My take on the best way to avoid dynasty creation is quite simply to increase the number of deslistments required. The 6 mandatory for 26 was a good balance for most, thus the popularity of it even if from my own experience it does encourage a bit of hoarding (at least early on, recent drafts the shifts on what players are available look a lot better). As it stands now, what the current vote is suggesting is that people want less delistments in relation to squad sizes. 6/26 > 6/30 I see the mid-season draft as more of a stand-in for not having a waiver wire of sorts which if we did have would requite a lot more attention throughout the week, not to mention administration. I quite like it as it initially stands where if you don't want to join up to it you don't have to.
I don't see the point in having to go to extremes. Most of the time and rules/changes I'm for are in favour of keeping things simple. Whether we have to delist 2 players or 10 players, I'm not sure how this can be considered complicated. It's one of the most basic rules our league will have. As for equalisation, deslistments are quite the most direct way obvious to get more players in the draft pool, and with a linear draft then happening, the best chance for those lower the season previous to pick up the better available players first and regenerate list sizes. Again, I don't see anything complicated about that at all. As for the suggestions posted as well, don't most of those further complicate things? So on just the equalisation front (it's not the only reason for wanting more delistments) wouldn't just increasing the delistment be simplest?
Hey mate, I posted late and the length, detail and my tone may have come across differently to intended. Obviously a proposal to have delistments increased is indeed very simple relative to all alternatives and it was not my intention to suggest that it was complicated. As I think drafts are fun and the bigger the draft is the better - however the one obvious consideration being the need to consider logistics of running a 15 player draft (ie 240 picks) each year if people get busy in real life I would suggest considering an annual draft (3 days/nights * 5 rounds or 80 picks per day/night) mid NAB cup instead of a 24 hour per pick draft. As you pointed out there is a definite difference between a dynasty league and a keeper league - clearly this comp is tending towards the former and we all need to consider whether we have made the above votes with this in mind, if so then I personally am all good.
I'm not in favour of dynasty leagues at all. I'm also very inexperienced when it comes to fantasy football as ORFFU was my 1st attempt and I'm one of those at the bottom of the table and don't see my being able to rise up any time soon. ORFFU does not have compulsory delistments at this stage. I voted for 6 delistments above, thinking that would be enough to help teams that find themselves lower in the table at the end of the season but would be more than willing to increase that number if my inexperience clouded my judgement and I needed to go higher so as ORFFF doesn't become a "dynasty" league. I hope that makes sense.
@TTH - given such a divisive topic. Perhaps its worth running a two stage poll as with the list size vote. Whereby the two highest vote getting options are put up in a second poll? Don't think it will be the end of the world if this decision takes a few more weeks...
I'm content with cutting deeper if it got popular support, but let's not kid ourselves too much, 6 is a 5th of the squads, that's in line with some of the deeper cuts made by AFL teams, and we are drawing from a massively stronger pool using only 480 of the 800 odd on their lists..
1st - as but 1 of 16 here it is not my call mate although I can see the merits - others feel free to chip in here 2nd - i have checked the new site set up and polls can be set up so that votes can be changed during the voting period, hence if it is agreeable to most we could always achieve the same result of allowing peopel to back the most popular choices only through changing the poll settings for the current poll 3rd - when I checked last 7 of 13 had voted for one option, with only choppers indicating he might change so 6 of 13 would be in favour of 1 option, if the cut by 4 person is also allowed to move to cut by 6 then it becomes 7 of 13 again which is a majority of votes cast SO FAR. I can't recall when the vote opened but to me that seems to suggest it could go either way if people can change their votes - not wanting to make assumptions about what the other 3 might vote (they have until Wednesday per the hidden settings for the poll). 4th - not sure why we cant make a decision more quickly than a few weeks in any case
Why? I don't see anything in your post that was hostile, or anything in mine that was aimed as the same. I've only offered my opinion whilst trying to engage the other coaches into thinking about the sort of league they want too, because I firmly understand that at the moment I am 1/16th part of the league. If the majority want 6 delistments then that's what we will have, regardless of if it isn't my preferred choice. It's that straight-forward. We don't even have team names for 2, have they checked in? So agree with this. Last thing we need is to rush things more than already has been.
@insider are you able to edit the poll options so we can see who voted publicly? Not sure if you can do it now or only at start. There's no problem, but it's the best way to ensure/see that those who are voting, are indeed those who are coaching.
Sorry haven't been on, couldn't log in with my old account details and even tried the password reset which only gave error messages saying I wasn't registered. Had to get Bear to message Walesy to find out the problem, then had to set up a brand new account because apparently my account was one of a very small amount that didn't transfer across. Have voted here and will get my team thread sorted out soon.
based on the above poll numbers are we OK that a maximum pre ORFFF PSD number of 24 players has been agreed?