I favour 'movement' rather than delists. My ideal is 26 in a squad, minimum 4 movements required in the off/pre season. This can be in the form of delisting OR trading; so long as there are at least 4 differences in the end.
TheTassieHawk wrote: 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. Agree with all your assumptions, not fussed on a 5th emergency either way, though the decision on which line to leave blank is an engagement that would be missing if it happened, very sure Walesy's model supports it. Below assumes 16 or 18 teams For squad numbers, I don't really have a preference between 26 or 28 unless it's linked to a forced 'shedding' number. If we were to go with 26 I'd like to see no team enter the PSD with more than 20 players, either through retirements, trading inequal numbers of players and delistments. This forces a healthy draft pool and ensures a good mix of AFL draftees and depth (playing players) to be drawn from. If we went to 28 I'd like that number to become 22. MSD being voluntary I tried to get this through in the FA but whilst most were happy to increase squad sizes to 28 not very many were happy to cut so deep so it may not be a popular POV. We ended up with a hybrid system which works well but I'd still like deeper cuts (In saying that I only have 2 I want to move this year making PSD very unusual for the Misfits, it's genuinely a league benefit vs a personal benefit call IMO). Either way I don't feel it's the number of delists that should be forced, it's the squad number at the start of the draft. Re the rookie list, I'm not a fan though I can see it's appeal and wouldn't actually object to it, consider me a weak vote against
Sorry, keep forgetting about coming here. Welcome Mrs Bear! I don't wish for having expansion teams at a later date. I don't think there a need to go lower than 16/18 teams. As for logistics, we've got 3 other leagues as proof that it can be done. Fixtures are rather straight forward with how the bye rounds are structured up currently. 18 teams, play others 1 (17 games) plus 3 rounds of finals plus the three byes and that's 23. Neat n easy. As for draft pool, I don't see it as a problem, deeper drafting means rewarding finding players more and if you make sure you delist a good amount then you can have a decent sized ddraft anyway without having a larger pool of players not on teams doing nothing for most of the year. Didn't realise about the push for ORFFF. I'd have said ORFFC myself. Think that's the next logical abbreviation. What it stands for, probably out of Competition, Championship and Conference are the three choices I'd say. Either/Or really. 28 + 8 setup for me. Or as close to that. Delistments not movements, since this is a keeper league, not a dynasty league which I think some of the ORFF rules crossover into. I think one of the most important things is making sure each draft is as fresh and new as possible and that lists don't get stagnant or hording. If you're to keep 18-20 players that's already a sizeable amount. No Rookie List. K.I.S.S
port_leschenault wrote: Sorry, keep forgetting about coming here. Welcome Mrs Bear! I don't wish for having expansion teams at a later date. I don't think there a need to go lower than 16/18 teams. As for logistics, we've got 3 other leagues as proof that it can be done. Fixtures are rather straight forward with how the bye rounds are structured up currently. 18 teams, play others 1 (17 games) plus 3 rounds of finals plus the three byes and that's 23. Neat n easy. As for draft pool, I don't see it as a problem, deeper drafting means rewarding finding players more and if you make sure you delist a good amount then you can have a decent sized ddraft anyway without having a larger pool of players not on teams doing nothing for most of the year. Didn't realise about the push for ORFFF. I'd have said ORFFC myself. Think that's the next logical abbreviation. What it stands for, probably out of Competition, Championship and Conference are the three choices I'd say. Either/Or really. 28 + 8 setup for me. Or as close to that. Delistments not movements, since this is a keeper league, not a dynasty league which I think some of the ORFF rules crossover into. I think one of the most important things is making sure each draft is as fresh and new as possible and that lists don't get stagnant or hording. If you're to keep 18-20 players that's already a sizeable amount. No Rookie List. K.I.S.S I'd be happy to support all of this here from PL. Except that I'd still like the C to be for Collective But I am really not concerned about what we end up with. And I would still like to see squad sizes of 30. Allows for 15 v 15 intraclub games If that meant 10 'delists' was required, I'd be ok with that. The '' around delists is actually because I agree with Len's suggestion of it actually being around squad size rather than a requirement to delist. I support delisting rather than movement as a rule, but in essence the main aim is to get squad sizes down to a certain figure (20 maybe) prior to the draft. If we havent traded all our players out in 2for1s etc then delisting is required
hey all it looks like we need to start a either/or poll the option with the majority of votes by the closing date ORFFF (Federation) vs ORFFC (Cword to be determined later) unfortunately I have no idea of how do start a poll !! if someone can set this up with a closing date of say the 18th of November (around 3 weeks) Iwill email the link to everyone's email addresses so we can get this matter sorted
TheTassieHawk wrote: hey all it looks like we need to start a either/or poll the option with the majority of votes by the closing date ORFFF (Federation) vs ORFFC (Cword to be determined later) unfortunately I have no idea of how do start a poll !! if someone can set this up with a closing date of say the 18th of November (around 3 weeks) Iwill email the link to everyone's email addresses so we can get this matter sorted I'll set one up now, might need a few of these to get majority thoughts on many of the questions you've raised..
TheTassieHawk wrote: hey all it looks like we need to start a either/or poll the option with the majority of votes by the closing date ORFFF (Federation) vs ORFFC (Cword to be determined later) unfortunately I have no idea of how do start a poll !! if someone can set this up with a closing date of say the 18th of November (around 3 weeks) Iwill email the link to everyone's email addresses so we can get this matter sorted emails have been sent to everyone I have email addresses for - please jump in and vote on the new comp name when you can people http://tooserious.net/forum/Forum/tab...
Hey everyone I was wondering what people were thinking around how we do the inaugural draft The 3 existing ORFF comps all did the snake draft thing · Round 1 - 1 to 18 · Round 2 - 18 to 1 · Round 3,5,7,9 etc - 1 to 18 · Round 4,6,8,10 etc - 18 to 1 An alternative if some feel that Pick 1 + 36 is an unfair” advantage over Pick 18 + 19 is a banzai draft - these vary greatly so for the sake of clarity here is an alternative:- · Round 1 - 1 to 18 · Round 2 & 3 - 18 to 1 · Round 4,6,8,10 etc - 18 to 1 · Round 5,7,9,11 etc - 1 to 18 ------------------------ http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/supe... - Draft order (Snake, Linear, Banzai): * Snake Draft - the order of selections is reversed each round * Linear Draft - the order of selections stays the same each round * Banzai Draft - the order of selections reverses in round 2, stays the same in round 3, and then continues as per the Snake Draft. ------------------------ My opinion is that we have even lists (26, 28 or 30 players) with a snake draft or for something different we go for odd numbered lists (27 or 29 players) with a banzai draft which is my preference. Thoughts ?? Note the 2016 MSD (Rounds 13-15) and all subsequent drafts would then in reverse ladder order as per the AFL.
bansai sounds interesting, but snake for me also. I don't think an even or odd number of players makes any difference at all, except to the number itself. So if we can't decide between 26 and 28 for example, I don't see why 27 is an invalid number just because it can't be evenly divided by 2.
Len wrote: bansai sounds interesting, but snake for me also. I don't think an even or odd number of players makes any difference at all, except to the number itself. So if we can't decide between 26 and 28 for example, I don't see why 27 is an invalid number just because it can't be evenly divided by 2. you make a decent point Len although I notice myself that in general a lot of people have a bias against odd numbers
TheTassieHawk wrote: TheTassieHawk wrote: hey all it looks like we need to start a either/or poll the option with the majority of votes by the closing date ORFFF (Federation) vs ORFFC (Cword to be determined later) unfortunately I have no idea of how do start a poll !! if someone can set this up with a closing date of say the 18th of November (around 3 weeks) Iwill email the link to everyone's email addresses so we can get this matter sorted emails have been sent to everyone I have email addresses for - please jump in and vote on the new comp name when you can people http://tooserious.net/forum/Forum/tab... I have just votedwhich makes it 10 to 3 for the Federation - therefore I have updated the Forum Section and description - this can always be changed if we get a late flood of votes and it ends up being 11 votes to 10. I couldn't work out how to change the name of this thread though so would be happy for anyone who knows how to make the change !!
Thefundamental aspect of keeper leagues which differs from reality is that in effect every player is on a rolling half season contract to the next draft (whether PSD or MSD) and can be traded to another team without their consent or cut at the whim of their coach but none of this is player driven as players never walk out” on a club or become Free Agents. My suggestion is that the Federation considers a different model whereby clubs face similar challenges and opportunities as real world sports franchises but without the admin required for a salary cap based league. The simplest measure I have thought of is that at the end of season Unrestricted Free Agency is granted to any player that changes AFL clubs via trade, Free Agency or the National Draft(s) - for example Dayne Beams would have been declared an Unrestricted Free Agent in 2014 and Patrick Dangerfield, Adam Treloar and Harley Bennell would have been declared Unrestricted Free Agents in 2015. Obviously most of the players affected (40 or so in 2015) are more of the list clogger” or less fantasy relevant” variety If this was supported I would be happy for it to be applicable from the end of 2017 - ie the second season of the new comp so that we allow the comp to settle in the first year. I would also be supportive of exceptions for any players traded with less than 1.5 seasons service to their current club. This would mean a team holding a Dangerfield-type player who is set to be out of contract with their AFL club at the completion of 2017 season (Season 2) could consider a trade pre-season in 2017 or midseason in either 2016 or 2017 in order to receive a return on their asset rather than lose them for free if they expect him to walk out” at the end of the 2017 season, while the receiving team can't lose the player at the end of the 2017 season. No doubt some ORFF franchises will be hit harder than others but I believe that this would over time even out (unless a coach is drafting a heck of a lot of players from NSW and QLD AFL sides) and would provide teams at the bottom of the ladder greater scope for rapid improvement through access to mature A and B grade talent each season through the draft. Different models to the one suggested mightbe preferable, what do other coaches think??
TheTassieHawk wrote: Len wrote: bansai sounds interesting, but snake for me also. I don't think an even or odd number of players makes any difference at all, except to the number itself. So if we can't decide between 26 and 28 for example, I don't see why 27 is an invalid number just because it can't be evenly divided by 2. you make a decent point Len although I notice myself that in general a lot of people have a bias against odd numbers /Portals/0/Users/017/57/3857/3c33de646ec67fa6d17c72561b3a50565fd63fa4faacc658e0314c29c46c3603.jpg
TheTassieHawk wrote: I couldn't work out how to change the name of this thread though so would be happy for anyone who knows how to make the change !! Sorted, let me know if that doesn't work for you
The ORFFF it is! Long live the ORFFF! In relation to TTH's suggestion on free agency, I personally don't see the need and/or benefit, and it has the potential to be 'unfun' for the unlucky ones. Now to figure out my team name...
thokash wrote: The ORFFF it is! Long live the ORFFF! In relation to TTH's suggestion on free agency, I personally don't see the need and/or benefit, and it has the potential to be 'unfun' for the unlucky ones. Now to figure out my team name... This