Team Numbers

So, here's the thing. An idea being floated and this is the pond. Have been partaking of a few different draft leagues and starting to get a feel for features as well as some of the positives and negatives. In a regular league you go for as many guns as you can amass and the numbers on the bench are not too critical (unless, like me, you have K. Cornes sitting there). However, in keeper leagues it is quite different as many of the rookies might not even get a run in the season you select them. They are there for the future. It is also apparent that, as early as R1, some teams in ORFFA are struggling to put a full side on the paddock. So the thought occurred, why not consider increasing our squad size? In looking at this, I discovered that Len proposed such an increase quite some time back and it never really was discussed properly. The idea was to add 4, taking us up to 30. The opportunity exists to introduce this at the mid-season draft. Everybody picks 4, plus however many you have delisted. It should not interfere with the coding for team entry too much as they will for the most part be bench players. And we do not have to follow religiously what is done in ORFFL. We can be innovators. My guess is this might ease the burden for teams with LTIs and would go quite a long way in resolving the Lilacs issue, while for others, you won't be forced to delist all the rooks you have been nurturing. It becomes more of a true keeper instead of season-to-season. Anyways, just thought I would throw this out there for y'all to have a chew on. For the record, I favour the idea.

 

To be clearer...........they could be. If you didn't tie the knots hard enough. /Portals/0/User%20Images/checks%20teams.jpg

 

I like the idea. my main concern is that it may influence the ORFFL coaches acceptance of a Champions League. I don't think that should stop us though.
I also hope that it will not mean we will end up being forced to delist more players before each draft. I think that should stay at 4 and 2, even with increased squads.

 

Thanks for raising this Terry, as I indicated last year this is a pet idea of mine. When I originally raised I actually had it as a rookie/reserve list that had to be promoted from and demoted to, but I think that concept just got too hard for people including me and I had put little thought into the practicality of how it might work. My thoughts at this point are that if we get this right everyone would benefit, the stronger and weaker lists equally. [span style='font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;]We would be reducing the available pool by 72 from 347 to 275, which is substantial, and maybe it reduces the 2014 mid-season draft to what it should be, a mini topup from a much shallower pool. It means we can take more risks with a couple of picks.<br style='-webkit-transition: all 0.15s ease; transition: all 0.15s ease; color: #888888; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 20px; background-color: #eeeeee;[/img] If we keep the delist limits where they are now for the pre-season draft at 22 the cut is actually deeper and the calls will be tougher as we will have to delist 8 not 4. (Remember the delist rules are not about how many you cut, but to what number you cut) <div>
I would suggest we raise that number to 24, so where we currently have a 22 minimum for the PSD, with a cut to 20 meaning you don't have to participate in the MSD unless by choice, we would instead cut to a 24 minimum with a cut 22 meaning you don't have to cull at the MSD. This approach would mean we effectively we have 4 more spots on the roster, but only 2 of them are keepers, the other two are force recycled and exist to provide depth and the opportunity to speculate.
More thoughts later, just wanted to chime in, as it were.

 

Fitzy wrote:
Sounds good to me, more players to trade!!!!!! Just kidding... But to be clear, these extra 4 players won't be on the field will they? Just extra's? Good thinking, and I'm all for it There is no way you were kidding

 

I would be in favour of an increase in squad size. However I think 4 is too many. I would rather an increase of two players to be honest. That allows for some topping up for injury hit sides, or some speculation for those who aren't injury hit .... or both. I say this because I have already done some preliminary research on the undrafted players in the pool ... and while it is only early, there are perhaps 20-25 that would be worth looking at after the first Round. I would suspect that number may grow a touch - maybe to 35 or so - in the coming rounds. What I am saying is that increasing each squad by 4 would, I feel, not achieve the greater depth that initial numbers would indicate, as many coaches would be drafting very speculative players at the end just to make up the numbers - thus not addressing any injury issues at all. Having the ability to draft two extra players though seems a better fit. 36 players drafted as a minimum (which fits nicely with my preliminary analysis of available decent talent), with more on top of that if people delist more. That means that the size of the 'decent talent pool' is more in line with the number of draft picks made in the mid season draft.

 

I would support a squad increase, either 2, 3 or 4 more players.

 

anthak wrote:I like the idea. my main concern is that it may influence the ORFFL coaches acceptance of a Champions League. I don't think that should stop us though. I also hope that it will not mean we will end up being forced to delist more players before each draft. I think that should stay at 4 and 2, even with increased squads. I am still concerned about this and the effect it could have on a potential champions league. And I'm starting to think 26 is enough anyway. To fix the problem of having to drop young talent being nurtured, I believe we should be reducing the amount of forced delistings, rather than increase squad sizes.I'm also a little concerned that some coaches seem to me to consider the increased squad sizes to be likely to be introduced. Especially considering we've only heard from about half the Association in this thread. What are people's thoughts on this idea now?

 

I am not interested in flogging a dead horse, but if someone can kick it to life I am happy to jump back on board. When it was mooted it was my belief that there was a brotherhood in the nature of the relationship between the leagues, whilst I believe that the majority of members of bothleaguesstill feel this way, comments of late lead me to fear that there is an arrogance and undue elitism in sufficient quarters of the ORFFL to kill off any systemic co-operation between the leagues at this stage.
If coming first was all it took to gain government, prematureejaculatorswould rule the world, messily.

 

Before we get onto the issue of squad sizes I think we first need to resolve the question of how anyone can flog a dead horse with one hand and prematurely ejaculate with the other. Can we have the yeahs or neighs on this? Not wishing to cause any offence to the nuclear power, but American spelling gets up my nose a bit. Glad Chris doesn't fall into it.