I'm with The Manhattan Project (rolling Snoz and discussion on movies elsewhere into one) + 3rd bye round to be state of origin. Yet to be convinced on bye rounds being compromised, and certainly don't think they will compromise the end result in ORFFA. Yet to be convinced on the concerns expressed regarding R23 resting - think it could be an issue if you are involved in sudden death finals, but not for a regular round + the AFL have promised to address this. Be they short or long, don't think we should mess with the trade setup, especially the introduction of provisional trades. Opens a Pandora's box for skullduggery. Nonetheless we hope the AFL will now tip their hat to us for introducing trading for future picks.
Being a simpleton, I may been over simplifying this - but I am so confused so here goes: 23 week season, try to avoid Rd 23 due to resting, all 18 teams play each other, 4 weeks finalsas perthe AFL set up...dble chance etc. Thus........... FirstTWO bye Rds, we play BEST 10 SCORERS a side. We do not play the 3rd Bye week. The MSD then starts Sunday night after the 2nd Bye Rd, and concludes the Thursday before the next full teams round - which gives us 11 days to complete the MSD, more than enough - and means we don't have to worry about trades/draft picksupsetting team selections. This way, we complete 17 Rds of playing each other by Rd 18. We can then have a 4 week Finals set up. Our Grand Final is RD 22. Season over, sit back & enjoy Rd 23............. snoz out
Simonoz wrote: Being a simpleton, I may been over simplifying this - but I am so confused so here goes: 23 week season, try to avoid Rd 23 due to resting, all 18 teams play each other, 4 weeks finalsas perthe AFL set up...dble chance etc. Thus........... FirstTWO bye Rds, we play BEST 10 SCORERS a side. We do not play the 3rd Bye week. The MSD then starts Sunday night after the 2nd Bye Rd, and concludes the Thursday before the next full teams round - which gives us 11 days to complete the MSD, more than enough - and means we don't have to worry about trades/draft picksupsetting team selections. This way, we complete 17 Rds of playing each other by Rd 18. We can then have a 4 week Finals set up. Our Grand Final is RD 22. Season over, sit back &amp; enjoy Rd 23............. snoz out </div> Sounds feasible, a couple of operational points to consider This will mean the pre-draft trade period is reduced to a few days, probably 3 or 4 max. AFL has stated Thursdays are going to be a lot more prevalent,potentially reducing that timing by another day. There is a very real possibility of having your three best players available when playing a close game, but not having them the next week when you don't need them as you are playing the Misfits, This would also impact the for and against in an unpredictable manner, thus ladder, finals and draft positions 2 out of 17 rounds will be compromised in terms of outcome
Bandit wrote: anthak wrote: Len wrote: It's looking like we need to assume we have all the votes we are going to get on the finals changes in time to be able to still have the normal off-season activity. </div> so, 15 voted. 5 voted to play through byes. a total of 7 coaches voted for any sort of change. 8 people voted for no change. why drag this out? </div> With you on that one Ant.... the majority voted for no change (with 3 no votes). Even if we distribute those last three votes against the same ration as the votes that have been cast we have at least 9 voting for now change, and I would argue 10 or even 11. The votes have been cast, at best it is equal ass to change / no change... and in my opinion that means we stay as is for another year. </div> Personally I agree with you both, but 8 v 7 is hardly decisive and I not so much want to solve it for next year as label this dealt with and just do away with the topic, one way or another. The reason I started this thread was so that people would understand the implications of the change vs the implications of no change and vote accordingly. A new poll will be going up in the next few days with two choices; leave as is, and play through byes. The majority will carry and should the 'no change' vote carry again this topic becomes null and void whilst I have any say on it. I also see no reason to rush, it's not as though we have anything else to focus on..
We've had 2 more votes come in in the last 24 hours and it's still essentially split 9 v 8.. Given we have come down this far down the road we may as well still have a head to head on the 2 most selected option, people may want to change their vote following the discussions that have played out. Will put it up tonight, simply no change vs play through the byes, should the change option get 10 votes we can discuss how we implement it.
It's looking like we need to assume we have all the votes we are going to get on the finals changes in time to be able to still have the normal off-season activity. A possible next step is to put 'change nothing' up against 'play through the byes' which was the only change option to get legs, before we look at that I think we need to have a better understanding of what change option would look like (we already know how the change nothing bit works), I'd like to have a discussion around how the change option would actually work, ie what would be the mechanics, so that we can all understand what it is we are deciding to do. <p >For the sake of the discussion let's say we decided to do this and play 1 round of FA through byes. The only fair way would be to play it across a minimum of two rounds otherwise some squads will be severely disadvantaged against other squads due to dumb luck and having their players not play in a week. So I think it's by necessity a split round? This will mean we will be trading and delisting whilst playing 2 weekends. (We can easily complete the draft in the final week) We would be needing to name the teams in two halves due to the split round We would need to be clear on the scoring status of traded or delisted players players We would need to clear up the issue of loopholing players as it relates to trades, delists etc (Loopholing is legal, we've established that as long as it doesn't involve naming a blank onfield)
On trading should we agree this system - all trades to be made on a 'delayed delivery' basis. Although recorded the trades only becomes effective (i.e., players can earn points for the new holder) on the completion of the second of the three bye rounds. This might mean trades are not announced when consummated if members wish to insert a get out clause (e.g., for 'major injury' before the end of the second bye round) but rather when they become unconditional.
IF we end up playing through byes, I personally think it should be to allow 4 weeks for finals, not to have a rest in R23. R23 is for the ORFFA Granny. It should stay that way i reckon. resting of players happens all through the season, not just r23. We have seen in recent seasons that R22 can be just as affected by resting as what R23 has been. IF we play through byes, I reckon the best option would be to play with a reduced team size for a week. Going with the 10 best scorers, as has been suggested by Snoz, could present problems in that we would have to add them up manually, or get Walesy to write special code for us. If we just have 10 player teams for that week, then tsLeagues would already accommodate it in its current state. We'd just submit the schedule, and only place 10 players in our teams. the scores and results, ladders etc would all be updated auto. But I don't like the idea. I would be voting for no change. If we have an option to skip the byes, I would rather that we]not play through byes at all. ] ]It would not be fair to come up against a team that is missing their best players due to being on a bye. Why do it if we can avoid it? Just so top 4 get a 2nd chance, or so we can avoid having a game in r23? Idon't see those as anywhere near good enough reasons to play a round when we know a third of the players will be guaranteed out of action. ] ]
Len wrote: It's looking like we need to assume we have all the votes we are going to get on the finals changes in time to be able to still have the normal off-season activity. </div> so, 15 voted. 5 voted to play through byes. a total of 7 coaches voted for any sort of change. 8 people voted for no change. why drag this out?
anthak wrote: Len wrote: It's looking like we need to assume we have all the votes we are going to get on the finals changes in time to be able to still have the normal off-season activity. </div> so, 15 voted. 5 voted to play through byes. a total of 7 coaches voted for any sort of change. 8 people voted for no change. why drag this out? </div> With you on that one Ant.... the majority voted for no change (with 3 no votes). Even if we distribute those last three votes against the same ration as the votes that have been cast we have at least 9 voting for now change, and I would argue 10 or even 11. The votes have been cast, at best it is equal ass to change / no change... and in my opinion that means we stay as is for another year.
Thanks to everyone for the opinions, 'fors' and 'againsts' expressed in this thread. Lots of food for thought.
It's looking like we need to assume we have all the votes we are going to get on the finals changes in time to be able to still have the normal off-season activity. A possible next step is to put 'change nothing' up against 'play through the byes' which was the only change option to get legs, before we look at that I think we need to have a better understanding of what change option would look like (we already know how the change nothing bit works), I'd like to have a discussion around how the change option would actually work, ie what would be the mechanics, so that we can all understand what it is we are deciding to do. <p >For the sake of the discussion let's say we decided to do this and play 1 round of FA through byes. The only fair way would be to play it across a minimum of two rounds otherwise some squads will be severely disadvantaged against other squads due to dumb luck and having their players not play in a week. So I think it's by necessity a split round? This will mean we will be trading and delisting whilst playing 2 weekends. (We can easily complete the draft in the final week) We would be needing to name the teams in two halves due to the split round We would need to be clear on the scoring status of traded or delisted players players We would need to clear up the issue of loopholing players as it relates to trades, delists etc (Loopholing is legal, we've established that as long as it doesn't involve naming a blank onfield)
Being a simpleton, I may been over simplifying this - but I am so confused so here goes: 23 week season, try to avoid Rd 23 due to resting, all 18 teams play each other, 4 weeks finalsas perthe AFL set up...dble chance etc. Thus........... FirstTWO bye Rds, we play BEST 10 SCORERS a side. We do not play the 3rd Bye week. The MSD then starts Sunday night after the 2nd Bye Rd, and concludes the Thursday before the next full teams round - which gives us 11 days to complete the MSD, more than enough - and means we don't have to worry about trades/draft picksupsetting team selections. This way, we complete 17 Rds of playing each other by Rd 18. We can then have a 4 week Finals set up. Our Grand Final is RD 22. Season over, sit back & enjoy Rd 23............. snoz out
Simonoz wrote: Being a simpleton, I may been over simplifying this - but I am so confused so here goes: 23 week season, try to avoid Rd 23 due to resting, all 18 teams play each other, 4 weeks finalsas perthe AFL set up...dble chance etc. Thus........... FirstTWO bye Rds, we play BEST 10 SCORERS a side. We do not play the 3rd Bye week. The MSD then starts Sunday night after the 2nd Bye Rd, and concludes the Thursday before the next full teams round - which gives us 11 days to complete the MSD, more than enough - and means we don't have to worry about trades/draft picksupsetting team selections. This way, we complete 17 Rds of playing each other by Rd 18. We can then have a 4 week Finals set up. Our Grand Final is RD 22. Season over, sit back & enjoy Rd 23............. snoz out Sounds feasible, a couple of operational points to consider This will mean the pre-draft trade period is reduced to a few days, probably 3 or 4 max. AFL has stated Thursdays are going to be a lot more prevalent,potentially reducing that timing by another day. There is a very real possibility of having your three best players available when playing a close game, but not having them the next week when you don't need them as you are playing the Misfits, This would also impact the for and against in an unpredictable manner, thus ladder, finals and draft positions 2 out of 17 rounds will be compromised in terms of outcome
On trading should we agree this system - all trades to be made on a 'delayed delivery' basis. Although recorded the trades only becomes effective (i.e., players can earn points for the new holder) on the completion of the second of the three bye rounds. This might mean trades are not announced when consummated if members wish to insert a get out clause (e.g., for 'major injury' before the end of the second bye round) but rather when they become unconditional.
I'm with The Manhattan Project (rolling Snoz and discussion on movies elsewhere into one) + 3rd bye round to be state of origin. Yet to be convinced on bye rounds being compromised, and certainly don't think they will compromise the end result in ORFFA. Yet to be convinced on the concerns expressed regarding R23 resting - think it could be an issue if you are involved in sudden death finals, but not for a regular round + the AFL have promised to address this. Be they short or long, don't think we should mess with the trade setup, especially the introduction of provisional trades. Opens a Pandora's box for skullduggery. Nonetheless we hope the AFL will now tip their hat to us for introducing trading for future picks.
IF we end up playing through byes, I personally think it should be to allow 4 weeks for finals, not to have a rest in R23. R23 is for the ORFFA Granny. It should stay that way i reckon. resting of players happens all through the season, not just r23. We have seen in recent seasons that R22 can be just as affected by resting as what R23 has been. IF we play through byes, I reckon the best option would be to play with a reduced team size for a week. Going with the 10 best scorers, as has been suggested by Snoz, could present problems in that we would have to add them up manually, or get Walesy to write special code for us. If we just have 10 player teams for that week, then tsLeagues would already accommodate it in its current state. We'd just submit the schedule, and only place 10 players in our teams. the scores and results, ladders etc would all be updated auto. But I don't like the idea. I would be voting for no change. If we have an option to skip the byes, I would rather that we]not play through byes at all. ] ]It would not be fair to come up against a team that is missing their best players due to being on a bye. Why do it if we can avoid it? Just so top 4 get a 2nd chance, or so we can avoid having a game in r23? Idon't see those as anywhere near good enough reasons to play a round when we know a third of the players will be guaranteed out of action. ] ]
Len wrote: It's looking like we need to assume we have all the votes we are going to get on the finals changes in time to be able to still have the normal off-season activity. so, 15 voted. 5 voted to play through byes. a total of 7 coaches voted for any sort of change. 8 people voted for no change. why drag this out?