Poll - A change to the list changes rule

Discussion in 'ORFFU' started by JPK, Jul 30, 2019.

?

Should there be a change to the mandatory list changes? (Please read below for more details)

This poll will close on Aug 29, 2019 at 9:24 PM.
  1. No Change

  2. Flexible List Changes (commencing 2021)

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. JPK

    JPK Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    3,739
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    There's been a couple of official-looking documents come across my desk, and in among them all was a signed petition for a new poll on the list changes rule. Being the kind, caring, and considerate dictator that I am, I completely ignored the petition, and had one of my many secretaries throw it in the bin (with an angry face!). Word must have gotten out, because the very next day there was another petition with even more signatures arrive on the top floor of the ivory tower, but I ignored that one too (this time a different secretary folded it into this amazing paper plane, and thew it out the open window of the tower). Day after day the petitions kept coming (persistent sh!ts), and I've now run out of secretaries, so I've decided to post this petition, in the hope of putting an end to this unwanted junk mail.

    Anyway, enough with the silly shenanigans, the poll is quite simple. The question is regarding the way the 4 mandatory list changes are made each year.

    No Change
    We currently have 4 mandatory picks that must be taken in the PSD each year. Any other list change by trade or MSD pick is entirely optional.
    Flexible List Changes
    We keep the mandatory 4 changes, but open them up to the discretion of each coach. Any trade, PSD pick, or MSD pick will count. Such a change will take effect for the 2021 season (so will not effect the 2020 PSD and MSD).

    In both cases, there remains no limit to the maximum number of list changes for the season, in accordance with current existing rules.
    If anyone is unclear about the difference, or the options, or anything, please post here so that we can clarify as necessary.
    The poll will be open until the end of August, and votes can be changed up until closure if a clarifying question or general discussion sways a coach one way or the other.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2019
  2. eagle_eyed

    eagle_eyed Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,467
    Likes Received:
    714
    I believe this is for 21 so as not to disadvantage anyone.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. eagle_eyed

    eagle_eyed Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,467
    Likes Received:
    714
    @JPK can you please add that changes will take effect in 2021 to the OP.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. martyg

    martyg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,088
    Likes Received:
    497
    Ok. Because we have the opportunity to discuss options here, would/could we make it 6 changes throughout the year? Would be pretty achievable - 2 picks in MSD, 3 in PSD and 1 trade, for example. Gives those lists a good 'ol turn over.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. eagle_eyed

    eagle_eyed Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,467
    Likes Received:
    714
    I reckon we need a separate poll to change the minimum number of list changes per year and that it shouldn't start until this poll is closed. Too many polls can create too many questions and confusion.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. martyg

    martyg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,088
    Likes Received:
    497
    I see your point, but it will affect how I vote.
     
  7. bryzza

    bryzza Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,371
    Likes Received:
    701
    baby steps, before we start talking about additional numbers we first have to get this poll voted through. Vote yes then coaches can discuss further changes if necessary.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. JPK

    JPK Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    3,739
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    Updated so.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  9. eagle_eyed

    eagle_eyed Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,467
    Likes Received:
    714
    Yeah, I see your point :cool:

    I guess you just have to answer the poll in isolation assuming that everything else remains as it is.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Tylo

    Tylo Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    696
    Likes Received:
    286
    Can someone explain to me what the purpose of mandatory list changes is?

    I've said it before, but I thought it was to help the struggling teams so as to keep the competition fairly even. As it stands as simply list changes ( be they draft picks or not) I don't see how it accomplishes that. To achieve that purpose it needs to be mandatory delistments so that the stronger teams do not get anything in return for the players they are off-loading.

    Am I missing something, is there some other reason why we have mandatory list changes?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. JPK

    JPK Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    3,739
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    This is interesting. Maybe we need some discussion around this.

    My take was always that by forcing list changes we would minimise hoarding of good players, so even if the top teams had 28 gun players (extreme example), they'd have to give up 4 of them each year. They could trade them out and bring in untried kids in the draft, or delist them if no-one traded. The counter was that they generally got a decent pick in exchange, so could pick up a gun kid next year.
    This was the reason for this proposed change - to keep the list turnover going, but give coaches "credit" for the trade (especially if they bring in a gun player) so that they don't then need to still take 4 picks. Basically allow coaches to make a decision on proven talent or untried talent as their list changeover mechanism. (wow, that gets complicated to explain... hopefully you can follow).

    I do however see the point that if everyone just drops 4 players each then the player pool becomes a mix of tried and untried, but we then devalue the trade too much (in my opinion), while overvaluing the pick too much.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Tylo

    Tylo Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    696
    Likes Received:
    286
    Imo the draft is a wasteland after the first 1-2 rounds since the list increase. Getting some half decent talent back in there I think would be a good thing.

    Plus the original argument of - what is the actual point of list turnover if coaches can just trade out one gun player for another? What does it achieve if we force coaches to give up 4 players but allow them to obtain 4 equivalent players/picks in return. I don't get it.
     
  13. eagle_eyed

    eagle_eyed Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,467
    Likes Received:
    714
    I have a different point of view.

    If I trade a pick for a player why should that count towards the other coaches 4 list changes but not mine. If anything I am penalised as now I have to move on 5 players to satisfy my 4 draft selections. I understand I would have had to move on one anyway to meet max squad size and that this only works in straight player for pick/s trades but it doesn’t make for an even playing field.

    If a team with a high pick wants to use it for immediate points then why should they be penalised for moving the pick on? As an example, if someone traded PSD2 for a player averaging 100, who’s to say that PSD2 will net an equivalent player? As an added bonus, if there are less than 72 players taken in the PSD then there’ll be more “new” players available in the MSD. After all, each year there are 18 ORFFU teams with 28 players each, picked from a total pool of 18 AFL clubs with 44 players each, meaning there will always be 288 players in the free agent pool whether we include trades in list changes or not. For every player drafted there is a player delisted or retired, whether it’s 4 from each club or some clubs with more and others with less it will still amount to 72 players minimum over the year.

    I genuinely think that including trades in the minimum list changes will help to increase trading between clubs. Even if they are just player for player trades I’m sure they are done with the intent of improving both teams involved. The whole point behind equalisation is for every coach to have the ability to improve their squad each season through the use of their draft selections so they can challenge for the flag. By lifting restraints coaches will have the ability to do it whichever way they like.

    Go ‘Gropers!!! :D
     
    • Like Like x 2
  14. choppers

    choppers Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    2,437
    Likes Received:
    1,203
    Some interesting points of view have been tabled and I would prefer a mix of trades and picks, as I believe a number of mandatory picks must be retained. The 2nd option in the Poll doesn't allow for that.
    .
    I look at it this way.
    A coach has traded well and got a very good team put together. If we decide on 4 as the number of list changes with no mandatory picks, he only needs to trade away 4 guns, and any of his picks, which he won't use anyway, and get 4 like players back.....Job done.
    His team virtually remains the same.
    If we allow for 6 trades with 2 mandatory pre-season picks, then he must at least de-list 2 or trade 2 for Picks only, putting 2 players into the pool which may benefit the lower teams.
    And with everyone needing to be in the PSD, the value of the Picks is maintained.

    So, if that option was put to us, I would vote for 4 or 6 List changes with 2 or 3 of those changes needing to be Picks in the PSD.
     
  15. eagle_eyed

    eagle_eyed Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,467
    Likes Received:
    714
    I can see your point mate, but speaking from my experience the only way to get a trade done is to pay overs. Even if I offered to trade a player averaging 90 for another averaging 90 most coaches would not do a straight swap. In reality when it comes to mandatory picks and delisting, we all delist the worst 4 on our list, and when reviewing drafts they all stay undrafted. At least by including trades in the 4 list changes it may shake things up a little and give the lower teams the option of recruiting an experienced player rather than drafting a kid and having to wait 3 years to see if they're any good or not. There is NO guarantee with draft picks; even top 3 picks can be misses.

    I always thought the reason behind mandatory picks was to help the lower teams, not to disadvantage the higher teams. Why should a coach be penalised for researching/drafting/trading well?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. bryzza

    bryzza Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,371
    Likes Received:
    701
    Coaches its important everyone votes. As a league input from all is required so we can make more informed decisions going forward.
     
  17. eagle_eyed

    eagle_eyed Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,467
    Likes Received:
    714
    @JPK What’s the go with the poll at closing if not all coaches have voted? Do we just go with the majority? If it’s tied does it force another poll?

    I’d think a month is plenty of time for coaches to vote. We’ve all been on multiple times in the last two weeks so there really shouldn’t be any excuses.
     
  18. JPK

    JPK Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    3,739
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    If coaches don't vote then we're just going to kick them out and divvy up their players around the remaining teams :p:p:p:p

    I actually hadn't put any thought into that yet, but I was hoping everyone would have voted by now :(:(
     
  19. ddsaints

    ddsaints Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    895
    Likes Received:
    239
    I like the way we have it now. Leave it be for a couple more seasons
     

Share This Page