 7 must be delisted 8 must be delisted 9 must be delisted 29 7 must be delisted 8 must be delisted 9 must be delisted 10 must be delisted 30 8 must be delisted 9 must be delisted 10 must be delisted 11 must be delisted Depending on the number of teams we go with I would be happy with a single list or27-28 with 8 PSD delistments (assuming 16 or 18 teams) or 29-30 with 9 PSD delistments (assuming 14 or less teams). If youhave already commented above but were not specific about numbers of delistments depending on squad sizes (ie Len and Thokash) please have your say over the next few weeks. If you haven't already commented please share your opinions even otherwise others will assume you aren't really bothered and are OK with whatever has the mostsupport.
Bear has mentioned above to a 4 player rookie” list in addition to a 26 player main list. I am also keen on this type of concept or alternatively a restriction on the number of 1st year AFL players (or players with under 15 AFL games played) drafted each season - perhaps either 1 or none - so that clubs are in general drafting more seasoned players so that potentially we end up with more competitive games each week with less teams fielding multiple donuts due to having players on their ORFF list languishing in the real world state leagues that will never play an AFL game. Please advise whether you have a view on whether either of these ideas may add value to the new comp, or if you have any ideas of your own for providing a 'point of difference' between the new comp and existing ORFF comps