Poll - Delisting

Yep that's it. So forced delisting would mean regardless of trades you would need to drop X number of players off your list. I may be wrong but I believe the AFL does a similar thing (although probably not for the same reason).

In my opinion it would go some way to stopping stronger teams from stockpiling good players. If you allow coaches to trade these players for draft picks, they will then bring in other players of a similar value, thus doing little to even things up. Forced delisting, in theory, should hurt stronger teams more as you would assume weaker teams have players on their lists they would be happy to let go.

I'll also mention I'm certainly not looking forward to forced delisting, or forced drafting for that matter. I've been the least active coach in drafts so far as I find it difficult to let any of my players go. But for the sake of a strong competition I think some sort of measure to keep things relatively even is required. I said it when we first set up the rules and choppers brought it up recently in regard to his own position, that it is important everyone has some hope for success in the not too distant future. Without that people will lose interest and the competition will gradually fall apart as the strong get stronger and the weak get weaker. The other step to consider would be greater draft concessions for lower teams. It would be effective but how to set it up fairly would be very difficult, ie who gets the extra help and who doesn't. It's the same sort of issue that the AFL and most other sporting competitions have to deal with and there's no easy answer.

 

I'm with you let's get it done but I think the struggle is by how many do we delist and by how many do we increase squad size by .
Delist 4
Increase 2
My preferred option .

Can I say though some of the teams that are at the bottom are there not just because of injuries but some coaches look like they are playing the long game with young squads which is there choice

Sent from my GT-N7105T using Tapatalk

 

I would hope that no changes will be made for this MSD as we cannot rush this decision and cannot make a change so soon before a draft

 

My understanding is that the AFL goes the way of forced drafting with each club taking at least 3 picks to the draft.

The way I see it forced delisting favours older teams as they have retirements and delisted players to announce as their delistments. Generally older teams are more likely to be closer to contending for a premiership whereas younger teams are contending for the wooden spoon (there are exceptions to the rule - Ararat being the 5th youngest team, Nuytsland the 3rd youngest).

For the Crocs, I reckon it would make the rebuild tougher. I could still trade out players for some value but then also have to trade out youngsters that I'm waiting on to show something.

I have the same view as EE, pre draft squads have to be no more than x players (eg 22) requiring every coach to draft at minimum y amount of players (eg 4).

 

+1 crocs

Sent from my GT-N7105T using Tapatalk

 

I guess we would need a stipulation that a retirement does not count as a delisting. Then you could say maximum squad size of x prior to the draft with a minimum of y delisted. Meaning teams with 2 retirements would have squads of x-2 at draft time or if viewed the other way they would have 2 retirements but still be required to delist y number of players. This would ensure list turnover. I'm with @Tylo in that I will find it difficult to delist players as I have some strange attachment to my list but I would much prefer a healthy league.

 

Also wanted to add that I don't feel squad increases are necessary. Once we all cut players from our list there should be enough in the pool for everyone to draft depth to cover outs; I'm managing to cover them with 22 players so far this season. In saying that nothing accounts for the problems @JPK is having with his defence. I like the idea of "priority picks" but as an idea what if the team could not keep the pick like the GWS mini drafts? If they were forced to on-trade the selection there would be some pretty healthy bidding to obtain pick 1. This would also prevent the team picking up another 18yr old that may take 3yrs to perform on the big stage. Worth a thought I reckon.

 

I feel the need to clarify my mini-draft comment above. An example of where this could work is if a team qualified for a priority pick they would have to trade it not use it. By doing this it prevents them drafting a kid with the pick and they end up with an experienced player that will add scoring to their squad. If the club was extra keen they could package up the priority pick & another PSD selection to try and get an absolute gun. Whether it be the priority pick & a 1st round or later pick I'm sure there would be some interest in the deal. It would be a great way of encouraging participation and improving the trading aspect of the game.

 

Agree with Tylo. It will hurt some teams but better for the comp overall.

 

No doubt this would work to help the lower sides. The million dollar question is who gets an extra pick and who doesn't? You have to draw a line somewhere and whoever is just above that line is gonna feel pretty ripped off.

An idea I had was to give everyone double picks in the first round, ie the 18th team gets picks 1 + 2, the 17th team gets picks 3 + 4, and so on. I'm a bit concerned it might be too much help for the lower teams but thought I'd throw it out there as an idea. Maybe it could be in the second round instead.