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)

Poll closed Aug 29, 2019.
  1. No Change

    6 vote(s)
    37.5%
  2. Flexible List Changes (commencing 2021)

    10 vote(s)
    62.5%
  1. ddsaints

    ddsaints Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    896
    Likes Received:
    240
    Just leave it as is.
    Nothing wrong with what we have.
    6/10 isn’t overwhelming
    I’m confused with why the need to change? I’ve read all arguments,(E-E ones) and I’m still not understanding the point.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. insider

    insider Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,336
    Likes Received:
    823
    Rules state majority mate - doesn’t need to be overwhelming
     
  3. DamoH

    DamoH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    989
    Likes Received:
    785
    It doesn’t. But maybe we need to consider a rule that locks in rule changes for a minimum period of time (e.g two seasons). We’ve voted on this issue every six months since it came in, so of course it was going to change at some point.

    I voted against it simply because the last couple of seasons have seen teams at the bottom of the ladder emerge and the season have been closer in competition than the earlier ones. Now is this rule change the cause of that? I don’t know, but I don’t see the need to change.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. insider

    insider Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,336
    Likes Received:
    823
    You’ve lost me @DamoH ... I’m not debating this specific change or topic in question, I’m stating that if the majority vote on a poll then it passes.
    I’m not sure what you mean when you say ‘it doesn’t???
    It’s been quite self evident in the democratic process we’ve had several times before with changes, that a majority (of even 1 vote) decides the outcome. Your post reads like you’re inferring that it has to be a majority majority; ie over 80% of votes or something...??? Wtf mate???
    To be clear, as I wrote above, I’m not at all bringing this specific proposal into it as I couldn’t give a shit which way it ends up going, but I do have an issue with people arguing against a democratic process when it doesn’t go their way
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. eagle_eyed

    eagle_eyed Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,479
    Likes Received:
    721
    @DamoH I’d like to think that the comp is tighter now because we’re better at trading and drafting. On top of this, the first couple of drafts’ kids are hitting the 75-100 game mark and starting to deliver. I don’t think this rule change will impact competition within the league, it’ll just give coaches more choice in how they play the game.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Tylo

    Tylo Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    697
    Likes Received:
    287
    I don’t see the point in the change. It basically just waters down what is already a pretty ineffective rule imo. But if that’s what people want then meh.

    I still don’t think anyone has explained how these rules help to balance the comp. if bryzza is right, that we all just delist our bottom 4 players and no one else picks them up, then make it 6 players. The original idea was to prevent top sides hoarding talent and get some decent players back into the fa pool. It’s the only logical way to assist lower teams. There’s no logical reason to think forcing coaches to trade will benefit the lower teams. And yes, helping lower teams by principle by means disadvantage the higher teams. You can’t have one without the other.

    Either we want equalisation measures (mandatory delisting, not drafting or trading) or we don’t. What we have now and what’s being proposed are Mickey Mouse rules that do nothing.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. JPK

    JPK Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    3,749
    Likes Received:
    1,905
    Sorry guys, I've been incapacitated with the man-flu over the past week. I'll try to catch up with everything as best I can.... sometime soon.
     
  8. DamoH

    DamoH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    989
    Likes Received:
    785
    The 'it doesn't" referred to your point that majority changes don't have to be overwhelming, so I was agreeing with you. I never stated we needed a super-majority either or argued against the democratic process.

    My point was that ever since this change came in people have been pushing to change it - to the extent that we've voted on it every season, including twice in one season I believe.

    Has that been painful? Yep, but the current result is the result, and that's the process we have, so all good, but I was proposing a minimum period once a rule has been enacted before it can be changed, so that we can see exactly what effect the rule changes have on the comp.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. insider

    insider Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,336
    Likes Received:
    823
    RIGHT. Now I’m with ya... you ran one point into another about something else so you lost me. Use small words, preferably two syllable maximum next time if you want me to understand :oops:
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. JPK

    JPK Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    3,749
    Likes Received:
    1,905
    Ok, so as of the 2021 PSD, we need to see four list changes per team. 2020 will not be effected, and everyone is still required to take 4 picks in the 2020 PSD.

    The list changes will be calculated from the end of each ORFFU season.
    So, at the conclusion of the 2020 season team X has 28 players. Using the 2021 PSD, PST, MSD, and MST, at the end of the 2021 season there must be atleast four new faces in the team.
    If we get to the end of the 2021 (in this example) MS period and team X has less than 4 new faces... what should we do? I would propose that the person in my position removes the lowest averaging player from the list, who was also on the list at the end of the 2020 season (ie an "old face"), and replaces that player with the highest averaging "new face" in the FA list after all trading and drafting is complete.
    Please, please, PLEASE, don't put me in that situation!
     
  11. bryzza

    bryzza Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,386
    Likes Received:
    715
    Not sure how other coaches feel, but Id like to see a harsher penalty for those coaches not adhering to the rules. For example, you first pick gets put back to the end off the draft as of now there first picks gets highest averaging players which for me is not much of a disadvantage to that coach and is a bit of a slap in the face for coaches being more active around time frames. Just my thoughts
     
  12. fresh

    fresh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,018
    Likes Received:
    1,021
    Think I'm leaning towards the viewpoint of harsher penalties as well.

    Some ideas that have popped into my head reading this:
    The difference between actual new faces and the 4 required should be carried over to the following season and added to the 4 required. So if a coach only had 2 new faces in year 1, 6 new faces are required in year 2. In the unlikely event that this happens 2 years in a row, coach's commitment to this league should be questioned.

    I like your idea @JPK that number of new faces that didn't get met (so the 2 in the above example) have to be made up at the next PSD or MSD. As an alternative, perhaps the coach has to run with a smaller list for the next year. So if they only had 2 new faces at the end of year 1, in year 2 the team has to run with a squad of 26 until the next MSD, or go with the smaller squad for the full year up to the next PSD. 4 new faces would still be required by end of year 2.

    Not sure how to penalise a team in the next draft. Don't mind the idea of the coach's picks being moved to the back of the draft, the number of picks being equivalent to how many players the coach fell short of the requirement. I wonder though if we'd be happy with this if the coach's first pick was, say a round 3 or 4 pick. Is this enough of a penalty? Would they perhaps lose their first pick in the next draft they have a first round pick for and get one at the back of that draft and quarantine them so they can't be traded?
     
  13. eagle_eyed

    eagle_eyed Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,479
    Likes Received:
    721
    Would be easiest to just make the team take six PSD selections the following season. Essentially make them delist six players or trade them for picks; four for the current season and two for the previous. This also penalises them by taking away the option of trading to make the four current season list changes. TBH I really can’t see it happening. This year each of us took four in the PSD, majority took two in the MSD and surely we each made a trade or two; that’s potentially eight list changes, six at a minimum if it’s one trade and one MSD. We’re only after four in 2020 so I doubt there’ll be any issues.

    If we really wanted to ensure each team started each year with four new faces then why don’t we just say that they need to be completed by the end of the MSD? That way if there hasn’t been enough changes the coach will have to delist the balance of their list changes and take players at the back end of the draft with a rule that they can’t re-draft the guys they just delisted. This’ll still give coaches two trade periods and two drafts to make the four changes which should be ample time.
     

Share This Page