Team Numbers

The door on Champions League is closed. Not locked and bolted perhaps, but certainly closed. So far we have 11 coaches in favour of increased squad size, 2 of those with modification. The concern being expressed seems to focus on the number or required delistments, so we need to be crystal on that before pursuing this further. What I would ask all coaches to consider is (a) what does 'keeper' mean to you? Does it mean you go for broke now, or you see a premiership window in 1-3 years, or you have a plan to have all the kids at their peak in 5 years time? And (b) coaches dropping out of leagues is primarily due to loss of interest, mostly due to not being able to field a full squad each week.

 

interesting points to consider TiB. In regards to A, I originally drafted mainly young players with the thought of peaking in 2014/15 or maybe later, but with the squad size and amount of forced delistings, I questioned if that was the best strategy as it seems it is better to draft for the now and continue turning over the list. In regards to B, thanks for advising us of that. This is interesting. I dont think I've ever had a problem fielding a full side, so I cant comment on that really, except to acknowledge that I have noticed that, at times, it has been hard for some. If what you say is the case, then keeping delistments as is and increasing the squad size as well, would probably help people keep an interest when their team is struggling. Is that the case though? Has anyone been able to ask the 3 coaches that left the ORFFA about why their interest waned? <ul> <li>Increasing the squad size will help everyone be able to field a full side each week. and will probably help with the keeper idea as well.</li> <li>decreasing the forced delistments will certainly enhance the keeper aspect (IMO).</li> </ul> If we are doing this to help people field a full side (and in effect, maintain interest in the ORFFA), then increasing squad size is probably a good idea. As I said earlier, I have never had a problem fielding a full side, so from gariwerd's point of view, I'm not sure of the necessity of the rule change, but if the majority of coaches are in favour of it, I think we'll support it as well. If we are doing this to enhance the keeper aspect of the ORFFA, personally, I would prefer to see the forced delistings decreased, as opposed to the squad increased. So, in saying all this, I suppose I'm ambivalent on the idea... I also should mention that I am cautious about making such a dramatic rule change away from the ORFFL structure - not just for the Champs League, but for comparisons sake etc. But, yanno, as I said way back when this thread was first started, if we feel strongly about making the change, I dont reckon we should let this stop us. It is important that we individuate if need be. Who knows what all this means! lol I s'pose Im sitting on the fence for now and being transparent by putting my thoughts out there

 

@ant 'B' - was making a more general comment, draft leagues, supercoach, etc.

 

jimbowan wrote:
I reckon 2 extra would be enough. Too many extra and you are just going to end up with guys not playing anyway? Bet the Crows wish they had more than 2 extra at the mo.

 

anthak wrote:
interesting points to consider TiB. In regards to A, I originally drafted mainly young players with the thought of peaking in 2014/15 or maybe later, but with the squad size and amount of forced delistings, I questioned if that was the best strategy as it seems it is better to draft for the now and continue turning over the list. In regards to B, thanks for advising us of that. This is interesting. I dont think I've ever had a problem fielding a full side, so I cant comment on that really, except to acknowledge that I have noticed that, at times, it has been hard for some. If what you say is the case, then keeping delistments as is and increasing the squad size as well, would probably help people keep an interest when their team is struggling. Is that the case though? Has anyone been able to ask the 3 coaches that left the ORFFA about why their interest waned? <ul> <li>Increasing the squad size will help everyone be able to field a full side each week. and will probably help with the keeper idea as well.</li> <li>decreasing the forced delistments will certainly enhance the keeper aspect (IMO).</li> </ul> If we are doing this to help people field a full side (and in effect, maintain interest in the ORFFA), then increasing squad size is probably a good idea. As I said earlier, I have never had a problem fielding a full side, so from gariwerd's point of view, I'm not sure of the necessity of the rule change, but if the majority of coaches are in favour of it, I think we'll support it as well. If we are doing this to enhance the keeper aspect of the ORFFA, personally, I would prefer to see the forced delistings decreased, as opposed to the squad increased. So, in saying all this, I suppose I'm ambivalent on the idea... I also should mention that I am cautious about making such a dramatic rule change away from the ORFFL structure - not just for the Champs League, but for comparisons sake etc. But, yanno, as I said way back when this thread was first started, if we feel strongly about making the change, I dont reckon we should let this stop us. It is important that we individuate if need be. Who knows what all this means! lol I s'pose Im sitting on the fence for now and being transparent by putting my thoughts out there Couldn't have said it better if I typed it myself. I carried a couple of LTI's all through last year (Menzel/LeCras) and I still managed to get a side up.
I personally have not felt the pain, but can certainly sympathise with those who have.
I don't really care if the list increases or it doesn't, but I don't want to see an increase in delistments.

 

Hope we are all on the same page, in English, on this one. Not sure for a few teams, including my own, LTIs is the major issue. That is pretty much the luck of the draw, although the downhill journey is a lot faster than in SuperCoach. Rather, it is, as I have expressed above, what your interpretation of 'keeper' is. Where LTIs hit is not so much on the field but how they force you to delist, trade and draft your rookies, whom you would rather keep. So it becomes a balance between squad size and number of delistments. A further twist in the tail is one suggestion that the extra numbers be rookies and can only be put on field to replace an LTI. Suggest we revisit this closer to mid-season and we can put up some numbers/options for folks to consider. But keep the discussion bubbling by all means.

 

JC wrote:
I'm happy enough with squad sizes as they are but I would consider an increase as long as mandatory delistings increase as well. The reason for that is an extension of one of Terry's points above: (b) coaches dropping out of leagues is primarily due to loss of interest, mostly due to not being able to field a full squad each week.&amp;rdquo; I'd add to that point that there's also a risk that, long term, people may lose interest if their team keeps losing even when they are fielding a full team. As such, the draft needs to continue to provide a viable opportunity for coaches to make reasonable improvements to their team. To me, increasing squad sizes without increasing delistments only serves to reduce the talent pool available for drafting, which in turn reduces your opportunity to improve your team via the draft. Now I'm not suggesting delistments have to increase by the same number as squad sizes might. But let's say we increase squad sizes by 4 players, we're then taking 72 players out of the current free agent pool to cater for that increase. As mentioned in an earlier post, there isn't exactly an overabundance of talent in the current free agent pool as it is. Assuming that the extra 4 players we take from the pool end up your worst 4 players at the end of the year, with the current 6 mandatory delistments per year, we'd only be culling to the worst 2 players in our current squads of 26. How much improvement is there for a team in your worst 2 players? To me that just doesn't provide much hope for improvement if your team is struggling. For me, a competitive league is a healthy league and I'd like to make sure ours will continue to be just that. I like the fact that we have to make difficult list decisions at the end of the year. I think it keeps it interesting. But others may not and I certainly respect that. extremely well put. Im sold on this. I'm still not sure that we need to increase squad sizes, but if we do, we probably need to increase delistments as well.

 

JC wrote: The point of my previous post was just to highlight why, if the majority of coaches want to increase squad numbers, we should strongly consider increasing the number of mandatory delistings/delistments as well. But as I stated at the start of that post, I'm actually fine with squad sizes as they are. /Portals/0/User%20Images/head%20up%20ass.jpg

 

As I stated earlier I believe the numbers should be increased.
The ORFFA playing squads are 15 plus 4, so we are naming 19 of 26 each week. We are forcing the recycling of 6 players each year. Where in those numbers do you put your selections for the future? Team member # 20 I guess.. This hardly fits the profile of building for the future, unless you are prepared to sacrifice any short termcompetitiveness. compared to: The AFL, whose basic structure we are supposed to emulate names 25 of 40 each week. Each team recycles approximately 2 to 6 player spots each year. This gives them around 9 spots (on their senior list) to develop players for the future, they then have the rookie list to support this further. This is a keeper league, with future scope.
I would like to see a two plus two alteration to our squads. Two additional team spots, and two 'rookie'/reserve slots. The two additional are simple enough, the two reserves are an evolution of my original idea. Essentially they can only be activated to cover for an injury (my thought but open tosuggestion), and would be part of the delisting equation forthedrafts. If activated they remain up for a minimum of 6 rounds - preventing speculative moves and ensuring they are used for the purpose. At the end of 6 rounds ifthereplaced player is healthy (AFL named) the players arecompulsorilyswapped back over. If the player is still un-named the players remain as they are until the replaced player is named,thecoach then has 2 weeks to effecttheswap. If an activated reserve player is injured the 2nd reserve can be used upon him as they would on any other player. At the PSD and the MSD they can be elevated to the main team permanently, but a current squad member must be delisted or 'rookie listed' to make room.
As I stated above, if we keep the delisting rules asthey are now, the pre-season draft cut number of 22 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)

Again, my suggestion is 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.
Per above would mean we effectively we have 4 more spots on the roster, but only 2 of them are keepers.

 

Len - your most recent post is one I agree with. But why not just go the whole way and do what the AFL does - have the 'rookie listed' players elevated for 8 weeks, as per AFL rules. That creates a nice mirror between the two competitions in that respect. My question in relation to these rookie spots is this - when will they come into affect? I ask for this reason - 1 - I personally don't believe there is the quality currently in the draft pool to be able to support it, and if people are picking up players to put on their rookie list to fill gaps, then it is redundant if those players don't play. Maybe a gradual phasing in - one extra player now, one extra player for pre season next year, might be better.