JPK, the logic of your response doesn't make sense, IC is pretty much the same as playing out of position, someone could play theirM5 AND M6 as IC and if they score normal points, someone could use that combined with 1 unusual position to play 7 puremids at full score, which is effectively 3 extra puremids on a full-time basis... and that is before adding DPP status.
HOLKY wrote: JPK, the logic of your response doesn't make sense, IC is pretty much the same as playing out of position, someone could play theirM5 AND M6 as IC and if they score normal points, someone could use that combined with 1 unusual position to play 7 puremids at full score, which is effectively 3 extra puremids on a full-time basis... and that is before adding DPP status. Fair Call. Ummmm..... OK, vote changed to NO unusual positions, but I still agree with the interchange as these will likely be the 14th and 15th best scorers in the team, and should be at full points.
Updated OP to include Holky, YAD, dd, Damo and JPK. Also, have a few polls which have 9 votes for, so if we get to 10 votes for it is confirmed (because 10 is a majority no matter whether we get 16 or 18). Any other polls you guys wanna stick up?
Will we have 20 rounds of head to head playwith the 2 rolling lockout rounds (round 1 and round 18-19), does that mean 3 week final series? Provided we have 18 teams. They have posed the question in the ORFFA
Ok more votes: 8 - C 9 - B 10 - C 11 - C (why have interchange players that score 100%, wouldn't you just increase the onfield team size?)
8[span class='Apple-tab-span' style='white-space: pre;] c 9[span class='Apple-tab-span' style='white-space: pre;] a Captains - I agree with Damo on captain 50%, vice 50%. I also like ddsaints idea of locking them in at the start, with an option to change mid-year. Although I know this defeats the purpose for some people. Squad size - Personally I think the bigger the squad size the better. The extra spots on the list gives you more opportunity to speculate on players who aren't getting regular games but could develop in the future. I like the idea of being able to pick up a few players that I know wont play much this year. Players out of position - the original rule has these players scoring at 50% so I think it's very unlikely people would be able to rort this by picking heaps of midfielders. I think the rule is probably there as a safety measure for teams that have been hit severely by injuries. I'm thinking rucks particularly, where you may only have 3 on your list and it's quite possible they could all be out at once. This just gives you a fighting chance as opposed to people fielding zeros, which I think goes against the nature of the competition. Mandatory delisting - I think this is designed to prevent the comp getting too lop-sided. Although we probably all go into this with grand plans of building a dynasty and dominating for years, it's important the competition stays healthy. Noone wants to see the same few teams up the top every year and the same few teams down the bottom. If there is no light at the end of the tunnel for teams near the bottom, they will lose interest and involvement will drop off. I inherited a very weak list in another comp this year that the original owner had obviously made a mess of and decided to walk away. I've found it hard to stay interested when success is years away. I think we need measures like this to ensure people who are struggling have hope of being able to get back into it.
Alright, already answered the first one so here are my responses for the others. 2. B 3. C 4. A 5. B 6. A 7. B 8. C 9. A 10. C 11. B
dd, we can't discuss the fixture until we have the number of teams. At this stage we need 4 more people to get to 18, so a 16 man comp is looking likely Updated OP to include everybody above Opening post updated with confirmations [span style='font-size: 16px;](10+ votes)
Alrighty, newbie to the 'FU is casting his votes (still yet to come up with a team name): Topic Vote 1 D Think it gives too much of an advantage to those with Ablett/Pendles 2 B - think this option works best with mandatory delistings 3 B 7 B 8 C 9 B - large squad sizes should be enough cover 10 C 11 A
Not sure if voting is still open, but I'll throw my 2 bob's worth in, as long as it's OK with my master..... R3..B R7..B R8..A R9..A R10..C R11..B
I think we're losing sight of the main issue: Our logo, I've got a work in progress for it but if others would like to put in their ideas it would be greatly appreciated. Here's what I got now: /Portals/0/User%20Images/ORFFU.pngLike I said WIP but others can bring their ideas in.
I like it, Holky. How about 2014 in the middle somewhere and then just change the year for the following season etc.
HOLKY wrote: I think we're losing sight of the main issue: Our logo, I've got a work in progress for it but if others would like to put in their ideas it would be greatly appreciated. Here's what I got now: /Portals/0/User%20Images/ORFFU.pngLike I said WIP but others can bring their ideas in. HolkyI like your thinking, clearly this is a big issue. Your doing a great job with it. Excellentwork in progress
I figured as this is Outer Region to have the acronym outside the footy. /Portals/0/User%20Images/ORFFU_thumb.pngFollowed Choppers idea of the year in the middle.
may i respectfully suggest something a little more..... refined? have included one such example /Portals/0/User%20Images/orffu_resized.jpg
I like insider's idea but maybe we should mark (or in Serengeti and Christmas Island's case arrow) the places where the teams are from. The ripple makes it look too complex though.