Print Page - WXV Rules Discussion 2017

Title: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 01, 2017, 12:13:11 PM

Hey all :D

The majority has revealed itself with 10-2 voting in favour of a rules discussion, so lets get stuck into it :o

ANYONE can nominate a rule change, and it will be voted on. However, be sure there is adequate explanation to validate your proposed change.

Every now and then throughout the year, someone has brought up something they'd like Worlds to do differently. Now is the time to bring that up, and it WILL be voted on. We only have 3 weeks of the year to discuss rules and change them, so use this time wisely. Once the rules have been voted on, THAT IS IT for the next 12 months! (except for the review on the trade voting process that is held after the trade period)

Personally, my main focus this year is to 'fix' a couple of technicalities with a couple of rules, and *gulp* review and improve the salary cap. Which reminds me...

The only thing that I'm enforcing, even if against the majority, is a cap (of at least some kind) for Worlds. It will not go away whilst I'm admin, so suggestions to get rid of it entirely are fruitless.

This year, instead of suggesting completely new ideas straight off the bat, I'll just start with changes to existing rules I'd like to see for next year, and introduce new ideas as we progress through the thread.

1. Rested Player Late Call-Up

Currently, if you have nominated someone to be rested in a given week and, for example, he is a forward, and someone in your forward line is a late withdrawal and you have no other forwards in your starting 18, the current interpretation of the rule is that rested player comes in at quarter points because:
- you can't rest someone if you have to field an OOP in his place; and
- if there is no one in your starting 18 that can replace a player for full points, the next available player comes in at quarter points.

I'd like to change this.

If this scenario happens again, I still don't want the rested player to be available to replace the player (because that'd be like a 4th emergency), instead I'd like him to be ignored for selection and someone has to come in OOP like normal. The rested player would keep his rested bonus for next week. However, this is only permissible if:
- the players selected in the 18 are named in AFL best 22s at start of the week

Sound fair?

2. Sub rule for named OOP players

Currently, if you are forced to name a player OOP and he is available to be subbed out, he can't be subbed out because the rule states that a player can only be subbed out if his replacement can come on for full points.

I propose that the OOP player can be subbed out for another OOP player, ONLY if the original OOP was named a result of having no available players to fill that position. Of course, the replacement will still have a 50% penalty for being OOP.

Sound fair?

3. Ruck OOP

Breaking my rule of not yet introducing new ideas :P I propose we get rid of the 50% penalty for naming a ruck OOP. Instead, in the efforts to be realistic, I propose that the opposition ruck (if not OOP) gains a 25% bonus if the OOP ruck is equal to or over 190cm, and a 50% bonus if he is shorter than that. Or maybe even a blanket % bonus no matter who it is.

Thoughts?

4. Leadership Group

Keep? Expand? Restrict?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 01, 2017, 12:29:36 PM

I'm okay with the first two, hate the third one and reckon the leadership group should either be scrapped entirely or kept as is.

Right, so I meant to elaborate but hit send too quick and forgot, heh.

Anyway...

I just think the third one basically excuses not having a ruck or ruck depth. Got a consistent scoring player is over 190cm? Why not just play him and load up on other lines. I wouldn't wanna see bad list management rewarded. In the event that your ruck is injured, that's obviously bad luck but having depth to deal with it is all part of the game (as is the luck side of it). I like the idea that the opponent gets a bonus, but I rather a team is penalised because there's scope for the over 190cm player to still outscore the ruck with a bonus.

If people really want the rule, maybe make it a bit like the flood/attack rule where a coach can nominate to have a "pinch-hitter" or something to play as their ruck but have a restriction of how often it can be used.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Toga on August 01, 2017, 12:35:44 PM

I like the three suggestions Purps, and the leadership group is fine by me with how it is at the moment!

Regarding the OOP ruck rule I think imposing a boost on the opposition ruck is more reflective of AFL - take Melbourne for example, putting Tom McDonald in the ruck. It's not as if he gets absolutely towelled up playing OOP, but if he was to come up against an Aaron Sandilands, then obviously Sandi's extra height will hold him well in the contest and he would receive a "boost" of sorts.

Interesting to see discussion over it though!!

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 01, 2017, 12:44:48 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 01, 2017, 12:13:11 PM
Hey all :D

Hi Purple 77

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 01, 2017, 12:13:11 PM
Personally, my main focus this year is to 'fix' a couple of technicalities with a couple of rules, and *gulp* review and improve the salary cap. Which reminds me...

The only thing that I'm enforcing, even if against the majority, is a cap (of at least some kind) for Worlds. It will not go away whilst I'm admin, so suggestions to get rid of it entirely are fruitless.

#scrapthecap

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 01, 2017, 12:13:11 PM
1. Rested Player Late Call-Up

Currently, if you have nominated someone to be rested in a given week and, for example, he is a forward, and someone in your forward line is a late withdrawal and you have no other forwards in your starting 18, the current interpretation of the rule is that rested player comes in at quarter points because:
- you can't rest someone if you have to field an OOP in his place; and
- if there is no one in your starting 18 that can replace a player for full points, the next available player comes in at quarter points.

I'd like to change this.

If this scenario happens again, I still don't want the rested player to be available to replace the player (because that'd be like a 4th emergency), instead I'd like him to be ignored for selection and someone has to come in OOP like normal. The rested player would keep his rested bonus for next week. However, this is only permissible if:
- the players selected in the 18 are named in AFL best 22s at start of the week

Sound fair?

I would almost be tempted to argue that, if you choose to rest someone and cop a late out and have no cover due to the fact you rested, you should cop a donut. But maybe only if your rested play would have covered that position normally.

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 01, 2017, 12:13:11 PM
2. Sub rule for named OOP players

Currently, if you are forced to name a player OOP and he is available to be subbed out, he can't be subbed out because the rule states that a player can only be subbed out if his replacement can come on for full points.

I propose that the OOP player can be subbed out for another OOP player, ONLY if the original OOP was named a result of having no available players to fill that position. Of course, the replacement will still have a 50% penalty for being OOP.

Sound fair?

Sounds good.

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 01, 2017, 12:13:11 PM
3. Ruck OOP

Breaking my rule of not yet introducing new ideas :P I propose we get rid of the 50% penalty for naming a ruck OOP. Instead, in the efforts to be realistic, I propose that the opposition ruck (if not OOP) gains a 25% bonus if the OOP ruck is equal to or over 190cm, and a 50% bonus if he is shorter than that. Or maybe even a blanket % bonus no matter who it is.

Thoughts?

I would be ok with either a 40-50% boost, or keep as is.

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 01, 2017, 12:13:11 PM
4. Leadership Group

Keep? Expand? Restrict?

I like the leadership group when it comes to loopholing, even if I did totally forget about it 1 week ;D

But I also disliked it when I always had someone outside it killing it during the season (Nank in first half of the year, Blicavs and Hunter in 2nd half). So I'm kinda torn atm.

With regards to flooding and attacking, I would like to suggest a slight change. At the moment, we can flood 3 times a year, and attack 3 times a year. Possibly this could be changed so that, in total, you can flood/attack 5 times during the year?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 01, 2017, 12:53:57 PM

If the ruck OOP rule is changed I demand compo. I didn't load my list with rucks for no reason. Teams that didn't invest in rucks get an advantage while I will lose the advantage that I earned via investing in the big men. I wouldn't have paid so much for them if the advantage wasn't worth it.

Or how about we reward my depth by taking the best scorers from their positions and having them make up the XV, like the team of the week does. Worst idea ever. Punishes teams who chose to have no depth. Can't bring in a rule that undermines the integrity of list builds to this point. The defense rests, your honor.

The leadership group is a waste of time. Half of my players captained the team this year anyway. Is Toby McLean a realistic captain choice? No. The leadership group was implemented to make the captain scenarios more realistic.

#scrapthecap

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: kilbluff1985 on August 01, 2017, 01:03:03 PM

#scrapthecap

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Hellopplz on August 01, 2017, 01:15:28 PM

Agree with others on #3.

Means investing in rucks isn't that required, so rucks become less valuable. So a 70 average ruck is still handy, yet may be outscored if somebody plays a tall forward like Taylor Walker in the ruck. So could just load up on tall forwards and defenders who score and not even bother with rucks at all.

I know it's a struggle for some to get rucks but I'm not opposed to a pinch hitter idea like the flood/attack but limited to maybe 1-2 times a year when instead of being penalised you boost the other ruck instead (less disadvantaged if chosen wisely). However, only in place if you don't have a playing ruck!

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 01, 2017, 01:29:22 PM

Fair calls on the ruck rule.

To address meow's concerns, would it be better to have a blanket +50% bonus, and you cannot play an OOP ruck by choice?

Would mean you can't shuffle your team to make the taller players go into the ruck spot, and say a 70 average ruck becomes a 105 scoring ruck?

The rule ain't broke, just curious to see what reversing it would look like.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 01, 2017, 02:07:54 PM

Changes to the cap are very important.

The 3 round rolling average causes huge issues.

Young upcoming players are massively undervalued and older declining players are massively overvalued.

add on to to that the "premium factor" makes this even worse.

some big examples of this.

last year Zach Merrett was coming off a 111 season in his 3rd year in the game after improving both previous years with 64 68.

Priced at 439k

Priddis had gone 113 113 109 so was maintaining but in a slight decline.

Priced at 771k

That shows the huge flaw in the system that a young gun 111 mid was considerably cheaper then a old slightly declining 109 mid.

This year Priddis 93 average, Merrett 112 average.

Solution:

1. The 3 year rolling average was to stop situations where Libba was priced at 0 after missing the previous season. This was fixed but now there are more widespread errors.

If a player plays 18+ games then to me that is a clear indication of their form. Zerrett played 22 for his 111 last year. That is a far better indicator of what he would do next year opposed to his 88 3 year rolling average.

Like wise priddis should have been valued at 109 rather then the 112, 3 year rolling average.

There are even bigger examples of this for next year.

Docherty v Shaw.

Docherty 88 109 119 clearly the best defender in the game by a mile.
Shaw 112 106 85

now with the 3 year rolling average its 106 for Docherty and 101 for shaw. Are you telling me Docherty coming off a 119 should be only marginally more expensive off a guy coming off a 85 average, thats a monster 34 average. Jimmy Toumpas is closer to Shaws average then Docehrty, let that sink in.

So what should happen is

18+ games: 100% of the current season is their average
11-17 games: 50% of the current average 30% of last years and 20% of the year before
6-10 games: 35% of the current average 40% of last years and 25% of the year before
5 or under: 20% of the current average 50% of last years and 30% of the year before.
0 games: 60% of last year and 40% of the year before.

that why the true value of the player is closer. Outliers will always be affected but far less then the old Libba is 0 rule.

under my rule Libba after his knee injury was priced at 108.8 average.

an example of an injured player is say Max Gawn doesnt play the rest of the year.

I would have him priced at 92.2*0.35 + 118*0.4 + 102*0.25 so thats a 105 average. Seems pretty decent to me.

2. Their should be an age discount, this helps both with the fact older players often Decline. Think Shaw, Priddis, JPK etc..

my suggestion is a very small discount. 3% discount for each year when they are 28 years old. This is a maximum discount of 24% which is a 35 year old player.

typically players 27 or under are on an upwards trend and players 28 or over are typically on a downwards trend. This discount doesn't make older players cheaper but it fixed up the uptrend and downtrend.

If i was going to reflect trade values the discount would be much higher to actually make older players cheaper as they are worth less on the trade value, but i am told this is not the point of the cap.

3. Premium factor should be dropped.

a. first up it hurts players who fluctuate in scoring. 130 60 70 115 45 101 = 86 average is 50% premium factor where as i guy going 87 80 95 86 93 81 = 87 average is a 0% premium factor.

b. it again makes upcoming players cheaper and declining players more expensive.

c. it makes mids more expensive and forwards and defenders cheaper by comparison. Whats better a 105 mid or a 95 defender.

4. Durability factor i dont love but can keep it.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Toga on August 01, 2017, 02:15:32 PM

I don't think that it does make having rucks less valuable though. In fact, if you use NDT vs New York this week as an example (this is assuming it would be a blanket +50% bonus):

Current ruck rules (0.5 for OPP ruck): Stefan Martin 96 vs James Harmes 40
=56 point win to NDT

Suggested ruck rules (1.5 for ruck playing against OOP): Stefan Martin 144 vs James Harmes 80
=64 point win to NDT

Essentially it is rewarding teams that have a strong ruck department rather than punishing teams with a weak ruck line as the current rule does. The end result is not a huge change.

Not sure if I've missed something here but that's how I'm reading it :P

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 01, 2017, 02:18:34 PM

I think the ruck OOP rule should be kept as it is.

now on to hopefully more important rule discussion.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 01, 2017, 03:15:05 PM

On that, I'll be working with ossie this week to produce some current salary cap values, on the proviso that they will change in the final 4 weeks of the season.

IIRC, I think the most recent year is counted twice. So like, 2015 is considered, 2016 is considered, then 2017 is counted twice, so it is weighted more. Effectively 4 years.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Ringo on August 01, 2017, 03:23:05 PM

Happy with 1 and 2 and Leadership Group.

Regarding OOP Ruck - Admin to decide on legitimacy of OOP Ruck. ie When final team selections are made is the Ruck coverage legitimate where Rucks should be in best 22. If not maybe impose an additional penalty but if legit like the opposing ruck benefit.

If Cap is maintained - one additional rule change I would like to see is that with trading you can go below cap so long as at start of season you are above minimum cap. You are allowed to go over at upper end so why not below at lower end.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 01, 2017, 03:30:42 PM

Quote from: Ringo on August 01, 2017, 03:23:05 PM
If Cap is maintained - one additional rule change I would like to see is that with trading you can go below cap so long as at start of season you are above minimum cap. You are allowed to go over at upper end so why not below at lower end.

Interested to hear on what others think on this.

I'm not a huge fan, but will happily relent if others are OK with it. I'd be more inclined to let draft picks count as a $100k though.

Thing is, if the team doesn't get back over the minimum cap... how do I punish? They're kinda the last team that needs punishing.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: JBs-Hawks on August 01, 2017, 03:38:50 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 01, 2017, 03:30:42 PM
Quote from: Ringo on August 01, 2017, 03:23:05 PM
If Cap is maintained - one additional rule change I would like to see is that with trading you can go below cap so long as at start of season you are above minimum cap. You are allowed to go over at upper end so why not below at lower end.

Interested to hear on what others think on this.

I'm not a huge fan, but will happily relent if others are OK with it. I'd be more inclined to let draft picks count as a $100k though.

Thing is, if the team doesn't get back over the minimum cap... how do I punish? They're kinda the last team that needs punishing.

Nah needs to stay as is, how are they meant to get back over the cap. Easy to get under through delistings, not so easy to magically find players with big salaries.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Ringo on August 01, 2017, 03:44:54 PM

Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 01, 2017, 03:38:50 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 01, 2017, 03:30:42 PM
Quote from: Ringo on August 01, 2017, 03:23:05 PM
If Cap is maintained - one additional rule change I would like to see is that with trading you can go below cap so long as at start of season you are above minimum cap. You are allowed to go over at upper end so why not below at lower end.

Interested to hear on what others think on this.

I'm not a huge fan, but will happily relent if others are OK with it. I'd be more inclined to let draft picks count as a $100k though.

Thing is, if the team doesn't get back over the minimum cap... how do I punish? They're kinda the last team that needs punishing.

Nah needs to stay as is, how are they meant to get back over the cap. Easy to get under through delistings, not so easy to magically find players with big salaries.

Diisagree strongly here - I could go below the cap with a trade and if the trade includes a pick it can be rejected as happened last trade period. Say I trade Hanners for 2 first round picks trade would be rejected.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 01, 2017, 03:47:36 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 01, 2017, 03:30:42 PM
Quote from: Ringo on August 01, 2017, 03:23:05 PM
If Cap is maintained - one additional rule change I would like to see is that with trading you can go below cap so long as at start of season you are above minimum cap. You are allowed to go over at upper end so why not below at lower end.

Interested to hear on what others think on this.

I'm not a huge fan, but will happily relent if others are OK with it. I'd be more inclined to let draft picks count as a $100k though.

Thing is, if the team doesn't get back over the minimum cap... how do I punish? They're kinda the last team that needs punishing.

This^

That way if you have like 10 draft picks, you can go, say, 800k below and you're still fine, providing that you have the list space to use those draft picks. Basically, every free spot on your list is 100k :P

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Ringo on August 01, 2017, 03:52:27 PM

Quote from: GoLions on August 01, 2017, 03:47:36 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 01, 2017, 03:30:42 PM
Quote from: Ringo on August 01, 2017, 03:23:05 PM
If Cap is maintained - one additional rule change I would like to see is that with trading you can go below cap so long as at start of season you are above minimum cap. You are allowed to go over at upper end so why not below at lower end.

Interested to hear on what others think on this.

I'm not a huge fan, but will happily relent if others are OK with it. I'd be more inclined to let draft picks count as a $100k though.

Thing is, if the team doesn't get back over the minimum cap... how do I punish? They're kinda the last team that needs punishing.
This^

That way if you have like 10 draft picks, you can go, say, 800k below and you're still fine, providing that you have the list space to use those draft picks. Basically, every free spot on your list is 100k :P

Maybe as a compromise as part of trade justification coach has to specify how they will exceed minimum cap eg have 5 picks at 100k which will take above minumum cap.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 01, 2017, 03:57:04 PM

Quote from: Ringo on August 01, 2017, 03:52:27 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 01, 2017, 03:47:36 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 01, 2017, 03:30:42 PM
Quote from: Ringo on August 01, 2017, 03:23:05 PM
If Cap is maintained - one additional rule change I would like to see is that with trading you can go below cap so long as at start of season you are above minimum cap. You are allowed to go over at upper end so why not below at lower end.

Interested to hear on what others think on this.

I'm not a huge fan, but will happily relent if others are OK with it. I'd be more inclined to let draft picks count as a $100k though.

Thing is, if the team doesn't get back over the minimum cap... how do I punish? They're kinda the last team that needs punishing.
This^

That way if you have like 10 draft picks, you can go, say, 800k below and you're still fine, providing that you have the list space to use those draft picks. Basically, every free spot on your list is 100k :P
Maybe as a compromise as part of trade justification coach has to specify how they will exceed minimum cap eg have 5 picks at 100k which will take above minumum cap.

It doesn't really matter how many picks you have though, just how many list spaces available. If I have 10 picks and 5 free spaces, I'd have to delist 5 anyway which would put me down another 500k at the very least. All Purps has to do is see how many spots are available on your list if you go under the cap, and allocate 100k for each spot.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 01, 2017, 03:58:17 PM

Happy to make "free list spots" worth a 100k each, instead of draft picks. I think I like that better, because it's objectively measured and not subjectively.

I know the Hanners thing was an example, but FTR, that's the exact opposite trade I want teams struggling with the cap to make :P

But yeah, free list spots could be worth 100k, and you can assume up to 45 spots?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 01, 2017, 03:58:42 PM

Ah GL, beat me to it

#onsamepage

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 01, 2017, 03:59:22 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 01, 2017, 03:58:42 PM
Ah GL, beat me to it

#onsamepage

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 01, 2017, 04:07:19 PM

Happy with the first 2 points raised in the OP

Leadership Group is good in the sense of reflecting AFL, but being a game based of SC which has no such thing makes it kind of pointless. I couldn't care whatever is decided about it. Keep it or scrap it

Holz raises very good points regarding the cap, so it does need to be looked at thoroughly

As for the OOP ruck rule, I think I am more than qualified to comment on it lol

Numerous coaches have already said that teams should be essentially punished for not having enough ruck depth, and that the teams who do have rucks shouldn't be penalised for doing so because of their value and what they paid to get them. Both fair points

I think it's completely fair for teams with a ruck to get an advantage over teams without a ruck, but at the same time there needs to be a middle ground because for teams like us, we get severely handicapped every week because all of our rucks are injured. That's not our fault, and there is nothing we can do about it throughout the season. Unless you're going to introduce a mid season trade period so we can rectify that, something needs to change.

Tippett has played 5 games this year, and our back up Zach Clarke has played none. Fitzpatrick and Cameron have also not played

Do you realise how difficult it is to be penalised every week for not having a ruck? And it's not like we haven't tried to get more rucks. There is a limited stock of rucks, and teams don't trade them unless they get ridiculous overs. And the penalty is pretty huge, and can often be the difference between winning and losing because most weeks an OOP ruck scores 20-40, which is putrid

There are 18 teams, and in this year alone only 20 rucks have played 10 or more games

It's a really difficult task to try and come up with a solution that is fair for everyone. Teams that have great rucks and never have to play OOP don't want the value of their rucks watered down, and rightly so, but teams who struggle in the rucks need some sort of help otherwise it just doesn't make them competitive because the penalty is so high

The whole 190cm+ thing I do not like at all.

If a team is down on defenders or forwards, they get to flood or attack which means they don't get penalised at all, but if a team is down in the rucks they do get penalised, so that's not fair and that needs to change

But what is the solution?

I like the idea of the team who has a ruck vs an OOP ruck, they get an advantage, because they have a starting ruck that they have acquired and should get some sort of benefit if that ruck is up against an OOP ruck.

I think OOP ruck needs to be treated equally to flooding and attacking

Flood, Attack and Ruck. Each team gets X amount for the year. GL mentioned 5, and I think that's a good number, but you can use the 5 any way you like. 2 Flood, 2 Attack, 1 Ruck or just use all 5 on Ruck, or Flood for example

However, you are using these tactics because you're list isn't deep enough to cover unexpected outs/injuries so when these tactics are used there should be a penalty for you, and an advantage to your opponent

To keep this as simple as possible, the team who is using one of these tactics simply gets each players score, but the team they are up against gets a bonus. Let's say their lowest scoring player for the round gets a 30% boost *That number can be changed, but I think 50% is too high)

So, we go in with an OOP ruck, lets say we field James Harmes in the ruck. We get his score, but our opponent gets an advantage which is a 30% boost to their lowest scoring players score

The same applies for flood/attack

Part of being a coach is developing a deep enough list to cover injuries and the like. It makes no sense at all that you can flood and attack (because you don't have enough depth) and not get penalised, but you do get penalised for not having a ruck

There are 10 times the amount of defenders and forwards than there are rucks. It's crazy that not having a ruck from such a small player pool incurs such a costly price, but not having enough defenders or forwards has an easy free work around in flood/attack

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 01, 2017, 04:09:55 PM

I was going to raise that topic too

Teams like London need to be able to trade and dip below their cap, so using the 100k point or whatever is a good solution

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 01, 2017, 04:14:17 PM

I will be suggesting Flood/Attack bonuses too sometime in the future FWIW

I'm happy with Flooding/Attacking without penalty for lack of depth, because that happens at minimum 11 other times throughout the year + finals.

Interested with the pinch hit strat, and I like even more the 5 times using ANY strat

But personally feel no penalties are warranted, just IMO. They're more there to 'cover a bad run of luck' than anything else, so Pinch Hitting could be used in the same vein

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Ringo on August 01, 2017, 04:17:45 PM

Quote from: GoLions on August 01, 2017, 03:57:04 PM
Quote from: Ringo on August 01, 2017, 03:52:27 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 01, 2017, 03:47:36 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 01, 2017, 03:30:42 PM
Quote from: Ringo on August 01, 2017, 03:23:05 PM
If Cap is maintained - one additional rule change I would like to see is that with trading you can go below cap so long as at start of season you are above minimum cap. You are allowed to go over at upper end so why not below at lower end.

Interested to hear on what others think on this.

I'm not a huge fan, but will happily relent if others are OK with it. I'd be more inclined to let draft picks count as a $100k though.

Thing is, if the team doesn't get back over the minimum cap... how do I punish? They're kinda the last team that needs punishing.
This^

That way if you have like 10 draft picks, you can go, say, 800k below and you're still fine, providing that you have the list space to use those draft picks. Basically, every free spot on your list is 100k :P
Maybe as a compromise as part of trade justification coach has to specify how they will exceed minimum cap eg have 5 picks at 100k which will take above minumum cap.
It doesn't really matter how many picks you have though, just how many list spaces available. If I have 10 picks and 5 free spaces, I'd have to delist 5 anyway which would put me down another 500k at the very least. All Purps has to do is see how many spots are available on your list if you go under the cap, and allocate 100k for each spot.

Sorry meant to clarify that would be part of justification. eg I will be de-listing x players asv well giving me x spots at $100k which will now give me value x which is above cap.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 01, 2017, 04:18:07 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 01, 2017, 04:14:17 PM
I will be suggesting Flood/Attack bonuses too sometime in the future FWIW

I'm happy with Flooding/Attacking without penalty for lack of depth, because that happens at minimum 11 other times throughout the year + finals.

Interested with the pinch hit strat, and I like even more the 5 times using ANY strat

But personally feel no penalties are warranted, just IMO. There more there to 'cover a bad run of luck' than anything else, so Pinch Hitting could be used in the same vein

I'm happy with penalty or no penalty, but I am requesting that OOP ruck be treated an grouped exactly the same as Flood and Attack, because all 3 are doing the exact same thing, but we penalise one and not the other two, and that needs to be fixed

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 01, 2017, 04:44:16 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 01, 2017, 04:14:17 PM
I will be suggesting Flood/Attack bonuses too sometime in the future FWIW

I'm happy with Flooding/Attacking without penalty for lack of depth, because that happens at minimum 11 other times throughout the year + finals.

Interested with the pinch hit strat, and I like even more the 5 times using ANY strat

But personally feel no penalties are warranted, just IMO. They're more there to 'cover a bad run of luck' than anything else, so Pinch Hitting could be used in the same vein

Yeah, that's what I meant earlier when I suggested it, not sure if that was clear though haha

Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 01, 2017, 04:18:07 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 01, 2017, 04:14:17 PM
I will be suggesting Flood/Attack bonuses too sometime in the future FWIW

I'm happy with Flooding/Attacking without penalty for lack of depth, because that happens at minimum 11 other times throughout the year + finals.

Interested with the pinch hit strat, and I like even more the 5 times using ANY strat

But personally feel no penalties are warranted, just IMO. There more there to 'cover a bad run of luck' than anything else, so Pinch Hitting could be used in the same vein

I'm happy with penalty or no penalty, but I am requesting that OOP ruck be treated an grouped exactly the same as Flood and Attack, because all 3 are doing the exact same thing, but we penalise one and not the other two, and that needs to be fixed

Tbf, I think every time I attacked I had an extra defender or two spare, I just chose to attack because my depth forwards were scoring better than whoever would have been my D4, particularly when Pittard was missing games.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: DazBurg on August 01, 2017, 06:19:36 PM

ok will put my 2 cents worth in

1. i see the point your making here Purps so i'm fine either way but think it does make sense

2. sounds good either way

3. i like the idea of adding it as a strategy like attack/flood but ofc needs to be a certain amount of times a season like 5 has been suggested
the other times maybe it stays as is? duno tbh on how to fix it for all parties

4. leadership group is fine imo can stay but don't mind if it goes either

5. i like holz version of the cap it makes more sense and the beauty is it isn't that hard to work out
Ossie's one is mostly fine but his also very busy and doesn't seem to be around a lot anymore so think it is hard having a cap only ossie knows how to work out

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Torpedo10 on August 01, 2017, 06:23:30 PM

Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 01, 2017, 04:18:07 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 01, 2017, 04:14:17 PM
I will be suggesting Flood/Attack bonuses too sometime in the future FWIW

I'm happy with Flooding/Attacking without penalty for lack of depth, because that happens at minimum 11 other times throughout the year + finals.

Interested with the pinch hit strat, and I like even more the 5 times using ANY strat

But personally feel no penalties are warranted, just IMO. There more there to 'cover a bad run of luck' than anything else, so Pinch Hitting could be used in the same vein

I'm happy with penalty or no penalty, but I am requesting that OOP ruck be treated an grouped exactly the same as Flood and Attack, because all 3 are doing the exact same thing, but we penalise one and not the other two, and that needs to be fixed

I think the "Five times using any Strategy" makes sense, however surely the lack of a ruckman causes a more severe impact on your side than of a defender/forward?

I'd be fine with employment of the 5 times rule, including the idea of a "pinch hit" ruckman for no OOP penalty in that "Five Time Employment" rule. That said, having the pinch hit ruckman surely has to give a bonus to the opposing ruck in some manner? Whether it be 10 or 20%, it still won't be nearly as bad as the OOP penalty.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 01, 2017, 06:55:00 PM

Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 01, 2017, 04:07:19 PM
Part of being a coach is developing a deep enough list to cover injuries and the like. It makes no sense at all that you can flood and attack (because you don't have enough depth) and not get penalised, but you do get penalised for not having a ruck

There are 10 times the amount of defenders and forwards than there are rucks. It's crazy that not having a ruck from such a small player pool incurs such a costly price, but not having enough defenders or forwards has an easy free work around in flood/attack

Pretty good point, I absolutely agree. Coaches should be trying their best to avoid the situation of OOP or a lack of depth where possible.

Also the idea that you get x amount of flood/attacks/pinch hits for the season is solid too. Adds that somewhat strategical element as well if you can only use 5 of any (for example) for the season, especially if most teams have balanced enough lists.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 01, 2017, 06:59:53 PM

I'd like to suggest another topic for discussion

The Rolling Lockout VC

Currently, we can usually do it on Thursday games, but again this rule only benefits those who are lucky enough to have a good enough player playing in that match

Doesn't seem fair that a couple of teams get a free hit with the VC whilst the rest of the teams don't

Either scrap the rolling lockout all together, or if we want to align ourselves with SC of which this comp is based off, then maybe rolling lockout is all round long. That would mean more work for Purps, which is why I think we should just scrap rolling lockouts all together

@GL, I get the point you're making about choosing to attack simply because your forwards are scoring more than defenders, but the same argument could hypothetically be used for ruck. Say we only had Zac Clarke playing, we would rather field a better player than him too. It's not possible at the moment, but the point is that why can we manipulate the forwards and defenders to our advantage but have no choice but to get heavily penalised when it comes to a ruck, a position that has such a small player pool making the hit even worse

Attack, Flood and Pinch Hit. 5 uses in total per year sounds like a good rule to vote on

As for penalties, I'm open to either or, but I will say if we do introduce them then it has to be for all 3 tactics and not just ruck

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Torpedo10 on August 01, 2017, 07:01:00 PM

I'm in full support for the removal of the VC Rolling Lockout.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 01, 2017, 07:03:14 PM

Ah yes, I forgot about the rolling lockout.

Basically I allowed it because I could easily administer it and there was once an art to it. But it seems people have gotten too good at it.

Rolling lockouts are still necessary in some rounds though, but I'm open to banning loopholing.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 01, 2017, 07:07:13 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 01, 2017, 07:03:14 PM
Ah yes, I forgot about the rolling lockout.

Basically I allowed it because I could easily administer it and there was once an art to it. But it seems people have gotten too good at it.

Rolling lockouts are still necessary in some rounds though, but I'm open to banning loopholing.

ban loophole.

You arent allowed to name anyone on field unless they are at worst an emergency.

You cant name a Captain unless they are in the 22.

solved.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 01, 2017, 07:11:29 PM

The rolling lockout is definitely necessary in some instances, but I think a ban of loopholing should definitely happen. The problem is that too many people love it too much, so the vote to ban it definitely won't pass.

Again, RD's point is spot on. There's a pretty clear advantage to be had by some with the rolling lockout given the legality of loopholing and I'm not sure that's great when we've been doing our best to equalise the comp.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 01, 2017, 07:11:36 PM

I think that there should be a rule if you can have your entire XV playing on Sunday they get a 10% resting bonus across the board.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 01, 2017, 07:14:42 PM

Quote from: meow meow on August 01, 2017, 07:11:36 PM
I think that there should be a rule if you can have your entire XV playing on Sunday they get a 10% resting bonus across the board.

Haha, you'd be the only person crazy enough to do that!

And yeah, we need loopholing in certain situations. I was specifically referring to VC, and looping to gain an advantage/take a free hit because if all teams can't do it then it shouldn't be allowed

Just trying to make the comp as fair as possible :)

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Ringo on August 01, 2017, 07:52:14 PM

Comfortable with loopholing when we have Thursday night games with full lock out on bouynce of Friday night games. ie you can loophole all including c for Thursday players.

If we have Monday Games again next year comfortable with 6 emergencies to cover late outs.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Toga on August 01, 2017, 07:59:50 PM

I know it was only briefly raised but I am 100% against a full round rolling lockout. Can't expect everyone to be around all weekend and would give a massive advantage to some coaches over others.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 01, 2017, 08:10:36 PM

Quote from: Toga on August 01, 2017, 07:59:50 PM
I know it was only briefly raised but I am 100% against a full round rolling lockout. Can't expect everyone to be around all weekend and would give a massive advantage to some coaches over others.

Yeah that definitely won't happen, aside from the bye round.

I should re-phrase, I wouldn't support that vote.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 01, 2017, 08:53:43 PM

Previous players should automatically return to the list they were on without the bid nonsense. If Fyfe retired tomorrow then came back a year later why should Purps have to pay extra for a player he's already got?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 03, 2017, 06:32:45 PM

Hokay.

I have (ossie made) salary cap values! But please note, the next 4 games will influence these prices. Posting now to illicit discussion. If you don't want a cap, suggest a new one with at least 50 players demonstrating their value, because we will not be getting rid of one entirely.

During the points cap days, the max cap was +5% of the average, and the min cap was -15% of the average. Last year with the salary cap, that was rounded down and up respectively to 9.1 million and 11.4 million. Below is the current cap values with the same percentages applied for the min/max cap.

Team	Total
Beijing Thunder	$11,005,000
Berlin Brewers	$11,196,000
Buenos Aires Armadillos	$9,346,000
Cairo Sands	$9,779,000
Cape Town Cobras	$9,962,000
Christchurch Saints	$11,096,000
Dublin Destroyers	$11,109,000
London Royals	$10,115,000
Mexico City Suns	$10,920,000
Moscow Spetsnaz	$10,378,000
New Delhi Tigers	$11,303,000
New York Revolution	$11,153,000
Pacific Islanders	$11,816,000
PNL Reindeers	$9,824,000
Rio de Janeiro Jaguars	$11,461,000
Seoul Magpies	$10,574,000
Tokyo Samurai	$9,857,000
Toronto Wolves	$10,389,000
AVERAGE	$10,626,833
AVERAGE + 5%	$11,158,175
AVERAGE - 15%	$9,032,808

Everyone kinda sits nicely within that range.

Top 20 Players	Team	Salary
P Dangerfield	Seoul Magpies	$935,000
S Pendlebury	Toronto Wolves	$782,000
L Neale	Beijing Thunder	$740,000
D Hannebery	London Royals	$723,000
T Goldstein	Dublin Destroyers	$723,000
JP Kennedy	Cape Town Cobras	$721,000
D Martin	Dublin Destroyers	$710,000
T Mitchell	Pacific Islanders	$700,000
D Zorko	Beijing Thunder	$681,000
A Treloar	Dublin Destroyers	$680,000
M Priddis	PNL Reindeers	$676,000
J Selwood	New York Revolution	$672,000
R Gray	New Delhi Tigers	$653,000
S Docherty	Moscow Spetsnaz	$653,000
C Ward	Beijing Thunder	$648,000
M Bontempelli	Pacific Islanders	$636,000
L Parker	Tokyo Samurai	$635,000
N Fyfe	Berlin Brewers	$624,000
T Cotchin	Mexico City Suns	$610,000
R Sloane	Dublin Destroyers	$609,000

Top 20 Price Rises	Team	Price	Increase
C Oliver	Seoul Magpies	$412,000	$244,000
S Menegola	Moscow Spetsnaz	$359,000	$186,000
T Mitchell	Pacific Islanders	$700,000	$177,000
S Docherty	Moscow Spetsnaz	$653,000	$174,000
N Newman	Mexico City Suns	$258,000	$158,000
M Kreuzer	Toronto Wolves	$440,000	$157,000
Z Merrett	PNL Reindeers	$595,000	$156,000
M Crouch	New Delhi Tigers	$456,000	$151,000
T Adams	Cairo Sands	$573,000	$150,000
S Ross	New Delhi Tigers	$462,000	$147,000
P Dangerfield	Seoul Magpies	$935,000	$135,000
R Burton	Moscow Spetsnaz	$235,000	$135,000
C Blakely	Christchurch Saints	$322,000	$134,000
T Nankervis	Cape Town Cobras	$274,000	$134,000
R Laird	Pacific Islanders	$522,000	$130,000
H Greenwood	Dublin Destroyers	$230,000	$130,000
Jos Kelly	Seoul Magpies	$444,000	$119,000
E Yeo	Rio de Janeiro Jaguars	$430,000	$116,000
B Grundy	Beijing Thunder	$516,000	$114,000
D Roberton	Cairo Sands	$425,000	$114,000

Top 20 Price Drops	Team	Price	Decrease
J O'Meara	Moscow Spetsnaz	$100,000	-$267,000
T Liberatore	Berlin Brewers	$314,000	-$168,000
D Swallow	Seoul Magpies	$279,000	-$146,000
M Lobbe	PNL Reindeers	$220,000	-$140,000
D Prestia	Cape Town Cobras	$372,000	-$134,000
J McVeigh	Christchurch Saints	$434,000	-$118,000
T Rockliff	Mexico City Suns	$583,000	-$116,000
D Myers	Seoul Magpies	$131,000	-$110,000
T Mzungu	Christchurch Saints	$143,000	-$109,000
N Fyfe	Berlin Brewers	$624,000	-$104,000
S Jacobs	Rio de Janeiro Jaguars	$530,000	-$102,000
P Hanley	Toronto Wolves	$354,000	-$102,000
M Barlow	Pacific Islanders	$456,000	-$98,000
J Thomas	Seoul Magpies	$100,000	-$98,000
S Johnson	Berlin Brewers	$365,000	-$97,000
H Hocking	Cairo Sands	$109,000	-$97,000
R Griffen	Christchurch Saints	$392,000	-$96,000
L Greenwood	Moscow Spetsnaz	$252,000	-$96,000
S Pendlebury	Toronto Wolves	$782,000	-$95,000
M Priddis	PNL Reindeers	$676,000	-$95,000
D Beams	Cairo Sands	$523,000	-$95,000
K Jack	Cape Town Cobras	$472,000	-$95,000

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 03, 2017, 06:33:45 PM

ossie made this for everyone, so see all your individual cap values

https://jumpshare.com/v/iH5g4dyBBi14meUKPjMB

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 03, 2017, 06:34:51 PM

Personally... I think this looks pretty good, and I would be happy with no changes.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 03, 2017, 06:45:47 PM

My God, look at all those overpriced old guys that Holz keeps banging on about!!

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 03, 2017, 06:51:45 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 03, 2017, 06:34:51 PM
Personally... I think this looks pretty good, and I would be happy with no changes.

Can we discuss my changes?

The flaws are still very evident.

M Priddis   $676,000
   Z Merrett   $595,000

How is it logical that a 32 year old player coming off a 109 average last year and a 93 average this year costs considerably more then a 22 year old mid coming off a 111 average last year and putting up a 112 average this year.

My most expensive player is not my 26 year old 118 average captain, but my 98 average ruckman who is currently playing in the 2s.

Perhaps the most worrying is this

C Oliver   $412,000
H Shaw   $600,000

Heath Shaw as a declining 30 years plus back man who averages only 85 costs 45.6% more then a 2nd year 112 average mid.

What that is saying is its cheaper to have 3 young 110+ guns, then 2 aging 85 average 30+ year olds and a draft pick.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 03, 2017, 06:55:49 PM

It's only worrying because you want to trade him in.

AFL players outperform their contacts all the time but it catches up eventually. Ryan Griffen is getting paid more than Josh Kelly at the moment. That's a flaw in real life but it'll correct itself soon, just as it'll do in WXV.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 03, 2017, 06:56:57 PM

Quote from: meow meow on August 03, 2017, 06:45:47 PM
My God, look at all those overpriced old guys that Holz keeps banging on about!!

I know right

H Shaw   $600,000
B Goddard   $567,000
T Goldstein   $723,000
JP Kennedy   $721,000
S Mitchell   $594,000
D Mundy   $593,000
M Priddis   $676,000
S Pendlebury   $782,000

M Kreuzer   $440,000
Jos Kelly   $444,000
C Oliver   $412,000
J Lloyd   $381,000
R Burton   $235,000

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 03, 2017, 06:57:54 PM

Eh, we've gone down this path privately before, but I'll just say that, to me, it makes sense to have to 'pay' for past performances, because I view that as 'insurance' that they'll at least score enough to get on the park for you.

As for Clarry, I'm glad he costs less. Why punish Seoul for drafting (or trading if it was the case) magnificently for a younger player?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Torpedo10 on August 03, 2017, 06:59:26 PM

In all fairness, it directly correlates with real life.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 03, 2017, 07:03:36 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 03, 2017, 06:57:54 PM
Eh, we've gone down this path privately before, but I'll just say that, to me, it makes sense to have to 'pay' for past performances, because I view that as 'insurance' that they'll at least score enough to get on the park for you.

As for Clarry, I'm glad he costs less. Why punish Seoul for drafting (or trading if it was the case) magnificently for a younger player?

When mexico want to rebuild why should they have all their trade assets reduced in value. Is that punishment for being at the top that now they should fall to the bottom?

I dont understand the point of the cap is it to reward teams like Seoul that could win the flag with a very good team? Im not sure what the punishment is in making a gun in oliver cost his actual output

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 03, 2017, 07:06:09 PM

Quote from: Torpedo10 on August 03, 2017, 06:59:26 PM
In all fairness, it directly correlates with real life.

no it doesnt.

if your talking fantasy, next year Clayton Oliver will cost alot more then Heath Shaw.

If your talking AFL, Josh Kelly is getting offered monster $1million deals. If Priddis decides to come back to the AFL will people throw $1 million contracts at him?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 03, 2017, 07:06:43 PM

I'm sure I'll be able to shuffle some depth, take some cheap draft picks so I can afford more fossils. Mexico are fine.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 03, 2017, 07:06:49 PM

Quote from: Holz on August 03, 2017, 07:03:36 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 03, 2017, 06:57:54 PM
Eh, we've gone down this path privately before, but I'll just say that, to me, it makes sense to have to 'pay' for past performances, because I view that as 'insurance' that they'll at least score enough to get on the park for you.

As for Clarry, I'm glad he costs less. Why punish Seoul for drafting (or trading if it was the case) magnificently for a younger player?

When mexico want to rebuild why should they have all their trade assets reduced in value. Is that punishment for being at the top that now they should fall to the bottom?

I dont understand the point of the cap is it to reward teams like Seoul that could win the flag with a very good team? Im not sure what the punishment is in making a gun in oliver cost his actual output

Right, so Mexico City would now have room to go and get juicer assets, given they now have the cap space. Or, if they want to rebuild, they need only ensure they are above a very generous minimum cap and accumulate draft picks, the future Olivers.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 03, 2017, 07:16:23 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 03, 2017, 07:06:49 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 03, 2017, 07:03:36 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 03, 2017, 06:57:54 PM
Eh, we've gone down this path privately before, but I'll just say that, to me, it makes sense to have to 'pay' for past performances, because I view that as 'insurance' that they'll at least score enough to get on the park for you.

As for Clarry, I'm glad he costs less. Why punish Seoul for drafting (or trading if it was the case) magnificently for a younger player?

When mexico want to rebuild why should they have all their trade assets reduced in value. Is that punishment for being at the top that now they should fall to the bottom?

I dont understand the point of the cap is it to reward teams like Seoul that could win the flag with a very good team? Im not sure what the punishment is in making a gun in oliver cost his actual output

Right, so Mexico City would now have room to go and get juicer assets, given they now have the cap space. Or, if they want to rebuild, they need only ensure they are above a very generous minimum cap and accumulate draft picks, the future Olivers.

Thats one side of the deal. Who do they offload a 600k Shaw too?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 03, 2017, 07:18:36 PM

Um, hello.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 03, 2017, 07:23:17 PM

Sam Mitchel
Sean Dempster

That's Shaw money right there.

Plus you know, they could keep him and get some super cheap draft picks in and sit comfortably under the cap.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 03, 2017, 07:24:10 PM

just look at the team i was able to make for under $10 million. Tell me how the cap has any relevance when you can do this

M.Hibberd, E.Yeo, R.Burton, L.Mcdonald (N.Newman, M.Scharenberg, A.Francis, J Berry)
J Kelly, C Oliver, C Blakely, M Crouch (D Sheed, JOM, L Partington, , H Greenwood, J Scrimshaw, H Perryman)
M Kreuzer (J Witts, S Darcy, B Preuss)
J Cameron, J Daniher, J Martin, I Henney (C Petracca, M Kennedy, H Mcgluggage, E Hipwood, T Taranto)
B Crouch, D Sheed

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 03, 2017, 07:29:00 PM

Quote from: meow meow on August 03, 2017, 07:23:17 PM
Sam Mitchel
Sean Dempster

That's Shaw money right there.

Plus you know, they could keep him and get some super cheap draft picks in and sit comfortably under the cap.

So his trade options are reduced to you?

Sounds good for you bad for mexico

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 03, 2017, 07:34:30 PM

Quote from: Holz on August 03, 2017, 07:29:00 PM
Quote from: meow meow on August 03, 2017, 07:23:17 PM
Sam Mitchel
Sean Dempster

That's Shaw money right there.

Plus you know, they could keep him and get some super cheap draft picks in and sit comfortably under the cap.

So his trade options are reduced to you?

Sounds good for you bad for mexico

Haven't you seen how shower I am at trading? They got Sicily who is soon to be worth as much as Gibbs alone AND Rocky out of me for Bryce and some tall injured guy.

Zorko for some old injured guy named Griff.

Shuey for some old injured guy named Macca.

Pick 2 for some useless Jobe guy.

When I bring in the age it generally doesn't end up being good for me m8

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 03, 2017, 07:39:01 PM

Quote from: Holz on August 03, 2017, 07:24:10 PM
just look at the team i was able to make for under $10 million. Tell me how the cap has any relevance when you can do this

M.Hibberd, E.Yeo, R.Burton, L.Mcdonald (N.Newman, M.Scharenberg, A.Francis, J Berry)
J Kelly, C Oliver, C Blakely, M Crouch (D Sheed, JOM, L Partington, , H Greenwood, J Scrimshaw, H Perryman)
M Kreuzer (J Witts, S Darcy, B Preuss)
J Cameron, J Daniher, J Martin, I Henney (C Petracca, M Kennedy, H Mcgluggage, E Hipwood, T Taranto)
B Crouch, D Sheed

What about the other ~12 players (i.e. minimum $1.2mil) that you've left out?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 03, 2017, 08:18:47 PM

Quote from: GoLions on August 03, 2017, 07:39:01 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 03, 2017, 07:24:10 PM
just look at the team i was able to make for under $10 million. Tell me how the cap has any relevance when you can do this

M.Hibberd, E.Yeo, R.Burton, L.Mcdonald (N.Newman, M.Scharenberg, A.Francis, J Berry)
J Kelly, C Oliver, C Blakely, M Crouch (D Sheed, JOM, L Partington, , H Greenwood, J Scrimshaw, H Perryman)
M Kreuzer (J Witts, S Darcy, B Preuss)
J Cameron, J Daniher, J Martin, I Henney (C Petracca, M Kennedy, H Mcgluggage, E Hipwood, T Taranto)
B Crouch, D Sheed
What about the other ~12 players (i.e. minimum $1.2mil) that you've left out?

I included those in the 9.5 mil its only 8.3 mil for those

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 03, 2017, 08:22:18 PM

Another thing I thought of, when teams are going for a bit of a rebuild of sorts, they might have trouble staying over the min cap when going for some top draft picks. I dunno if there's a thing for this already, but perhaps the top 10 or so picks could be worth 150k, as opposed to 100k?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 03, 2017, 08:24:15 PM

Just trade in Sam Mitchell and use that loophole.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 03, 2017, 08:50:42 PM

Quote from: GoLions on August 03, 2017, 08:22:18 PM
Another thing I thought of, when teams are going for a bit of a rebuild of sorts, they might have trouble staying over the min cap when going for some top draft picks. I dunno if there's a thing for this already, but perhaps the top 10 or so picks could be worth 150k, as opposed to 100k?

Although good in theory, I really want to force these teams to get some salary back in their team :P happy to hear on what others think

Everyone knows how Holz, meow and I sit on the cap and cap values. The guys I really want to hear from are the silent assassins (also the astute) Boomz, JROO and Jay/upthemaidens, and everyone else!

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 03, 2017, 08:56:53 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 03, 2017, 08:50:42 PM
I really want to force these teams to get some salary back in their team

Please do this.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 03, 2017, 10:02:06 PM

Can we get some opinions on my improved averages rule and age discount rule?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: JBs-Hawks on August 03, 2017, 10:58:21 PM

Quote from: Nige on August 03, 2017, 08:56:53 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 03, 2017, 08:50:42 PM
I really want to force these teams to get some salary back in their team
Please do this.

Also I think if a player has retired officially in the AFL, they cant be traded at all. Lets stamp out that loophole.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Torpedo10 on August 03, 2017, 11:13:06 PM

"18+ games: 100% of the current season is their average
11-17 games: 50% of the current average 30% of last years and 20% of the year before
6-10 games: 35% of the current average 40% of last years and 25% of the year before
5 or under: 20% of the current average 50% of last years and 30% of the year before.
0 games: 60% of last year and 40% of the year before. "

Has to be a Durability and Premium Factor somewhere in the piece, but this doesn't sound too bad.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: AaronKirk on August 04, 2017, 12:20:11 AM

There is definitely merit in Holz suggestion in relation to the cap.

Better reflects the current/future value of players in the cap.

Also agree with JB. Players who have retired should not be able to be traded.

I don't remember a situation where a player who had retired was traded from 1 club to another?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 04, 2017, 09:29:57 AM

Quote from: Torpedo10 on August 03, 2017, 11:13:06 PM
"18+ games: 100% of the current season is their average
11-17 games: 50% of the current average 30% of last years and 20% of the year before
6-10 games: 35% of the current average 40% of last years and 25% of the year before
5 or under: 20% of the current average 50% of last years and 30% of the year before.
0 games: 60% of last year and 40% of the year before. "

Has to be a Durability and Premium Factor somewhere in the piece, but this doesn't sound too bad.

Ossie had a durabiloty factor in there and i think it should stay. Im just saying the original calculation of the average should not be 50% this year and 25% the previous two years which i think it is at the moment. If you play 20 games in a season then i dont ubderstand why you would look at the past years.

75 85 100 would be treated as a 90 base in ossie cap
115 105 90 would be treates as a 100 base

Thats what is wrong if both players played 22 games the guy who put up 100 should be treated as 100 not 90. Likewise thr player who put up 90 should be treated as a 90 not a 100.

Then add in the durability factor which ossie had which is a good thing.

Also think the age discount is important its a small thing but a good rule.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Ringo on August 04, 2017, 10:12:01 AM

OK this may be different to most but here are my views on the cap.

Cap to be based on previous season only similar to Fantasy competitions as follows:

If a player has played 12 or more games full average to apply.
If a player has played less than 12 games for year average to be discounted by 20% (Ist year rookie players exempt from this concession and average will apply)
If a player has not played at all for the season due to injury previous years average with 20% discount to apply.

3rd point is contentious one and could substitute average over previous 2 years to apply.

Just trying to simplify a little. may be holes but my initial thoughts.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 04, 2017, 10:25:19 AM

^ not bad. Why 12? Why not 10 like in the fantasy games, or 11 since it's half the season?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 04, 2017, 10:25:26 AM

Quote from: Ringo on August 04, 2017, 10:12:01 AM
OK this may be different to most but here are my views on the cap.

Cap to be based on previous season only similar to Fantasy competitions as follows:

If a player has played 12 or more games full average to apply.
If a player has played less than 12 games for year average to be discounted by 20% (Ist year rookie players exempt from this concession and average will apply)
If a player has not played at all for the season due to injury previous years average with 20% discount to apply.

3rd point is contentious one and could substitute average over previous 2 years to apply.

Just trying to simplify a little. may be holes but my initial thoughts.

its not bad but in my opinion it can be a little flawed thats why fantasy comp make judgement calls to switch up a few players.

The best example would be max Gawn so lets say he didnt play another game, he averaged 92 this year (which is injury affected and not the best reflection in my opinion.

Ringo Rule: Priced at a 74 average
Ossie Rule: Priced at a 101 average
Holz Rule: Priced at a 105 average

not sure on you opinion but 105 seems not bad and arguably a slight discount on his real value but pretty accurate.

Just another one to show im not bias.

Grant Birchall only played 5 games but one of them was a 6 which greatly reduced his average so its down to 63.

Ringo Rule: 50 average
Ossie Rule: 74 average
Holz Rule: 80 average

given birchall in his 5 previous seasons went 95 92 89 86 84, i think pricing him at 80 looks spot on. Then of course he will get some kind of adjustment to help the fact he hasnt been durable.

The fact his points are declining show that why i want the very small age discount in place. As Birchall will be 30 next year he receives a 6% discount, which places him at a 76 average, which pretty much puts him smack on the trend of his last few seasons.

95 92 89 86 84 X 76.

As said before the age discount is to make them closer to their real value and shouldnt been seen as a discount at all just a factor to make it more accurate.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 04, 2017, 10:28:32 AM

Is there any reason why we don't just use SC salaries? I mean, I know they change throughout the year but surely there is a simple solution there somewhere. Eg, 100 avg = $520k, 2nd round rookie and beyond = 117k etc and so forth.

Just base it off player averages like SC does and take out everything else. Age, missed games, discounts etc it's all too flowering complex

All this discount stuff, played x amount of games etc. It's all too confusing

If a player has only played less than whatever games, or missed an entire season through injury etc, then the team that owns that player should be entitled to the discount value of that player the following year because that player not playing that season cost them being a player down.

It would be nice if our cap prices/formulas just reflected what SC does, and was made SIMPLE

At the end of the day, just tell me what the min and max caps are and we'll be right

We went through so much last year with cap talk. Do we really need to do it again?

This much discussion means something is very obvious - it's too confusing and has problems

Let's just use something based off how SC does it. It's so much simpler

End of year season average = price
1st rounder rookies are worth more than 2nd and beyond

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 04, 2017, 10:33:14 AM

Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 04, 2017, 10:28:32 AM
Is there any reason why we don't just use SC salaries? I mean, I know they change throughout the year but surely there is a simple solution there somewhere. Eg, 100 avg = $520k, 2nd round rookie and beyond = 117k etc and so forth.

Just base it off player averages like SC does and take out everything else. Age, missed games, discounts etc it's all too flowering complex

All this discount stuff, played x amount of games etc. It's all too confusing

If a player has only played less than whatever games, or missed an entire season through injury etc, then the team that owns that player should be entitled to the discount value of that player the following year because that player not playing that season cost them being a player down.

It would be nice if our cap prices/formulas just reflected what SC does, and was made SIMPLE

At the end of the day, just tell me what the min and max caps are and we'll be right

We went through so much last year with cap talk. Do we really need to do it again?

This much discussion means something is very obvious - it's too confusing and has problems

Let's just use something based off how SC does it. It's so much simpler

End of year season average = price
1st rounder rookies are worth more than 2nd and beyond

not a bad solution really, but then what about the rookies.

I know the cap is a drainer and it get talked about every year as no matter how you do it its flawed and warps the market and in my opinion it hurts the rebuilding older teams like PNL and assists the young gun teams like Seoul and Dublin to continue to dominate.

But i made my rule purposely complex so that there are less issues. I just went throughs loads of examples where it is better.

Heath Shaw v Sam Docherty
Max Gawn and Grant Birchall
Merrett Kelly and Oliver

My rule incorporates what you are saying with a few more levels of sophistication.

I think its the least flawed cap out there, if people can give examples where it breaks down please post them but im just picking random examples and it seems to be working.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 04, 2017, 10:37:34 AM

flower, not this shower again.

A 50 spud is worthless. 2 of them is still worthless. They cost as much as a 100 average player in SC and that's why we don't and shouldn't use that system. Read the discussion from the previous years, it's all covered there.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 04, 2017, 10:43:48 AM

Quote from: meow meow on August 04, 2017, 10:37:34 AM
flower, not this shower again.

A 50 spud is worthless. 2 of them is still worthless. They cost as much as a 100 average player in SC and that's why we don't and shouldn't use that system. Read the discussion from the previous years, it's all covered there.

But with this current system, aren't there plenty of examples where 2 50 spuds are still worth the same as a 100 avg player?

I'm sure we can find 2 spuds that are worth the same as Oliver etc

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 04, 2017, 10:50:10 AM

Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 04, 2017, 10:43:48 AM
Quote from: meow meow on August 04, 2017, 10:37:34 AM
flower, not this shower again.

A 50 spud is worthless. 2 of them is still worthless. They cost as much as a 100 average player in SC and that's why we don't and shouldn't use that system. Read the discussion from the previous years, it's all covered there.

But with this current system, aren't there plenty of examples where 2 50 spuds are still worth the same as a 100 avg player?

I'm sure we can find 2 spuds that are worth the same as Oliver etc

No, it is not. Os put in the work to create a pricing system that reflects value much more accurately.

Holz's discount idea has merit since it's proven that players decline with age. That's the only thing that should potentially be added to the already excellent formula.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 04, 2017, 10:54:53 AM

Quote from: meow meow on August 04, 2017, 10:50:10 AM
No, it is not. Os put in the work to create a pricing system that reflects value much more accurately.

Holz's discount idea has merit since it's proven that players decline with age. That's the only thing that should potentially be added to the already excellent formula.

Then what am I missing here?

H Shaw $600,000
B Goddard $567,000
T Goldstein $723,000
JP Kennedy $721,000
S Mitchell $594,000
D Mundy $593,000
M Priddis $676,000
S Pendlebury $782,000

M Kreuzer $440,000
Jos Kelly $444,000
C Oliver $412,000
J Lloyd $381,000
R Burton $235,000

Because that doesn't look right to me. I don't see that as a reflection of accuracy

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 04, 2017, 10:56:18 AM

Quote from: meow meow on August 04, 2017, 10:50:10 AM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 04, 2017, 10:43:48 AM
Quote from: meow meow on August 04, 2017, 10:37:34 AM
flower, not this shower again.

A 50 spud is worthless. 2 of them is still worthless. They cost as much as a 100 average player in SC and that's why we don't and shouldn't use that system. Read the discussion from the previous years, it's all covered there.

But with this current system, aren't there plenty of examples where 2 50 spuds are still worth the same as a 100 avg player?

I'm sure we can find 2 spuds that are worth the same as Oliver etc

No, it is not. Os put in the work to create a pricing system that reflects value much more accurately.

Holz's discount idea has merit since it's proven that players decline with age. That's the only thing that should potentially be added to the already excellent formula.

correct Ossie's formula is great. It fixes the spud issue.

thank you for support on the age discount idea.

I think having the sliding scale from games played is better then the current 50% this year, 25% last year, 25% the year before.

but really im just tinkering with ossie's idea.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 04, 2017, 11:03:00 AM

Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 04, 2017, 10:54:53 AM
Quote from: meow meow on August 04, 2017, 10:50:10 AM
No, it is not. Os put in the work to create a pricing system that reflects value much more accurately.

Holz's discount idea has merit since it's proven that players decline with age. That's the only thing that should potentially be added to the already excellent formula.

Then what am I missing here?

H Shaw $600,000
B Goddard $567,000
T Goldstein $723,000
JP Kennedy $721,000
S Mitchell $594,000
D Mundy $593,000
M Priddis $676,000
S Pendlebury $782,000

M Kreuzer $440,000
Jos Kelly $444,000
C Oliver $412,000
J Lloyd $381,000
R Burton $235,000

Because that doesn't look right to me. I don't see that as a reflection of accuracy

The issue with this is ossie's formula uses 50% of this years score but 25% of the last 2 years score.

Thats why i changed it to

"18+ games: 100% of the current season is their average
11-17 games: 50% of the current average 30% of last years and 20% of the year before
6-10 games: 35% of the current average 40% of last years and 25% of the year before
5 or under: 20% of the current average 50% of last years and 30% of the year before.
0 games: 60% of last year and 40% of the year before. "

Ossies formula is great its just the original base average that i disagree with.

Under the current cap Kelly is priced at a average of 95 because his previous 2 years average of 78 is valued as high in his formula as his 111 average this year.

under my cap Kelly is priced at the 111 average to reflect his true value given he will play 20+ games and this year is the best indicator of his form.

Like wise Shaw is priced at a base of 97 in the previous cap. Because his previous 2 years average of 109 is valued as highly as his current 85 average. I price him at a base of 85 because he has clearly had zero injury and the 85 reflects his current form.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 04, 2017, 11:05:54 AM

Really like the sounds of your tweaks Holz

Could you maybe do a random list of say 10 players - showing both Os price and your price side by side?

A good mix of variety. Prems, mid pricer, spud etc

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 04, 2017, 11:16:46 AM

Seoul deserve some credit for taking their picks at the draft. Everyone wants to trade away their picks for ready made players. Seoul drafted well and took the time to develop their list, they paid their dues. Having a handful of players cost below their real output for a year (they'll balloon soon enough) is good encouragement for people to draft rather than taking the cheap and easy option.

That's also why the olds deserve a discount. It'll encourage people to hang onto their veterans so they remain a bit more competitive rather than bottoming out and becoming irrelevant every week.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 04, 2017, 11:20:00 AM

Holz's method does look superior though.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 04, 2017, 11:20:42 AM

Quote from: meow meow on August 04, 2017, 11:16:46 AM
Seoul deserve some credit for taking their picks at the draft. Everyone wants to trade away their picks for ready made players. Seoul drafted well and took the time to develop their list, they paid their dues. Having a handful of players cost below their real output for a year (they'll balloon soon enough) is good encouragement for people to draft rather than taking the cheap and easy option.

That's also why the olds deserve a discount. It'll encourage people to hang onto their veterans so they remain a bit more competitive rather than bottoming out and becoming irrelevant every week.

All good points :)

By the sounds of things, we'll either leave the cap as is, or make Holz suggested tweak

That's enough rule talk, now let's get back to trade talking ;D

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 04, 2017, 11:22:56 AM

Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 04, 2017, 11:05:54 AM
Really like the sounds of your tweaks Holz

Could you maybe do a random list of say 10 players - showing both Os price and your price side by side?

A good mix of variety. Prems, mid pricer, spud etc

only issue is i dont know how his formula actually works in terms of pricing I can do the base pricing which is the original average that ossie and i use.

Kelly: Holz 111, Ossie 95
Shaw: Holz 85, Ossie 97
Gawn: Holz 105, Ossie 101
Birchall: Holz 80, Ossie 74
Heeney:Holz 98, Ossie 86
Priddis: Holz 93, Ossie 102
Goldstein: Holz 98, Ossie 108
D.Martin: Holz 118, Ossie 112
K.Simpson: Holz 93, Ossie 96

then it goes through his formula but on the basis of it he has Kelly Shaw similar in price and then Priddis more expensive. I have Kelly the most then priddis then shaw.

I also think there should be a age discount so Priddis Simpson Birchall Shaw come down in price a little in my formulara.

So as an example I end up pricing Birchall at a 76 because of his age.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 04, 2017, 11:25:01 AM

Nice

Gets my vote :)

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 04, 2017, 11:25:17 AM

Quote from: meow meow on August 04, 2017, 11:16:46 AM
Seoul deserve some credit for taking their picks at the draft. Everyone wants to trade away their picks for ready made players. Seoul drafted well and took the time to develop their list, they paid their dues. Having a handful of players cost below their real output for a year (they'll balloon soon enough) is good encouragement for people to draft rather than taking the cheap and easy option.

That's also why the olds deserve a discount. It'll encourage people to hang onto their veterans so they remain a bit more competitive rather than bottoming out and becoming irrelevant every week.

Pretty good point this one.

Except I think there's already this stupid notion across basically all the comps that you have to trade away all your older players, bottom out (to some extent) and be irrelevant for at least a season. It's possible to transition and remain competitive, it's just that nobody really has.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Ringo on August 04, 2017, 11:50:26 AM

Quote from: meow meow on August 04, 2017, 10:25:19 AM
^ not bad. Why 12? Why not 10 like in the fantasy games, or 11 since it's half the season?

Picked 12 as Half season + 1 game that is all.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 04, 2017, 11:51:35 AM

I'll be the first to admit I flowering hate numbers (you'll notice that I usually agree with posts with well written text-based replies) so a lot of this goes way over my head and I basically skim it and go with the flow, but at the same time I do wanna understand exactly what everyone is harping on about in the past god knows how many posts.

Dunno if this would make sense or explain it all, but if someone has the time, could they break it down really simply? Is it possible to compare maybe like a few teams at different stages like Mexico (good team on the way down), Dublin (team that's still sitting pretty), Cairo (team that looks to be on the way up) to see how each is impacted by Holz's proposal vs the current cap?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Ringo on August 04, 2017, 12:02:24 PM

Reading through comments and to throw another into the mix if a player has been at the one franchise for 5 years or more they receive a 20% discount on their value. % discount to be agreed.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 04, 2017, 12:13:39 PM

Quote from: Nige on August 04, 2017, 11:51:35 AM
I'll be the first to admit I flowering hate numbers (you'll notice that I usually agree with posts with well written text-based replies) so a lot of this goes way over my head and I basically skim it and go with the flow, but at the same time I do wanna understand exactly what everyone is harping on about in the past god knows how many posts.

Dunno if this would make sense or explain it all, but if someone has the time, could they break it down really simply? Is it possible to compare maybe like a few teams at different stages like Mexico (good team on the way down), Dublin (team that's still sitting pretty), Cairo (team that looks to be on the way up) to see how each is impacted by Holz's proposal vs the current cap?

I cant really do that as i dont have access to ossies formula. The basis of it is i want to small adjustments.

1. Ossie Formula is based on a average of 50% of this seasons score and then 25% of the previous 2 years. So the most simple example is he has Josh Kelly marginally cheaper then Heath Shaw and Matt Priddis more expensive then the two of them. where are as given they have played a full season my formula Kelly is the most expensive, then priddis then shaw.

If i was to break it down in terms of teams I would say. Mexico would fall in cap under my changes because as you have said they are in decline so the likes of Heath Shaw will fall in cap space. Seoul will go up a little bit at they have lots of young guns like Kelly who will go up to their correct value.

2. I give a slight discount for players over 28, because they generally are in decline so to assume a older player might dip 3% in average the next year to me is a pretty fair indicator. The major benefit of this is aging teams like Mexico dont have their main trading chips in players like Heath Shaw costing loads under the cap, so that if they chose to move them on then lots of teams can bid for them as they arent overpriced in the cap, so rather then trading them way to cheap (as only a few teams can get them) or holding on to them they are able to get actually good assets for them so they dont slip soo far that they become noncompetitive. As it stands Meow is the main person who can pick up older players as his team is no good but he wants to keep bringing in older players.

Got to remember this will drop the overall cap that teams have so its not like teams can load up with older guys and dominate its not a major change.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 04, 2017, 12:16:16 PM

Quote from: Ringo on August 04, 2017, 12:02:24 PM
Reading through comments and to throw another into the mix if a player has been at the one franchise for 5 years or more they receive a 20% discount on their value. % discount to be agreed.

seems highly unfair putting that rule in as people would have traded differently if this was a rule. Trading is not a bad thing, all the top teams have traded heavily except maybe Seoul, who have killed it in the draft.

The teams that remain stagnant most years seem to be the teams that never end up being competitive.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 04, 2017, 12:22:24 PM

Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 03, 2017, 10:58:21 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 03, 2017, 08:56:53 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 03, 2017, 08:50:42 PM
I really want to force these teams to get some salary back in their team
Please do this.

Also I think if a player has retired officially in the AFL, they cant be traded at all. Lets stamp out that loophole.

Yep, that's a good one.

Quote from: Ringo on August 04, 2017, 12:02:24 PM
Reading through comments and to throw another into the mix if a player has been at the one franchise for 5 years or more they receive a 20% discount on their value. % discount to be agreed.

Really not a fan, kinda just dodges the point of the cap IMO

Apologies for saying otherwise, but ossies' formula equally accounts for the previous 3 years i.e. 33% each for 2015, 2016 & 2017.

His formula is set out in last years' thread somewhere.

I cannot stress enough that new ideas for caps need at least a 50 player sample. To judge off 10 players is dangerously limited, it's 1.2% of the comp.

But really, really good discussion so far.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 04, 2017, 12:23:42 PM

Also note that if we introduce discounts, that'll be decreasing the max and min caps to some degree.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 04, 2017, 12:30:28 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 04, 2017, 12:22:24 PM
I cannot stress enough that new ideas for caps need at least a 50 player sample. To judge off 10 players is dangerously limited, it's 1.2% of the comp.

In that case, my suggestion of using 3 teams would lend itself to this.

3 teams with 18 players (emergencies included) would demonstrate it and give a good mix of players.

I guess someone who really wants a new version of the cap has some work to do.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 04, 2017, 12:47:55 PM

As it stands currently, this is how the cap is made (in my words)

Averages are spoken in terms of the total average of the past 3 seasons (total points scored divided by total games played)

Games are spoken in terms of the total games played in the past 3 seasons

If you played less than 10 games

Salary = 100k

If you have played 10 or more games

The players average is inflated by multiplying it by 2000.

This number is added to, by a durability value. This is games played, divided by 66 (total games you could play). This number is multiplied with the above base salary, and is added to it, adding a cost to those whom stay on the park.

Similarly, this number is added to, by a premium value. This is the amount of games the player has scored a ton or better, divided by 66 (total games you could play). This number is multiplied with the above adjusted salary, and is added to it, adding a cost to those whom score 100s.

Does that help?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 04, 2017, 12:54:55 PM

So, with Dangerfield

Games played = 61 out of 62 (4 games remaining)
Average = 128.34

Premium factor = 51/62 = 0.84

Durability factor = 61/62 = 0.98

Played more than 10 games? Yes.

So 128.34 x 2000 = 256680

Durability modification = 0.98 x 256680 = 251546.4 = 251546 (rounded)

New salary = 256680 + 251546 = 508226

Premium modification = 0.84 x 508226 = 426910 (rounded)

New salary = 508226 + 426910 = 935,136 = 935,000 (rounded)

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 04, 2017, 01:03:13 PM

Now that's maths I understand.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 04, 2017, 01:14:03 PM

I threw this up together to demonstrate your "3% for every year above 28" change

Might be a flaw... but I think we're OK. These are all the players that would be effected.

Player	Current	Age Discounted
S Pendlebury	$782,000	$758,000
T Goldstein	$723,000	$702,000
JP Kennedy	$721,000	$699,000
M Priddis	$676,000	$595,000
J Selwood	$672,000	$652,000
R Gray	$653,000	$633,000
H Shaw	$600,000	$546,000
S Mitchell	$594,000	$487,000
D Mundy	$593,000	$522,000
G Ablett	$579,000	$492,000
B Goddard	$567,000	$499,000
S Martin	$567,000	$533,000
L Montagna	$562,000	$478,000
S Mumford	$552,000	$502,000
K Simpson	$551,000	$468,000
J Lewis	$538,000	$490,000
N Jones	$532,000	$517,000
S Jacobs	$530,000	$514,000
M Murphy	$522,000	$490,000
L Franklin	$501,000	$471,000
JJ Kennedy	$493,000	$478,000
M Boyd	$491,000	$403,000
N Riewoldt	$490,000	$401,000
T Boak	$488,000	$473,000
D Armitage	$483,000	$469,000
B Deledio	$483,000	$454,000
S Burgoyne	$478,000	$392,000
A Sandilands	$477,000	$391,000
B Houli	$474,000	$460,000
S Grigg	$474,000	$460,000
K Jack	$472,000	$444,000
J Westhoff	$469,000	$441,000
B Vince	$463,000	$422,000
M Barlow	$456,000	$443,000
L Hodge	$454,000	$386,000
L Picken	$441,000	$401,000
J McVeigh	$434,000	$382,000
A Swallow	$423,000	$398,000
S Thompson	$417,000	$342,000
S Higgins	$413,000	$400,000
E Betts	$413,000	$388,000
P Ryder	$399,000	$387,000
R Griffen	$392,000	$357,000
T Hawkins	$390,000	$378,000
J Gibson	$390,000	$332,000
J Waite	$388,000	$318,000
S Hurn	$385,000	$373,000
B Stanton	$383,000	$348,000
R Douglas	$378,000	$355,000
M Rischitelli	$372,000	$339,000
K Tippett	$371,000	$349,000
Ja Roughead	$369,000	$346,000
S Johnson	$365,000	$299,000
D Wells	$365,000	$321,000
H Taylor	$363,000	$330,000
M LeCras	$362,000	$341,000
R Murphy	$358,000	$283,000
H Grundy	$354,000	$322,000
D Petrie	$348,000	$285,000
J Harbrow	$348,000	$337,000
G Birchall	$342,000	$332,000
J Watson	$335,000	$295,000
I Maric	$333,000	$303,000
Dany Pearce	$330,000	$300,000
A Mackie	$329,000	$289,000
L Spurr	$325,000	$305,000
P Puopolo	$313,000	$304,000
M Suckling	$310,000	$301,000
M Johnson	$309,000	$272,000
SD Thompson	$292,000	$266,000
M Baguley	$291,000	$274,000
G Ibbotson	$285,000	$277,000
M Rosa	$283,000	$266,000
J Geary	$280,000	$271,000
S Wellingham	$276,000	$268,000
S Gilbert	$274,000	$257,000
S Dempster	$269,000	$229,000
C Pedersen	$265,000	$249,000
T Dickson	$256,000	$248,000
T Varcoe	$255,000	$247,000
L Dunn	$251,000	$236,000
N Smith	$248,000	$240,000
D Mackay	$248,000	$241,000
J White	$247,000	$239,000
T Cloke	$235,000	$221,000
D Thomas	$235,000	$221,000
L Thomas	$230,000	$223,000
M Leuenberger	$228,000	$221,000
T Goldsack	$228,000	$214,000
S Butler	$221,000	$201,000
N Krakouer	$216,000	$209,000
D Morris	$212,000	$173,000
C Garland	$211,000	$204,000
S Rowe	$211,000	$205,000
S Hampson	$208,000	$202,000
Ja Kelly	$206,000	$175,000
A Monfries	$201,000	$189,000
J Giles	$197,000	$191,000
Si White	$196,000	$190,000
D Armfield	$194,000	$182,000
H Ballantyne	$189,000	$178,000
J Griffin	$184,000	$168,000
H Lumumba	$180,000	$169,000
Ma White	$173,000	$163,000
E MacKenzie	$164,000	$159,000
A Silvagni	$148,000	$144,000
T Mzungu	$143,000	$130,000
H Hocking	$109,000	$106,000

Withholding opinion for now, just presenting the stats.

Team	Current	Age Discounted
Beijing Thunder	$11,005,000	10953000
Berlin Brewers	$11,196,000	10862000
Buenos Aires Armadillos	$9,346,000	9292000
Cairo Sands	$9,779,000	9657000
Cape Town Cobras	$9,962,000	9860000
Christchurch Saints	$11,096,000	10410000
Dublin Destroyers	$11,109,000	11023000
London Royals	$10,115,000	10077000
Mexico City Suns	$10,920,000	10511000
Moscow Spetsnaz	$10,378,000	10346000
New Delhi Tigers	$11,303,000	11176000
New York Revolution	$11,153,000	10833000
Pacific Islanders	$11,816,000	11709000
PNL Reindeers	$9,824,000	9652000
Rio de Janeiro Jaguars	$11,461,000	11067000
Seoul Magpies	$10,574,000	10525000
Tokyo Samurai	$9,857,000	9835000
Toronto Wolves	$10,389,000	10272000
AVERAGE	$10,626,833	$10,447,778
AVERAGE + 5%	$11,158,175	$10,970,167
AVERAGE - 15%	$9,032,808	$8,880,611

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 04, 2017, 01:32:01 PM

looks pretty good to me, as expected no major changes

Dublin goes from 49k under the cap to 52k over the cap. So no bias for Dublin to get this going.

Mexico seem to be the biggest beneficiary 238k under cap to 459k under cap. Means they have more leaverage in trade talks.

Seoul goes from 584k under cap to 445k under cap. So no major blow to them.

Seems to be an improvement to me that Mexico now has a lower cap then Seoul. No team is massively advantaged or disadvantaged just a slight improvement.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 04, 2017, 01:48:45 PM

Age discount shouldn't apply as early as 28. Simmo, Heath Shaw, Murphy, I'm sure there are many others too who have had their best year(s) after 28. Maybe 31 year olds should attract a little discount, but maybe they don't need them if the preceeding year is going to be given extra weight. Heath Shaw is no certainty to drop again next year.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Ringo on August 04, 2017, 01:56:20 PM

Still really prefer current year rather than over 3 years. All cap rules will have flaws but think should be based on current year only with adjustments for those that do not play or play minimal games.

Also agree with MM on age discount - Most mids will be in there prime after 28 eg Danger will be 28 next year and I am sure he will not drop off so maybe age discount for players over 30.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 04, 2017, 02:00:18 PM

Lots of discussion about pricing systems that end up only 200k different. Pretty much irrelevant.

Let's talk about Nathan Vardy instead.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Ricochet on August 04, 2017, 02:06:54 PM

Quote from: meow meow on August 04, 2017, 02:00:18 PM
Lots of discussion about pricing systems that end up only 200k different. Pretty much irrelevant.

Let's talk about Nathan Vardy instead.

Are you suggesting he would be available in trade discussions?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 04, 2017, 02:18:42 PM

Quote from: Ringo on August 04, 2017, 01:56:20 PM
Still really prefer current year rather than over 3 years. All cap rules will have flaws but think should be based on current year only with adjustments for those that do not play or play minimal games.

Also agree with MM on age discount - Most mids will be in there prime after 28 eg Danger will be 28 next year and I am sure he will not drop off so maybe age discount for players over 30.

Thats what my rule is doing.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 04, 2017, 02:22:46 PM

Quote from: Ricochet on August 04, 2017, 02:06:54 PM
Quote from: meow meow on August 04, 2017, 02:00:18 PM
Lots of discussion about pricing systems that end up only 200k different. Pretty much irrelevant.

Let's talk about Nathan Vardy instead.
Are you suggesting he would be available in trade discussions?

I was thinking more along the lines of a promotion to the leadership group next year

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 04, 2017, 02:25:43 PM

Quote from: meow meow on August 04, 2017, 02:00:18 PM
Lots of discussion about pricing systems that end up only 200k different. Pretty much irrelevant.

Let's talk about Nathan Vardy instead.

The Nathan Wilson of 2016/17

Agree 28 way too low, should be 31. Age does my head in this comp. The most over exaggerated factor when talking trades. Drives me crazy

And Ringos suggestion about a bonus for loyalty is a big no sorry. Can't increase someone's value just because you haven't traded them in 5 years

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 04, 2017, 02:28:54 PM

Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 04, 2017, 02:25:43 PM
Agree 28 way too low, should be 31. Age does my head in this comp. The most over exaggerated factor when talking trades. Drives me crazy

And Ringos suggestion about a bonus for loyalty is a big no sorry. Can't increase someone's value just because you haven't traded them in 5 years

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 04, 2017, 02:31:57 PM

Quote from: meow meow on August 04, 2017, 01:48:45 PM
Age discount shouldn't apply as early as 28. Simmo, Heath Shaw, Murphy, I'm sure there are many others too who have had their best year(s) after 28. Maybe 31 year olds should attract a little discount, but maybe they don't need them if the preceeding year is going to be given extra weight. Heath Shaw is no certainty to drop again next year.

The discount would have Dangerfield as a 130 average instead of 134. its not a big deal.

S Pendlebury
T Goldstein
JP Kennedy
M Priddis
J Selwood
R Gray
H Shaw
S Mitchell
D Mundy
G Ablett
B Goddard
S Martin
L Montagna
S Mumford
K Simpson
J Lewis
N Jones
S Jacobs
M Murphy
L Franklin

13/20 of the 500k players fell. The guys who improved rose by less then the player who feel dropped by. Of the above players want to know how many had career best years? 0 out of 20

Plus its not a one sided thing. 24 25 26 27 year olds are all expected to improve, as i said this isnt discounting then its fixing things up. There is certainly a downwards trend in older player and a upwards trend in younger players. I just showed that 65% of the top 20 oldest player declined.

I think if you picked 25 and 26 year olds a majority of them would have improved.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 04, 2017, 02:36:33 PM

Quote from: Ricochet on August 04, 2017, 02:06:54 PM
Quote from: meow meow on August 04, 2017, 02:00:18 PM
Lots of discussion about pricing systems that end up only 200k different. Pretty much irrelevant.

Let's talk about Nathan Vardy instead.
Are you suggesting he would be available in trade discussions?

That's the impression I'm trying to give but in reality I'll be keeping him and I'm just taunting teams with dismal ruck stocks. I'll be selecting the only ruck worth anything in this draft with pick 7 too. Eventually I'll play an OOP ruck, but not as we know it. I'll be playing ruckmen in every spot since that's all I'm going to have on my list. M1? Sean Darcy OOP. F2? Nathan Vardy OOP. I'll play Tom Boyd at R1 even though he'll be the only player with DPP but he's my first choice ruck.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 04, 2017, 02:40:07 PM

Why the F should Danger get any discount though? He's in his absolute prime. It wouldn't amount to anything significant but it's not needed.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Ringo on August 04, 2017, 02:42:18 PM

Quote from: Nige on August 04, 2017, 02:28:54 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 04, 2017, 02:25:43 PM
Agree 28 way too low, should be 31. Age does my head in this comp. The most over exaggerated factor when talking trades. Drives me crazy

And Ringos suggestion about a bonus for loyalty is a big no sorry. Can't increase someone's value just because you haven't traded them in 5 years

Fair enough. Only suggested it to match the veterans salary discount in AFL. So maybe instead of age discounts we could have a maximum of 2 players over 30 on veterans list with an appropriate discount.
BTW liking all the discussion so far some a bit hard to get around though.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 04, 2017, 02:43:44 PM

They've scrapped the veterans discount in the AFL.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 04, 2017, 02:44:52 PM

Quote from: meow meow on August 04, 2017, 02:40:07 PM
Why the F should Danger get any discount though? He's in his absolute prime. It wouldn't amount to anything significant but it's not needed.

you pick the best player in the competition, he is an outlier and even then he is getting discounted from 134 to 130. What do you honestly think he will average next year? You could look at it as half due to decline of older player and half due to upswing of younger so really its predicting a 132 average.

You could look at it this way as younger players are getting a slight premium.

Who is more likely to improve Next year. Josh Kelly or Patrick Dangerfield?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 04, 2017, 02:49:20 PM

Danger.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: JBs-Hawks on August 04, 2017, 03:07:16 PM

Both I hope!

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Jroo on August 04, 2017, 03:17:45 PM

Bit of reading to catch up on all this :P

Do agree with Holz though in older players are a bit overvalued, when young players like Oliver clearly have more value than guys like Heath Shaw, it should represent it in the salary cap.

Also I think the current ruck OOP is fine, we don't want to overcomplicate things too much

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 04, 2017, 03:22:07 PM

Quote from: meow meow on August 04, 2017, 02:49:20 PM
Danger.

thank you for proving my point. Meow thinks Danger is more likely to improve. Given he is wrong most of the time it means Kelly more likely to improve.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Torpedo10 on August 04, 2017, 04:32:20 PM

Okay, there's been heaps of Cap Talk so I figured a fresh take on a previous idea would be good!

Tagging

1. You CANNOT tag players playing on the Interchange.
2. Defenders tag Forwards, and vice versa along with the MID on MID tag.
3. The Tagger immediately loses 20% of their score.
4. The player being tagged loses 4% for every tackle the tagger makes, that is above the number of tackles the player being tagged makes.
5. For a tag to be successful, the tagger needs to have more tackles than the player being tagged(as per Section 4) and ALSO have a positive Kick:Handball ratio.
6. For a tag to be broken, the player being tagged needs to have an equal or greater amount of tackles or for the other criteria in section 5 to not be adhered to.

Example A: Moscow select Stephen Coniglio to tag Nathan Jones of Dublin, both players are in the MID position. Coniglio scores 80, of which he immediately loses 20%. He also makes 13 tackles and has a positive K:H ratio. Jones scores 120, but only makes 5 tackles. Therefore, 4% x 8 Tackles = 32% of Jones' score is lost.

Raw Scores: Coniglio 80, Jones 120
Adjusted Scores: Coniglio 64, Jones 81.6

What do we all think?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 04, 2017, 04:48:43 PM

Have not been a fan of the tag since it was first floated

KISS comes to mind. Just my personal opinion, but just feels like something extra just for the sake adding something new

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Ringo on August 04, 2017, 04:58:54 PM

Not a fan of tagging either given very few teams tag these days.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 04, 2017, 05:02:37 PM

Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 04, 2017, 04:48:43 PM
Have not been a fan of the tag since it was first floated

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 04, 2017, 05:12:06 PM

Quote from: Nige on August 04, 2017, 05:02:37 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 04, 2017, 04:48:43 PM
Have not been a fan of the tag since it was first floated

got to agree here,

there just isn't a fair way to do it and it overly complicates things.

The only way it could work is a huge penalty so like a tagger instantly loses 20% of their score and the tagged player loses 10% so if you have a 50 spud that drops you to 40. If your tagging Danger and he pumps out a 150 then he drops to 135 so a +5.

thats the only way it works, I dont like it but just floating it for discussion.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 04, 2017, 05:16:07 PM

... what if we applied it, after the fact?

Like, post AFL game, if a player has been tagged effectively, normally they are around the bottom few contributors.

It could just be MID only, and as Torp says, say the tagger loses 20% straight off the bat, and 40% is taken off the lowest scoring mid (from M1-M4)?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 04, 2017, 05:16:59 PM

Please, don't.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 04, 2017, 05:23:07 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 04, 2017, 05:16:07 PM
... what if we applied it, after the fact?

Like, post AFL game, if a player has been tagged effectively, normally they are around the bottom few contributors.

It could just be MID only, and as Torp says, say the tagger loses 20% straight off the bat, and 40% is taken off the lowest scoring mid (from M1-M4)?

Thats a double whammy though. They get tagged in real life, then to tag them again seems silly.

I think the whole tagging thing off the bat is a little silly, its fantasy you dont affected the other team. Thats the whole point of fantasy.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 04, 2017, 05:39:59 PM

Quote from: Nige on August 04, 2017, 05:02:37 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 04, 2017, 04:48:43 PM
Have not been a fan of the tag since it was first floated

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 04, 2017, 05:51:55 PM

The only way i see a tag working is if you use raw numbers.

So say you put a player as a tagger they lose 30% of their score but then your opponent loses 20 points.

so if your tagging player puts up a 70 then he drops to 49 so 21 points lost. and opponent loses 20.

but if your tagger is a spud and puts up 50 then he loses 15 points and the opponent loses 20 so your + 5.

Its a small bonus for people who are playing spuds who they think will lose to 70.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 04, 2017, 06:16:18 PM

so in summary.

1. Ruck OOP - people dont like it wont get up

2. Cap Changes: make total sense and people seem to agree with the logic. Might fail as people dont like change despite it being hte obvious move.

3. Tagging - wont get up and too confusing.

4. Leadership Group - some dont like it but it will probably stay for some weird reason.

adding a 5th one: closing Loopholes.

a. You cant name a player not in the best 25 on field (closes the emg loophole)
b. you cant name a player not in the best 22 as a captain (closes the captain loophole)

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 04, 2017, 07:03:47 PM

6. Sunday bonus :P

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 04, 2017, 07:08:45 PM

7. Previous players automatically back on their old list for no cost. If Rance quit to do God stuff for a year then came back why should Holz have to pay for his own player?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 04, 2017, 07:15:58 PM

8. Do we really want HGA during the season? It's nice to win purely because you were the home team, but sucks on the flipside. If the suckiness outweighs the goodness is it beneficial to the game? It should still apply during finals since the higher teams earned that right and advantage.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 04, 2017, 07:20:55 PM

9. Punish Moscow if Torp keeps naming 4 emergencies?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Torpedo10 on August 04, 2017, 07:23:21 PM

Quote from: meow meow on August 04, 2017, 07:20:55 PM
9. Punish Moscow if Torp keeps naming 4 emergencies?

I get overexcited about having two playing ruckmen. ;)

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 04, 2017, 08:17:49 PM

Quote from: Holz on August 04, 2017, 06:16:18 PM
so in summary.

1. Ruck OOP - people dont like it wont get up

2. Cap Changes: make total sense and people seem to agree with the logic. Might fail as people dont like change despite it being hte obvious move.

Don't assume the opinions of those not speaking up :P it's only really about 4-5 doin all the talkin

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 04, 2017, 08:21:59 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 04, 2017, 08:17:49 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 04, 2017, 06:16:18 PM
so in summary.

1. Ruck OOP - people dont like it wont get up

2. Cap Changes: make total sense and people seem to agree with the logic. Might fail as people dont like change despite it being hte obvious move.

Don't assume the opinions of those not speaking up :P it's only really about 4-5 doin all the talkin

I know its the people who dont voice their opinion who normally vote no in force.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 04, 2017, 08:22:55 PM

But again, really pleased with the discussion so far :)

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 04, 2017, 08:26:21 PM

10. Penalise coaches that don't contribute to discussion.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: JBs-Hawks on August 04, 2017, 08:28:40 PM

So we want to change the cap so it disadvantages people that have drafted good youngsters that have broken out

But we don't want to change the ruck rule because it disadvantages people who have drafted rucks?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 04, 2017, 08:40:28 PM

Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 04, 2017, 08:28:40 PM
So we want to change the cap so it disadvantages people that have drafted good youngsters that have broken out

But we don't want to change the ruck rule because it disadvantages people who have drafted rucks?

It doesnt disadvantage you it takes away your cap advantage. You already benefit from getting guns added to your team why then should you get an advantage by having 111 average players cheaper then 95 average players.

The ruck rule is silly as what about a back rule or a forward rule or a mid rule?

All i want is a cap that reflects a players true value. Everybody knows that Kelly is better then shaw.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: JBs-Hawks on August 04, 2017, 08:48:25 PM

Quote from: Holz on August 04, 2017, 08:40:28 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 04, 2017, 08:28:40 PM
So we want to change the cap so it disadvantages people that have drafted good youngsters that have broken out

But we don't want to change the ruck rule because it disadvantages people who have drafted rucks?

It doesnt disadvantage you it takes away your cap advantage. You already benefit from getting guns added to your team why then should you get an advantage by having 111 average players cheaper then 95 average players.

The ruck rule is silly as what about a back rule or a forward rule or a mid rule?

All i want is a cap that reflects a players true value. Everybody knows that Kelly is better then shaw.

And how many players that have breakout year's have much slower years the following year?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 04, 2017, 08:54:36 PM

Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 04, 2017, 08:48:25 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 04, 2017, 08:40:28 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 04, 2017, 08:28:40 PM
So we want to change the cap so it disadvantages people that have drafted good youngsters that have broken out

But we don't want to change the ruck rule because it disadvantages people who have drafted rucks?

It doesnt disadvantage you it takes away your cap advantage. You already benefit from getting guns added to your team why then should you get an advantage by having 111 average players cheaper then 95 average players.

The ruck rule is silly as what about a back rule or a forward rule or a mid rule?

All i want is a cap that reflects a players true value. Everybody knows that Kelly is better then shaw.

And how many players that have breakout year's have much slower years the following year?

Id say less then players who decline after playing 18+ games and bounce back.

Honestly who do you think will average more next year Kelly or Shaw?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: JBs-Hawks on August 04, 2017, 08:57:44 PM

Quote from: Holz on August 04, 2017, 08:54:36 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 04, 2017, 08:48:25 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 04, 2017, 08:40:28 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 04, 2017, 08:28:40 PM
So we want to change the cap so it disadvantages people that have drafted good youngsters that have broken out

But we don't want to change the ruck rule because it disadvantages people who have drafted rucks?

It doesnt disadvantage you it takes away your cap advantage. You already benefit from getting guns added to your team why then should you get an advantage by having 111 average players cheaper then 95 average players.

The ruck rule is silly as what about a back rule or a forward rule or a mid rule?

All i want is a cap that reflects a players true value. Everybody knows that Kelly is better then shaw.

And how many players that have breakout year's have much slower years the following year?

Id say less then players who decline after playing 18+ games and bounce back.

Honestly who do you think will average more next year Kelly or Shaw?

Who do we think averages more next year, the top 50 averaging 22 and unders from this year or the top 50 averaging 28yo and overs?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Adamant on August 04, 2017, 08:59:30 PM

Quote from: meow meow on August 04, 2017, 01:48:45 PM
Age discount shouldn't apply as early as 28. Simmo, Heath Shaw, Murphy, I'm sure there are many others too who have had their best year(s) after 28. Maybe 31 year olds should attract a little discount, but maybe they don't need them if the preceeding year is going to be given extra weight. Heath Shaw is no certainty to drop again next year.

Just a few more examples of players who have been on a decline for three or more seasons, only to bounce back late in their career.

Nick Riewoldt
30yo: 105.1 > 31: 91.8 > 32: 90.7 > 33: 100.4

Leigh Montagna
25: 121.5 > 26: 114.8 > 27: 100.7 > 28: 99.1 > 29: 114.7

Matthew Boyd
28: 115.5 > 29: 112.8 > 30: 104 > 31: 97.6 > 32: 103.3

Matthew Richardson
30: 99 > 31: 97.3 > 32: 82.3 > 33: 97.3

James Kelly
28: 103.5 > 29: 90.8 > 30: 88.8 > 31: 75.7 > 32: 95.8

Sam Mitchell
28: 113.4 > 29: 110.7 > 30: 104.2 > 31: 91.1 > 32: 108.7

Scott Thompson
28: 110.7 > 29: 110.1 > 30: 98.3 > 31: 93.6 > 32: 102.5

Corey Enright
28: 98.1 > 29: 96.4 > 30: 93.9 > 31: 93.9 > 32: 89 > 33: 95.3

Lenny Hayes
29: 118.5 > 30: 103.4 > 31: 86.5 > 32: 102.3

Dane Swan
28: 126.3 > 29: 117.5 > 30: 86.4 > 31: 105.8

There are plenty of others who have declined for two seasons before bouncing back too. My personal favourite is Shane Tuck who went a massive 115.1 (career best) in his second last season at the age of 31. Shaw could go back to a 100 average for all we know.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 04, 2017, 09:26:15 PM

McVeigh will average 120 next year based on his form lately. I don't want your stinkin' discount, I'll be happy to just own him.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Adamant on August 04, 2017, 09:28:47 PM

I'd like to see the sub rule scrapped. I like the luck/unpredictability factor when a player goes down early and feel like getting a replacement is a bit soft. I also think it's a bit flawed how in one scenario, you could have a player get injured 2 minutes before HT for a score of 40 and get a ton from your emergency, but if you get injured 2 minutes into the third quarter you've gotta cop it.

A total of 4 minutes of gametime could be a 60 point difference.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Ricochet on August 04, 2017, 10:01:38 PM

Quote from: Adamant on August 04, 2017, 09:28:47 PM
I'd like to see the sub rule scrapped. I like the luck/unpredictability factor when a player goes down early and feel like getting a replacement is a bit soft. I also think it's a bit flawed how in one scenario, you could have a player get injured 2 minutes before HT for a score of 40 and get a ton from your emergency, but if you get injured 2 minutes into the third quarter you've gotta cop it.

A total of 4 minutes of gametime could be a 60 point difference.

And that the sub rule no longer exists in AFL too

I reckon get rid of it too

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 04, 2017, 10:03:36 PM

Purps might have a stat for how often it's happened, but I can't imagine it's too high. I don't think we'll be worse off without it.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 04, 2017, 10:07:32 PM

I like the sub rule personally. It feels like you get kinda cheated if you have to cop an injured player IMO

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 04, 2017, 10:08:00 PM

Quote from: Nige on August 04, 2017, 10:03:36 PM
Purps might have a stat for how often it's happened, but I can't imagine it's too high. I don't think we'll be worse off without it.

The amount of subs? Normally like 3 or so per week if I had to guess. Not sure how many close to HT though

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 04, 2017, 10:18:16 PM

Why not complicate the shower out of it?

injured in the 2nd and end up playing 35% gametime.

players play an average of 85% gametime.

take that players score from the 35% gametime and add 50% of the total emergency score to get the 85% gametime.

simple.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 04, 2017, 10:23:04 PM

wait, what if the emergency plays 80 tog? hmm 50% of that would only be another 40% gametime taking the total to just 75. better complicate it some more.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 04, 2017, 10:28:28 PM

Or maybe the emg replaces with 100% of their first half score, but then it gets good. If your player was injured in the 2nd quarter, they get 100% of their 3rd quarter score and 90% of their 4th quarter score due to rotation issues. But if your player was injured in the 1st quarter, then due to rotation issues, they get 90% of their 3rd quarter score and 80% of their 4th quarter score.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 04, 2017, 10:29:58 PM

I like the sub rule if a player is out in afl you still have 18 on the field. In worlds it would be 14 instead of 15. Not 18 on field and just 3 on the bench

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 04, 2017, 11:11:28 PM

Holz has a point.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 05, 2017, 11:23:39 AM

Quote from: meow meow on August 04, 2017, 11:11:28 PM
Holz has a point.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Adamant on August 05, 2017, 11:53:05 AM

Well if a player goes down in the AFL that team will be down a rotation which can have a pretty big effect. With the sub rule you can actually benefit from it in WXVs.

I know I would have felt pretty cheated if I lost last week knowing Christchurch didn't select Wells but was able to get his 130 because Blakely got injured in the second quarter, but I had to cop Kreuzer's score because he got injured in the third (not that I had a ruck emergency but that's besides the point).

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Ringo on August 05, 2017, 01:40:55 PM

Maybe a solution could be as follows means a little bit of work.

If Player x gets injured with say 35% TOG his score counts
Replaced by Player Y Then 65% of Players Y score is added to bring to 100%

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 05, 2017, 02:24:30 PM

10. Priority picks

I think getting picks 1 and 2 is too much. If you look at the teams to receive the start of round 1 picks and how quickly they've bounced back you'll see that those picks do almost too much. Most of the time when a team sucks it's purely because of injury, something that is rectified by the time the next season rolls around. I think it should be a mid first round pick (after the last team to not make finals) after the second pathetic season, then if they're still horrible in year 3 they can get the start of round 1 priority pick.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Toga on August 05, 2017, 06:25:49 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 04, 2017, 10:07:32 PM
I like the sub rule personally. It feels like you get kinda cheated if you have to cop an injured player IMO

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: upthemaidens on August 06, 2017, 07:33:51 AM

Why not just base the cost of a player by their exact price in SC? Come up with a salary cap that allows for all AFL players to be on a club list.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 06, 2017, 08:23:01 AM

Quote from: upthemaidens on August 06, 2017, 07:33:51 AM
Why not just base the cost of a player by their exact price in SC? Come up with a salary cap that allows for all AFL players to be on a club list.

Because 2 worthless spuds averaging 55 cost as much as Bont. Clearly Marcus has more value than them in WXV.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: upthemaidens on August 06, 2017, 10:31:14 AM

Quote from: meow meow on August 06, 2017, 08:23:01 AM
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 06, 2017, 07:33:51 AM
Why not just base the cost of a player by their exact price in SC? Come up with a salary cap that allows for all AFL players to be on a club list.

Because 2 worthless spuds averaging 55 cost as much as Bont. Clearly Marcus has more value than them in WXV.

But the price of a player doesn't necessarily have to represent their actual value.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 06, 2017, 11:28:18 AM

Quote from: upthemaidens on August 06, 2017, 10:31:14 AM
Quote from: meow meow on August 06, 2017, 08:23:01 AM
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 06, 2017, 07:33:51 AM
Why not just base the cost of a player by their exact price in SC? Come up with a salary cap that allows for all AFL players to be on a club list.

Because 2 worthless spuds averaging 55 cost as much as Bont. Clearly Marcus has more value than them in WXV.
But the price of a player doesn't necessarily have to represent their actual value.

Isn't that the whole point...?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: upthemaidens on August 06, 2017, 11:54:12 AM

Quote from: GoLions on August 06, 2017, 11:28:18 AM
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 06, 2017, 10:31:14 AM
Quote from: meow meow on August 06, 2017, 08:23:01 AM
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 06, 2017, 07:33:51 AM
Why not just base the cost of a player by their exact price in SC? Come up with a salary cap that allows for all AFL players to be on a club list.

Because 2 worthless spuds averaging 55 cost as much as Bont. Clearly Marcus has more value than them in WXV.
But the price of a player doesn't necessarily have to represent their actual value.
Isn't that the whole point...?

I would of thought the salary cap/prices are to help avoid clubs becoming over powered and keeping the Comp relatively even.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 06, 2017, 12:00:35 PM

Quote from: upthemaidens on August 06, 2017, 11:54:12 AM
Quote from: GoLions on August 06, 2017, 11:28:18 AM
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 06, 2017, 10:31:14 AM
Quote from: meow meow on August 06, 2017, 08:23:01 AM
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 06, 2017, 07:33:51 AM
Why not just base the cost of a player by their exact price in SC? Come up with a salary cap that allows for all AFL players to be on a club list.

Because 2 worthless spuds averaging 55 cost as much as Bont. Clearly Marcus has more value than them in WXV.
But the price of a player doesn't necessarily have to represent their actual value.
Isn't that the whole point...?
I would of thought the salary cap/prices are to help avoid clubs becoming over powered and keeping the Comp relatively even.

Yes, so if a player is very good, and having a lot of them would make you overpowered, the salary cap would prevent that...

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 06, 2017, 12:01:06 PM

#scrapthecap

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: upthemaidens on August 06, 2017, 12:27:55 PM

Quote from: GoLions on August 06, 2017, 12:00:35 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 06, 2017, 11:54:12 AM
Quote from: GoLions on August 06, 2017, 11:28:18 AM
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 06, 2017, 10:31:14 AM
Quote from: meow meow on August 06, 2017, 08:23:01 AM
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 06, 2017, 07:33:51 AM
Why not just base the cost of a player by their exact price in SC? Come up with a salary cap that allows for all AFL players to be on a club list.

Because 2 worthless spuds averaging 55 cost as much as Bont. Clearly Marcus has more value than them in WXV.
But the price of a player doesn't necessarily have to represent their actual value.
Isn't that the whole point...?
I would of thought the salary cap/prices are to help avoid clubs becoming over powered and keeping the Comp relatively even.
Yes, so if a player is very good, and having a lot of them would make you overpowered, the salary cap would prevent that...

The AFL have a salary Cap for a reason. The salary of a player in real life doesn't always reflect that players actual value.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 06, 2017, 12:34:48 PM

You share my exact view and attitude towards the cap UTM.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 06, 2017, 12:35:46 PM

(https://images.gr-assets.com/hostedimages/1404767393ra/10279996.gif)

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 06, 2017, 12:54:57 PM

If a team has 20 stars and 20 draftees, while another team has 40 average players, and the two lists are worth the same how does that keep the comp even? A team full of 75 average players with 25 more of the same in the reserves vs 15 of the best with a handful of good players and 20 nothings in the reserves doesn't look even to me. Unless the reserves competition counts as much as the seniors?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: upthemaidens on August 06, 2017, 01:00:07 PM

Quote from: meow meow on August 06, 2017, 12:54:57 PM
If a team has 20 stars and 20 draftees, while another team has 40 average players, and the two lists are worth the same how does that keep the comp even? A team full of 75 average players with 25 more of the same in the reserves vs 15 of the best with a handful of good players and 20 nothings in the reserves doesn't look even to me. Unless the reserves competition counts as much as the seniors?

So don't fill your team full of 75 averaging players then.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 06, 2017, 01:00:42 PM

To clarify, IMO, salaries should be a reflection of scoring power and scoring relevancy, not trade value.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: upthemaidens on August 06, 2017, 01:10:03 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 06, 2017, 01:00:42 PM
To clarify, IMO, salaries should be a reflection of scoring power and scoring relevancy, not trade value.

Could pretty much just base it off the players actual averages.
The Cap could be something like 3000 and your squad needs to add up to less. Rookies given a minimum starting average.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 06, 2017, 01:15:40 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 06, 2017, 01:00:42 PM
To clarify, IMO, salaries should be a reflection of scoring power and scoring relevancy, not trade value.

So you agree that 2 irrelevant 55 average players should cost a small fraction of a 110 average star. Good. In SC pricing they're worth the same so we cannot go off those raw prices.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 06, 2017, 01:17:32 PM

Quote from: upthemaidens on August 06, 2017, 01:10:03 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 06, 2017, 01:00:42 PM
To clarify, IMO, salaries should be a reflection of scoring power and scoring relevancy, not trade value.
Could pretty much just base it off the players actual averages.
The Cap could be something like 3000 and your squad needs to add up to less. Rookies given a minimum starting average.

Do you really think 2 Nathan Browns should cost as much as Tom Mitchell in the salary cap? Really?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 06, 2017, 01:20:41 PM

2 Jed Andersons cost as much as Bont under that system. Sounds reasonable.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 06, 2017, 01:33:32 PM

Quote from: meow meow on August 06, 2017, 01:15:40 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 06, 2017, 01:00:42 PM
To clarify, IMO, salaries should be a reflection of scoring power and scoring relevancy, not trade value.

So you agree that 2 irrelevant 55 average players should cost a small fraction of a 110 average star. Good. In SC pricing they're worth the same so we cannot go off those raw prices.

Correct. I didn't say I wanted SC prices, just that I agreed with the view/attitude that the price of a player doesn't necessarily have to represent their actual value.

SC prices are garbo IMO.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: upthemaidens on August 06, 2017, 01:38:01 PM

Quote from: meow meow on August 06, 2017, 01:17:32 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 06, 2017, 01:10:03 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 06, 2017, 01:00:42 PM
To clarify, IMO, salaries should be a reflection of scoring power and scoring relevancy, not trade value.
Could pretty much just base it off the players actual averages.
The Cap could be something like 3000 and your squad needs to add up to less. Rookies given a minimum starting average.

Do you really think 2 Nathan Browns should cost as much as Tom Mitchell in the salary cap? Really?

It doesn't matter, the price and value don't need to match up.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 06, 2017, 02:22:19 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 06, 2017, 01:00:42 PM
To clarify, IMO, salaries should be a reflection of scoring power and scoring relevancy, not trade value.

Thats fine if the case.

But thats why my rule changes need to go through.

Kelly should be 111and shaw 85 as that reflects their scoring power not 95 for kelly and 97 for shaw.

I dont think anyone in this comp would bet that shaw averages more then kelly next year.

And if we are talking this year then the cheaper guy averages 26 more points

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: JBs-Hawks on August 06, 2017, 02:47:44 PM

Quote from: Holz on August 06, 2017, 02:22:19 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 06, 2017, 01:00:42 PM
To clarify, IMO, salaries should be a reflection of scoring power and scoring relevancy, not trade value.

Thats fine if the case.

But thats why my rule changes need to go through.

Kelly should be 111and shaw 85 as that reflects their scoring power not 95 for kelly and 97 for shaw.

I dont think anyone in this comp would bet that shaw averages more then kelly next year.

And if we are talking this year then the cheaper guy averages 26 more points

How about reflect with a bigger sample size than 2

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 06, 2017, 03:08:19 PM

11. Utilities.

If you want to make the competition even more even maybe we should limit it to being able to play only one midfielder in the utility position. Everyone has the 6 mid dream but it rarely happens anyway, usually some pretender like Plowman sneaks in there. It may help even things up a tad, not that the comp really needs anything else since it's already spot on. I'm just looking for someone to trade me a mid.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Torpedo10 on August 06, 2017, 03:09:05 PM

Quote from: meow meow on August 06, 2017, 03:08:19 PM
11. Utilities.

If you want to make the competition even more even maybe we should limit it to being able to play only one midfielder in the utility position. Everyone has the 6 mid dream but it rarely happens anyway, usually some pretender like Plowman sneaks in there. It may help even things up a tad, not that the comp really needs anything else since it's already spot on. I'm just looking for someone to trade me a mid.

I fully support this motion.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 06, 2017, 03:14:33 PM

Quote from: Torpedo10 on August 06, 2017, 03:09:05 PM
Quote from: meow meow on August 06, 2017, 03:08:19 PM
11. Utilities.

If you want to make the competition even more even maybe we should limit it to being able to play only one midfielder in the utility position. Everyone has the 6 mid dream but it rarely happens anyway, usually some pretender like Plowman sneaks in there. It may help even things up a tad, not that the comp really needs anything else since it's already spot on. I'm just looking for someone to trade me a mid.
I fully support this motion.

Add spice, I like it.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: iZander on August 06, 2017, 03:16:00 PM

Quote from: meow meow on August 06, 2017, 03:08:19 PM
11. Utilities.

If you want to make the competition even more even maybe we should limit it to being able to play only one midfielder in the utility position. Everyone has the 6 mid dream but it rarely happens anyway, usually some pretender like Plowman sneaks in there. It may help even things up a tad, not that the comp really needs anything else since it's already spot on. I'm just looking for someone to trade me a mid.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Ringo on August 06, 2017, 03:28:52 PM

Quote from: Torpedo10 on August 06, 2017, 03:09:05 PM
Quote from: meow meow on August 06, 2017, 03:08:19 PM
11. Utilities.

If you want to make the competition even more even maybe we should limit it to being able to play only one midfielder in the utility position. Everyone has the 6 mid dream but it rarely happens anyway, usually some pretender like Plowman sneaks in there. It may help even things up a tad, not that the comp really needs anything else since it's already spot on. I'm just looking for someone to trade me a mid.
I fully support this motion.

Further support and I need mids too so I can play one there as well.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 06, 2017, 03:29:06 PM

Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 06, 2017, 02:47:44 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 06, 2017, 02:22:19 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 06, 2017, 01:00:42 PM
To clarify, IMO, salaries should be a reflection of scoring power and scoring relevancy, not trade value.

Thats fine if the case.

But thats why my rule changes need to go through.

Kelly should be 111and shaw 85 as that reflects their scoring power not 95 for kelly and 97 for shaw.

I dont think anyone in this comp would bet that shaw averages more then kelly next year.

And if we are talking this year then the cheaper guy averages 26 more points

How about reflect with a bigger sample size than 2

I have can you find a case where the other cap is superior?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: JBs-Hawks on August 06, 2017, 03:30:16 PM

Quote from: Holz on August 06, 2017, 03:29:06 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 06, 2017, 02:47:44 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 06, 2017, 02:22:19 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 06, 2017, 01:00:42 PM
To clarify, IMO, salaries should be a reflection of scoring power and scoring relevancy, not trade value.

Thats fine if the case.

But thats why my rule changes need to go through.

Kelly should be 111and shaw 85 as that reflects their scoring power not 95 for kelly and 97 for shaw.

I dont think anyone in this comp would bet that shaw averages more then kelly next year.

And if we are talking this year then the cheaper guy averages 26 more points

How about reflect with a bigger sample size than 2

I have can you find a case where the other cap is superior?

The 2017 season, the most even season yet.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 06, 2017, 03:38:28 PM

Quote from: meow meow on August 06, 2017, 03:08:19 PM
11. Utilities.

If you want to make the competition even more even maybe we should limit it to being able to play only one midfielder in the utility position. Everyone has the 6 mid dream but it rarely happens anyway, usually some pretender like Plowman sneaks in there. It may help even things up a tad, not that the comp really needs anything else since it's already spot on. I'm just looking for someone to trade me a mid.

DPP mids should be allowed.

And we'd need to take it to 4 emergencies since the mid emg would be rendered useless on occasion.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 06, 2017, 03:43:40 PM

12. WXV scores

Am I the only one who is bothered by a team playing poorly and scoring 120 points? I want the multiplier changed. I also want the draw to be in play. If it's 1302 vs 1301 that's 130 vs 130 in WXV and should be a draw!

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Torpedo10 on August 06, 2017, 09:16:28 PM

Quote from: meow meow on August 06, 2017, 03:43:40 PM
12. WXV scores

Am I the only one who is bothered by a team playing poorly and scoring 120 points? I want the multiplier changed. I also want the draw to be in play. If it's 1302 vs 1301 that's 130 vs 130 in WXV and should be a draw!

Do you not remember the 2012 Preliminary Final between the Swedish Metal and the Spanish Stallions?

Do not ruin the competition. :P

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 06, 2017, 10:03:18 PM

Quote from: meow meow on August 06, 2017, 03:43:40 PM
12. WXV scores

Am I the only one who is bothered by a team playing poorly and scoring 120 points? I want the multiplier changed. I also want the draw to be in play. If it's 1302 vs 1301 that's 130 vs 130 in WXV and should be a draw!

An interesting idea, purely for dramatic purposes.

But really, the team that scores the most should win.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Hellopplz on August 07, 2017, 12:07:04 AM

Quote from: Torpedo10 on August 06, 2017, 09:16:28 PM
Quote from: meow meow on August 06, 2017, 03:43:40 PM
12. WXV scores

Am I the only one who is bothered by a team playing poorly and scoring 120 points? I want the multiplier changed. I also want the draw to be in play. If it's 1302 vs 1301 that's 130 vs 130 in WXV and should be a draw!
Do you not remember the 2012 Preliminary Final between the Swedish Metal and the Spanish Stallions?

Do not ruin the competition. :P

Such a shame that is the wrong competition :P.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 07, 2017, 12:29:46 PM

ok on feed back from the coaches my age discount will be changed from 28 to 30.

even though 28 was taken not only because players decline at that age (in my opinion and research) but becasue they are very unlikely to improve.

Its an important improvement and its better to get the rule through rather then not.

for players 30 or over they get a 3% discount.

This is honesly a little too late in their careers and probably too small a discount as its really 1.5% declining and 1.5 other player increasing but needs to get passed.

The way it would work is if lids averaged 75 for this year. Ossie Formual has him at a 89 average, My formula has him at a 96 average. But with the 6% discount he goes down to 90 so thats basically ossies average anyway.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 07, 2017, 12:38:47 PM

I'm going to suggest something which might be a bit contentious, but I cannot stress enough that this has nothing to do with each individual and their character - there is nothing personal or malice, it is purely based on...

12. Participation

What makes WXV the best XV is it's people. There's no doubt this is the most attractive and active XV because of the people involved. There is constant discussion all year around and because of most of the coaches commitment we have an excellent and very even comp

I do think however, some changes in personal are required to ensure that WXV continues to prosper moving forward and I'd like to see more participation from more coaches

As I understand it, we currently have a process on how we vote new coaches into WXV, but what about the opposite? It won't take a genius to figure out the sort of teams I am referring to, but we have several coaches/teams who are barely ever around and hardly ever contribute to discussions, whether they be general banter or about important things like rule changes and reviews

We have so much going on here, and it's the same majority who all contribute to make this such a great comp but it's the minority who don't bring much, if anything at all that I think needs to change

Naming your team every week, and nothing more is not enough to maintain a coaches position in WXV, especially when we have several people on FF who are chomping at the bit to get a coaching gig here

Furthermore, if you cannot make yourself available regularly, especially during the trade period than again you are hindering the competition and not participating enough. I get it, we all have lives and are busy, and that's completely fine but if you don't have the time to engage in regular trade talks, weekly round discussions etc then I really don't think I am being out of line by suggesting you shouldn't be a coach anymore

It can't be a surprise to see that teams with active coaches are improving every year, while teams with inactive coaches continue to struggle and get nowhere.

So what is the actual rule I am suggesting? If we as coaches vote on who will enter WXV, then we should also have a yearly review and cast a vote if we think there is a coach who should no longer be in WXV

It's not like I'm asking for a lot. In order to continue making WXV the number 1 XV we need to continue to have coaches who give 100% and make themselves available regularly. You don't need to spend hours a day here, heck you don't need to be here every day but you do need to be here often enough to engage and respond during trade period, and even more importantly just regularly engage in discussion and simply participate :)

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 07, 2017, 01:24:11 PM

I'm pretty active and I don't see much improvement happening. 11th then 11th with a team full of geriatrics. Maybe I should be fired.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 07, 2017, 01:33:19 PM

Whilst be no meaning to distract from RD's interesting thoughts (will withhold opinion for now though)...

Just to give everyone an idea of the changes Holz' is proposing:

(have updated prices to include AFL Round 20)

Players affected

Player	Age (Today)	Old Price	Discounted Price
M Priddis	32	$670,000	$630,000
H Shaw	31	$595,000	$577,000
S Mitchell	34	$588,000	$517,000
D Mundy	32	$587,000	$552,000
G Ablett	33	$571,000	$520,000
B Goddard	32	$563,000	$529,000
L Montagna	33	$558,000	$508,000
S Mumford	31	$559,000	$543,000
K Simpson	33	$548,000	$498,000
J Lewis	31	$543,000	$527,000
M Boyd	34	$488,000	$429,000
N Riewoldt	34	$483,000	$425,000
S Burgoyne	34	$475,000	$418,000
A Sandilands	34	$474,000	$417,000
B Vince	31	$469,000	$455,000
L Hodge	33	$451,000	$410,000
L Picken	31	$438,000	$425,000
J McVeigh	32	$442,000	$416,000
S Thompson	34	$415,000	$365,000
R Griffen	31	$390,000	$378,000
J Gibson	33	$387,000	$353,000
J Waite	34	$385,000	$339,000
B Stanton	31	$381,000	$369,000
M Rischitelli	31	$370,000	$359,000
S Johnson	34	$363,000	$319,000
D Wells	32	$354,000	$333,000
H Taylor	31	$361,000	$350,000
R Murphy	35	$355,000	$302,000
H Grundy	31	$352,000	$341,000
D Petrie	34	$348,000	$306,000
J Watson	32	$328,000	$308,000
I Maric	31	$331,000	$321,000
Dany Pearce	31	$327,000	$317,000
A Mackie	33	$329,000	$300,000
M Johnson	32	$307,000	$289,000
SD Thompson	31	$291,000	$283,000
S Dempster	33	$268,000	$243,000
T Lonergan	33	$239,000	$218,000
S Butler	31	$219,000	$213,000
D Morris	34	$210,000	$185,000
Ja Kelly	33	$205,000	$187,000
J Griffin	31	$187,000	$181,000
J Patfull	32	$163,000	$153,000
T Mzungu	31	$142,000	$138,000
Z Dawson	31	$125,000	$121,000

Team Cap effects

Team	Current	Age Discounted
Beijing Thunder	$11,026,000	11,015,000
Berlin Brewers	$11,177,000	11,009,000
Buenos Aires Armadillos	$9,365,000	9,359,000
Cairo Sands	$9,763,000	9,722,000
Cape Town Cobras	$9,978,000	9,962,000
Christchurch Saints	$11,108,000	10,701,000
Dublin Destroyers	$11,188,000	11,188,000
London Royals	$10,102,000	10,091,000
Mexico City Suns	$10,905,000	10,733,000
Moscow Spetsnaz	$10,416,000	10,416,000
New Delhi Tigers	$11,309,000	11,309,000
New York Revolution	$11,147,000	11,062,000
Pacific Islanders	$11,831,000	11,820,000
PNL Reindeers	$9,842,000	9,761,000
Rio de Janeiro Jaguars	$11,445,000	11,243,000
Seoul Magpies	$10,591,000	10,583,000
Tokyo Samurai	$9,860,000	9,860,000
Toronto Wolves	$10,453,000	10,440,000
AVERAGE	$10,639,222	$10,570,778
AVERAGE + 5%	$11,171,183	$11,099,317
AVERAGE - 15%	$9,043,339	$8,985,161

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 07, 2017, 01:35:22 PM

Oh, was that supposed to be players that were also 30 years old, or just older than that?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Ringo on August 07, 2017, 01:35:39 PM

Has some merit RD but not all coaches are the "bantering" type. Some coaches really enjoy it but others just sit back may be as a result of having teams across the various competitions.

Additional task for Purps but maybe at at the end of each season he does a review on all coaches and publishes it. Similar to Football Department reviews clubs undertake.

Like what you are trying to achieve though but Worlds will always be the premier competition as it was the first one established.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 07, 2017, 01:41:29 PM

Looks pretty irrelevant.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 07, 2017, 01:45:43 PM

Quote from: meow meow on August 07, 2017, 01:41:29 PM
Looks pretty irrelevant.

Yeah if that's the only thing that changes in the cap, there's not much point. Just drags the average cap down, and hence the max and min, so the impact of the older guys on your cap doesn't really change. If there was also an inflation type rule for the younger kids then it'd become relevant, but I don't think I'd support that (but happy for Holz to suggest something there :P).

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 07, 2017, 02:01:30 PM

Quote from: GoLions on August 07, 2017, 01:45:43 PM
Quote from: meow meow on August 07, 2017, 01:41:29 PM
Looks pretty irrelevant.
Yeah if that's the only thing that changes in the cap, there's not much point. Just drags the average cap down, and hence the max and min, so the impact of the older guys on your cap doesn't really change. If there was also an inflation type rule for the younger kids then it'd become relevant, but I don't think I'd support that (but happy for Holz to suggest something there :P).

I'd think that it would basically be changing for the sake of changing if it's that insignificant.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 07, 2017, 02:07:56 PM

Quote from: GoLions on August 07, 2017, 01:45:43 PM
Quote from: meow meow on August 07, 2017, 01:41:29 PM
Looks pretty irrelevant.
Yeah if that's the only thing that changes in the cap, there's not much point. Just drags the average cap down, and hence the max and min, so the impact of the older guys on your cap doesn't really change. If there was also an inflation type rule for the younger kids then it'd become relevant, but I don't think I'd support that (but happy for Holz to suggest something there :P).

its not the only change.

its the secondary change.

Mr cap changes was.

1. Players averages should be allocated the following way.

18+ games: 100% of the current season is their average
11-17 games: 50% of the current average 30% of last years and 20% of the year before
6-10 games: 35% of the current average 40% of last years and 25% of the year before
5 or under: 20% of the current average 50% of last years and 30% of the year before.
0 games: 60% of last year and 40% of the year before.

At the moment i believe it is 50% 25% 25% regardless of how many games played. Thats why Kelly is priced at 95 even though he averaged 111 and Heath Shaw is priced at 97 even though he only averages 85.

2. I wanted a 3% from 28 years or older, but people werent happy with it. To make it clear. If you discount players 28 or over you are also slightly inflating players 27 or under let me explain this clearly.

If the players 28 or over become slightly cheaper then the cap will fall, which means younger players becomes slightly more expensive. I wanted it 28 years as thats when players dont change or decrease in average typically. Players 27 or under likely improve and the 3% per year over 28 makes this happen.

Yes its a small change but when implemented with the 1st rule then it makes the cap much more effective in valuing players.

I think it very clear how the major cap change affect declining players and players who have broken out. But another big one is injured players.

Say Deledio only average 65 because he is coming back from injury. I believe the cap as it stands is (50% x 65) + (25% 95) + (25% x 112) that prices him at a 84 average.

My rule would say hang on, Deledio played less then 5 games this year, its a porr indicator of his scoring potential.

so its (20% x 65) + (50% x 95) + (30% x 112) = 94 average.

Then it goes well Deledio is 31 next year. So thats 3 years 28 or over. So that brings his base average down to 86. If people dont like the 28 years old rule then it a 91 average.

Ossies Premium rule and injury rule would still be in place, So Lids will move up with the premium rule (WHICH IS WHY THE 28 YEARS OLD THING IS IMPORTANT) and he will move down a little bit as injury prone.

its not irrelevant if its 28 years old, and regarldess if its 28 or 30 its a small imrpvoement. Why not have a small improvement. if we where starting the cap from scratch we would be going with my rule. Considering it takes very little time to change it and its clearly be proven to be better in every example i have done then there is no reason it should fail.

I have not see one example where the original cap is better.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 07, 2017, 02:09:46 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 07, 2017, 01:35:22 PM
Oh, was that supposed to be players that were also 30 years old, or just older than that?

its supposed to be players who are 30 at some point next year get a discount.

I really want it at 28 for the reasons i just posted. Even though it makes sense to be 28 if people dont read my reasoning and just vote on it without thinking then i can see the vote failing so maybe we vote on 28 and 30.

28 is logical and makes the cap do what is supposed to do. But i know people wont read my posts in detail so it will probably fail for no reason.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 07, 2017, 02:15:53 PM

Got a number of trade targets 28 or older Holz?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 07, 2017, 02:17:22 PM

I dunno about everyone else, but with regards to trade talks, I couldn't give 2 showers about a player's cap worth unless the deal is going to put me under the cap. If the older guys get reduced, and therefore the average team cap goes down, and the minimum cap also goes down because of that, then it seems to make no difference to me.

Would your suggestions be two separate changes, or come in a package deal?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 07, 2017, 02:22:43 PM

Trade me ye old coonts, I'll fit them in regardless of the cap.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 07, 2017, 02:37:00 PM

Quote from: Nige on August 07, 2017, 02:15:53 PM
Got a number of trade targets 28 or older Holz?

Honestly find that quite insulting. I care about the competition and even though i hate the cap, I will back the decision of Purp 100%, so while i dont like it i put in alot of time and effort into making the cap do what Purp intended it to do. I looked at flaws in the current model and worked on making it as correct as I could. You can't argue that older players dont have a flat or downwards trend and young players have an upwards trend.

If you looked at the cap changes when Ossie ran the 28 or older you should actually see that I went from like 50k under the cap to 50k over the cap because of the age rule.

For the record im targeting 1 player over the age of 30 and im looking at a few players in the 19-22 year old age bracket. That will not influence my voting on any rules, I take voting seriously as everyone should do and do what is best for the comp.

To say im putting in all this effort to give Dublin an advantage is

A. Incorrect as it may end up hurting Dublin. (honestly not sure if i benefit or lose, because I really don't care its not about individual teams its about the competition)

B. Highly insulting and disrespectful.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 07, 2017, 02:38:56 PM

Quote from: Holz on August 07, 2017, 02:37:00 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 07, 2017, 02:15:53 PM
Got a number of trade targets 28 or older Holz?

Honestly find that quite insulting. I care about the competition and even though i hate the cap, I will back the decision of Purp 100%, so while i dont like it i put in alot of time and effort into making the cap do what Purp intended it to do. I looked at flaws in the current model and worked on making it as correct as I could. You can't argue that older players dont have a flat or downwards trend and young players have an upwards trend.

If you looked at the cap changes when Ossie ran the 28 or older you should actually see that I went from like 50k under the cap to 50k over the cap because of the age rule.

For the record im targeting 1 player over the age of 30 and im looking at a few players in the 19-22 year old age bracket. That will not influence my voting on any rules, I take voting seriously as everyone should do and do what is best for the comp.

To say im putting in all this effort to give Dublin is

A. Incorrect as it may end up hurting Dublin.
B. Highly insulting and disrespectful.

Bit of an overreaction.

It was actually a genuine question.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 07, 2017, 02:41:12 PM

Quote from: Nige on August 07, 2017, 02:38:56 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 07, 2017, 02:37:00 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 07, 2017, 02:15:53 PM
Got a number of trade targets 28 or older Holz?

Honestly find that quite insulting. I care about the competition and even though i hate the cap, I will back the decision of Purp 100%, so while i dont like it i put in alot of time and effort into making the cap do what Purp intended it to do. I looked at flaws in the current model and worked on making it as correct as I could. You can't argue that older players dont have a flat or downwards trend and young players have an upwards trend.

If you looked at the cap changes when Ossie ran the 28 or older you should actually see that I went from like 50k under the cap to 50k over the cap because of the age rule.

For the record im targeting 1 player over the age of 30 and im looking at a few players in the 19-22 year old age bracket. That will not influence my voting on any rules, I take voting seriously as everyone should do and do what is best for the comp.

To say im putting in all this effort to give Dublin is

A. Incorrect as it may end up hurting Dublin.
B. Highly insulting and disrespectful.
Bit of an overreaction.

It was actually a genuine question.

This is the rule discussion thread, you know that statement was intended to either have a go at me or to take credibility away from my rule discussion or both.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: JBs-Hawks on August 07, 2017, 02:41:16 PM

#scrapholzscap

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Adamant on August 07, 2017, 02:48:28 PM

Quote from: GoLions on August 07, 2017, 02:17:22 PM
I dunno about everyone else, but with regards to trade talks, I couldn't give 2 showers about a player's cap worth unless the deal is going to put me under the cap.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 07, 2017, 02:49:29 PM

Quote from: Adamant on August 07, 2017, 02:48:28 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 07, 2017, 02:17:22 PM
I dunno about everyone else, but with regards to trade talks, I couldn't give 2 showers about a player's cap worth unless the deal is going to put me under the cap.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 07, 2017, 02:52:36 PM

regarding your percentages over the years btw Holz, it's currently 33% each year, not 50, 25 and 25.

Also, more than willing to entertain the idea, but you'd need to present a purely random sample of at least 50 players for us to get an informed view on it.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 07, 2017, 02:53:35 PM

Quote from: Adamant on August 07, 2017, 02:48:28 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 07, 2017, 02:17:22 PM
I dunno about everyone else, but with regards to trade talks, I couldn't give 2 showers about a player's cap worth unless the deal is going to put me under the cap.

It does influence other teams though and considering we are voting on a competition wide change than people need to think about the competition as a whole and not their own team.

The cap is staying so just need to think what rules best do what the cap is intended to do. I believe i have put overwhelming evidence that if you where setting up a new cap it would be with the new rules.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 07, 2017, 02:55:07 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 07, 2017, 02:52:36 PM
regarding your percentages over the years btw Holz, it's currently 33% each year, not 50, 25 and 25.

Also, more than willing to entertain the idea, but you'd need to present a purely random sample of at least 50 players for us to get an informed view on it.

Feels like you've made this request a few times, not sure why it hasn't been done.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 07, 2017, 03:00:16 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 07, 2017, 02:52:36 PM
regarding your percentages over the years btw Holz, it's currently 33% each year, not 50, 25 and 25.

Also, more than willing to entertain the idea, but you'd need to present a purely random sample of at least 50 players for us to get an informed view on it.

I thought you said the current year counted twice?

so 2017 2017 2016 2015?

if it is indeed 33% each then thats even worse.

Do we really need 50?

I have picked break out players (Kelly, Oliver), Declining Players (Golsy, Priddis, Shaw), Injured declining players ( Birchall), Injured Guns (Gawn), Guys who missed most of the year (Lids), Superstars ( Dmartin).

If it is indeed 33% 33% 33% then all those example are further away from the correct value. So kelly is not 95 he is infact 89 which is shocking for a 112 young gun.

I really can go through with 50 players. But i have to manually do all the inputs as i dont have access to any spreadsheets.

I have yet to see one case where the rule has broken down. Im not sure what doing 50 will achieve, in my view i have shown its better for all those categories. When the orginal cap was put in place, people where far far more in the drark about how it works. I still dont understand how the orginal system fully works, yet it was passed.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 07, 2017, 03:05:55 PM

It's hard to present a neutral argument is all when you've hand picked the examples. It kinda feels like you've just picked the extremes on both ends and making a judgment based off that. They could be quite relevant and accurate of the population, it's just we aren't able to make that judgement based of 1-2% of the players in the AFL.

But also understand it's not an easy task, and requires a bit of time. I might have a go at it, but I don't really want to :-X

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 07, 2017, 03:08:41 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 07, 2017, 03:05:55 PM
But also understand it's not an easy task, and requires a bit of time. I might have a go at it, but I don't really want to :-X

Absolutely understandable, but surely the onus is on the individual who suggested and is lobbying hard for their idea.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 07, 2017, 03:09:48 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 07, 2017, 03:05:55 PM
It's hard to present a neutral argument is all when you've hand picked the examples. It kinda feels like you've just picked the extremes on both ends and making a judgment based off that. They could be quite relevant and accurate of the population, it's just we aren't able to make that judgement based of 1-2% of the players in the AFL.

But also understand it's not an easy task, and requires a bit of time. I might have a go at it, but I don't really want to :-X

Dont worry i will do it. I picked extreme examples as they show how the rule works.

Ill just pick the first 40 names alphabeticall and grind through it plus the extreme examples. So can you confirm that you dont double count the current year? as im pretty sure i had it 33% 33% 33% but was then told the current year double counted so changed it to 50% 25% 25%

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 07, 2017, 03:10:23 PM

It's also not REALLY 33% each year.

It's the total amount of points they've scored divided by the games they've played in the last 3 years.

so like, 10 games @80, then 20 games @70, and 5 games @90, doesn't equal an 80 average.

It's (10 x 80) + (20 x 70) + (5 x 90), divided by (10+20+5)

= 800 + 1400 + 450, divided by 35

= 2650/35

= 75.7

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 07, 2017, 03:11:27 PM

but yeah, can confirm no year is weighted higher than the others

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 07, 2017, 03:13:17 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 07, 2017, 03:11:27 PM
but yeah, can confirm no year is weighted higher than the others

ok understand it

ill do it later.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 07, 2017, 03:21:17 PM

Quote from: Holz on August 07, 2017, 03:13:17 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 07, 2017, 03:11:27 PM
but yeah, can confirm no year is weighted higher than the others

ok understand it

ill do it later.

After Euros is done I assume.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 07, 2017, 03:29:02 PM

Hey guys, I just came up with an idea!

Why don't we just continue to have 40 players + 5 rookies, and as long as we don't let bogus trades pass then we should never have a scenario of teams tanking, gaining etc and therefor we won't even need a cap!

The $ value of a player means absolutely nothing. We all value players on their ability, potential, average and age so as long as every trade is fair from that point of view we have nothing else to worry about

I'm on board! #scrapthecap

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 07, 2017, 03:34:19 PM

Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 07, 2017, 03:29:02 PM
Hey guys, I just came up with an idea!

Why don't we just continue to have 40 players + 5 rookies, and as long as we don't let bogus trades pass then we should never have a scenario of teams tanking, gaining etc and therefor we won't even need a cap!

The $ value of a player means absolutely nothing. We all value players on their ability, potential, average and age so as long as every trade is fair from that point of view we have nothing else to worry about

I'm on board! #scrapthecap

Finally speaking a language that i can understand RD

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 07, 2017, 03:39:37 PM

If you guys really want to 'scrap the cap', we'll vote on it

...

...

... it'll also be the vote that decides whether I stay as admin :P

Forget your fanciful ideas ;)

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 07, 2017, 03:42:14 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 07, 2017, 03:39:37 PM
If you guys really want to 'scrap the cap', we'll vote on it

...

...

... it'll also be the vote that decides whether I stay as admin :P

Forget your fanciful ideas ;)

#scrapthecap

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Ricochet on August 07, 2017, 03:44:05 PM

Dublin have been the powerhouse of the comp for a number of years

Now I'm pretty sure (but i cannot confirm) that Holz may have mentioned (probably only once) that Dublin had to (reluctantly) trade Roughie and Buddy because of cap reasons (GL could probably confirm this)

If a powerhouse is making significant changes to their list to lower their total cap value then that in itself is a step towards a more even comp. Just have to tinker with the actual cap. I like where Holz is going with his version

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Ringo on August 07, 2017, 03:44:18 PM

Question for Holz

Just spent an hour going trough the thread to see if mentioned. In your proposal what value for cap purposes will we place on 1st and 2nd year players not playing the full number of games.
eg Witherden has only played 7 games so how is his value calculated,

Also reckon the durability factor should be removed to try and keep rule simple.

Was initially convinced by scrap the cap but seeing the effect on competition this year (also may be other factors involved) but was the closest for a number of years.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 07, 2017, 03:45:01 PM

Quote from: GoLions on August 07, 2017, 03:42:14 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 07, 2017, 03:39:37 PM
If you guys really want to 'scrap the cap', we'll vote on it

...

...

... it'll also be the vote that decides whether I stay as admin :P

Forget your fanciful ideas ;)
#scrapthecap

Ha, savage :P I love it

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 07, 2017, 03:45:54 PM

Quote from: Ringo on August 07, 2017, 03:44:18 PM
but seeing the effect on competition this year (also may be other factors involved) but was the closest for a number of years.

Along with somebody that said this too (JB?), absolute music to my ears, and exactly why we will NEVER be getting rid of the cap

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 07, 2017, 03:59:37 PM

Quote from: Ricochet on August 07, 2017, 03:44:05 PM
Dublin have been the powerhouse of the comp for a number of years

Now I'm pretty sure (but i cannot confirm) that Holz may have mentioned (probably only once) that Dublin had to (reluctantly) trade Roughie and Buddy because of cap reasons (GL could probably confirm this)

If a powerhouse is making significant changes to their list to lower their total cap value then that in itself is a step towards a more even comp. Just have to tinker with the actual cap. I like where Holz is going with his version

Can confirm

Quote from: Holz on December 05, 2016, 01:35:09 PM
Geez Brad Crouch you better be a superstar.

Buddy at F4 would almost give me a flag considering I have Kieran Jack sitting on the bench. I also moved on Roughy in this deal and there is talks of him playing round 1. Could have Roughy as my F5 :O

did the trade for cap reasons, if Crouch falters and Roughy plays round 1, watch my hatred of the Cap go to a whole new level.

Quote from: Holz on April 04, 2017, 05:14:22 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on April 04, 2017, 02:13:32 PM
Imagine having Marc, Buddy and Rough in the same side :-X

cant got soo many guns it wouldn't fit under the cap. Got to make way for cap space when all my young guys improve.

plus those guys are old, we are building a dynasty here at Dublin, we don't luck are way into one grand final then start claiming to be the champs. Thats NDT stuff.

at Dublin we have "Pride in Excellence"

I know your all excited because one week you scored a little higher then me. its fitting one of the coaches supports freo, never won anything and when they beat the eagles they carry on like they have won the premiership.

Quote from: Holz on May 09, 2017, 03:05:27 PM
Far out Hill is 2 weeks into his 4-5 weeks off

Birchall comes back from injury and then goes out for another 6 weeks

Treloar is in doubt this week.

injuries are coming to bite, seems to be whenever i pick up young, durable players they become injured. Trade out a injury prone Murphy and he magically heels.

The craziest is Goldy the most durable guy in the comp basically has had 2 ankle problems. He is finally starting to play like Goldy, last week was the first time he looked 90%+

Greenwood, Menzle doing great but playing for the crows the toughest team to crack into, hopefully North destroying them will fix that.

Im still annoyed that Carlton are ruining me with Jacob Weitering who would have been Heath Shaw is not for the cap.

speaking of the Cap I should have Buddy Roughy not Brad Crouch.

If not for that I would have scored an additional 244

Rant over

on small good news, thank you Oscar for your 91 80 it is greatly needed.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 07, 2017, 04:01:41 PM

Alright, so the cap is staying which is fine

Can we just come up with a solution and send it to a vote?

Don't think we need another 10 pages worth of discussing it do we?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 07, 2017, 04:12:49 PM

Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 07, 2017, 04:01:41 PM
Alright, so the cap is staying which is fine

Can we just come up with a solution and send it to a vote?

Don't think we need another 10 pages worth of discussing it do we?

I was hoping for a blackjack

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 07, 2017, 04:19:40 PM

Nathan Vardy up for trade.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: MajorLazer on August 07, 2017, 04:38:49 PM

Ok this might be a bit radical, but how about this for anew cap idea?

Instead of worrying about how much players average and how old they are, why don't we just do it by the letters in the players last names?

So we just use scrabble scoring to figure out how much players are worth.

Easy fix. You're welcome fellas

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 07, 2017, 04:46:50 PM

Quote from: Ringo on August 07, 2017, 03:44:18 PM
Question for Holz

Just spent an hour going trough the thread to see if mentioned. In your proposal what value for cap purposes will we place on 1st and 2nd year players not playing the full number of games.
eg Witherden has only played 7 games so how is his value calculated,

Also reckon the durability factor should be removed to try and keep rule simple.

Was initially convinced by scrap the cap but seeing the effect on competition this year (also may be other factors involved) but was the closest for a number of years.

yes this i need to think about, 1st and 2nd year players i haven't identified and i do need to look into this.

So with Witherden Ossie's cap has him at a 86.8 average and considering my rule is

18+ games: 100% of the current season is their average
11-17 games: 50% of the current average 30% of last years and 20% of the year before
6-10 games: 35% of the current average 40% of last years and 25% of the year before
5 or under: 20% of the current average 50% of last years and 30% of the year before.
0 games: 60% of last year and 40% of the year before.

so he has played 7 games so is 6-10 games: 35% of the current average 40% of last years and 25% of the year before

However given he has only played the 1 season he would then also be 86.8 under my cap so the exact same.

Now for 2nd year players it would be different. If they didnt play a full year.

So for Oliver: Ossie has it as a 95 average and I have it as a 112 average as he played 18 games plus.

But for Hopper:

Ossie has him as a 70 average

Now my rule again is 6-10 games: 35% of the current average 40% of last years and 25% of the year before. Now obvuiously he has only played 2 seasons so all that happens is the 3rd year is just removed and the weighting is the same.

So it would be 46.7% this year and 53.3% last year.

Now if you pick a 2nd year player with a large discrepancy in years per scoring and only played half a season.

Matthew Kennedy: Under Ossies system he is a 63.5

Under my system 11-17 games: 50% of the current average 30% of last years and 20% of the year before

As he doesnt have a 3rd year its then 62.5% and 37.5% so he would be a 60 average.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 07, 2017, 05:09:52 PM

ML arguably has the best contributions-to-posts ratio in this comp.

Always a pleasure :P

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 07, 2017, 05:17:23 PM

Opposite of me then.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: MajorLazer on August 07, 2017, 05:18:07 PM

Who's arguing? I'll beat them.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 07, 2017, 05:27:42 PM

13. VOTING

I think we should have a vote on having to vote. All this voting makes me tired and I think we should have the option to opt out of voting. Putting it to a vote seems like the logical thing to do.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: DazBurg on August 07, 2017, 06:58:33 PM

Quote from: meow meow on August 07, 2017, 05:27:42 PM
13. VOTING

I think we should have a vote on having to vote. All this voting makes me tired and I think we should have the option to opt out of voting. Putting it to a vote seems like the logical thing to do.

LOLOL love it meow

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Hellopplz on August 07, 2017, 08:17:53 PM

Can I opt out of the vote to not vote for the vote?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 07, 2017, 10:00:59 PM

Quote from: Hellopplz on August 07, 2017, 08:17:53 PM
Can I opt out of the vote to not vote for the vote?

Probably need to vote on the ability to opt out of the vote to not vote for the vote.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Hellopplz on August 07, 2017, 10:56:54 PM

Quote from: Nige on August 07, 2017, 10:00:59 PM
Quote from: Hellopplz on August 07, 2017, 08:17:53 PM
Can I opt out of the vote to not vote for the vote?
Probably need to vote on the ability to opt out of the vote to not vote for the vote.

I refuse to opt into the vote to opt out to vote.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Levi434 on August 08, 2017, 02:48:43 PM

Suggested Rule:
Players on the rookie list should NOT be counted under the cap.

Explanation:
If I have to use someone on my rookie list it generally means someone on my main list has an LTI.

For example, this year I had 400k of dead weight from Mitch Robinson sitting on my list all year because he had a season ending injury. There is no reason I shouldn't have been able to ditch his 400k for someone decent e.g. Tom Lonergan to replace him.

For those who don't know, Tom Lonergan is NOT currently on a WXV list because I had to delist him due to cap.

If I had of had Lonergan on my rook list, he would have played at least 4-5 games for me because I was decimated down back. May not have affected any results but still.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 08, 2017, 02:51:08 PM

Quote from: Levi434 on August 08, 2017, 02:48:43 PM
Suggested Rule:
Players on the rookie list should NOT be counted under the cap.

Explanation:
If I have to use someone on my rookie list it generally means someone on my main list has an LTI.

For example, this year I had 400k of dead weight from Mitch Robinson sitting on my list all year because he had a season ending injury. There is no reason I shouldn't have been able to ditch his 400k for someone decent e.g. Tom Lonergan to replace him.

For those who don't know, Tom Lonergan is NOT currently on a WXV list because I had to delist him due to cap.

If I had of had Lonergan on my rook list, he would have played at least 4-5 games for me because I was decimated down back. May not have affected any results but still.

Or you can trade me Robbo

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 09, 2017, 12:32:24 AM

Feel like this got burried amongst all the cap talk

Again, there is zero malice in any of this. I genuinely believe that I am raising completely fair and valid points, and believe that what I am saying has merit. Might not be the most comfortable topic to talk about, but I'd hate to see it just ignore or not taken seriously, because I know I'm not the only person who doesn't think this

Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 07, 2017, 12:38:47 PM
I'm going to suggest something which might be a bit contentious, but I cannot stress enough that this has nothing to do with each individual and their character - there is nothing personal or malice, it is purely based on...

12. Participation

What makes WXV the best XV is it's people. There's no doubt this is the most attractive and active XV because of the people involved. There is constant discussion all year around and because of most of the coaches commitment we have an excellent and very even comp

I do think however, some changes in personal are required to ensure that WXV continues to prosper moving forward and I'd like to see more participation from more coaches

As I understand it, we currently have a process on how we vote new coaches into WXV, but what about the opposite? It won't take a genius to figure out the sort of teams I am referring to, but we have several coaches/teams who are barely ever around and hardly ever contribute to discussions, whether they be general banter or about important things like rule changes and reviews

We have so much going on here, and it's the same majority who all contribute to make this such a great comp but it's the minority who don't bring much, if anything at all that I think needs to change

Naming your team every week, and nothing more is not enough to maintain a coaches position in WXV, especially when we have several people on FF who are chomping at the bit to get a coaching gig here

Furthermore, if you cannot make yourself available regularly, especially during the trade period than again you are hindering the competition and not participating enough. I get it, we all have lives and are busy, and that's completely fine but if you don't have the time to engage in regular trade talks, weekly round discussions etc then I really don't think I am being out of line by suggesting you shouldn't be a coach anymore

It can't be a surprise to see that teams with active coaches are improving every year, while teams with inactive coaches continue to struggle and get nowhere.

So what is the actual rule I am suggesting? If we as coaches vote on who will enter WXV, then we should also have a yearly review and cast a vote if we think there is a coach who should no longer be in WXV

It's not like I'm asking for a lot. In order to continue making WXV the number 1 XV we need to continue to have coaches who give 100% and make themselves available regularly. You don't need to spend hours a day here, heck you don't need to be here every day but you do need to be here often enough to engage and respond during trade period, and even more importantly just regularly engage in discussion and simply participate :)

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 09, 2017, 12:41:20 AM

I was just about to bump that suggestion but it was taking me ages to find searching on my phone haha.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Ringo on August 09, 2017, 11:10:18 AM

Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 09, 2017, 12:32:24 AM
Feel like this got burried amongst all the cap talk

Again, there is zero malice in any of this. I genuinely believe that I am raising completely fair and valid points, and believe that what I am saying has merit. Might not be the most comfortable topic to talk about, but I'd hate to see it just ignore or not taken seriously, because I know I'm not the only person who doesn't think this

Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 07, 2017, 12:38:47 PM
I'm going to suggest something which might be a bit contentious, but I cannot stress enough that this has nothing to do with each individual and their character - there is nothing personal or malice, it is purely based on...

12. Participation

What makes WXV the best XV is it's people. There's no doubt this is the most attractive and active XV because of the people involved. There is constant discussion all year around and because of most of the coaches commitment we have an excellent and very even comp

I do think however, some changes in personal are required to ensure that WXV continues to prosper moving forward and I'd like to see more participation from more coaches

As I understand it, we currently have a process on how we vote new coaches into WXV, but what about the opposite? It won't take a genius to figure out the sort of teams I am referring to, but we have several coaches/teams who are barely ever around and hardly ever contribute to discussions, whether they be general banter or about important things like rule changes and reviews

We have so much going on here, and it's the same majority who all contribute to make this such a great comp but it's the minority who don't bring much, if anything at all that I think needs to change

Naming your team every week, and nothing more is not enough to maintain a coaches position in WXV, especially when we have several people on FF who are chomping at the bit to get a coaching gig here

Furthermore, if you cannot make yourself available regularly, especially during the trade period than again you are hindering the competition and not participating enough. I get it, we all have lives and are busy, and that's completely fine but if you don't have the time to engage in regular trade talks, weekly round discussions etc then I really don't think I am being out of line by suggesting you shouldn't be a coach anymore

It can't be a surprise to see that teams with active coaches are improving every year, while teams with inactive coaches continue to struggle and get nowhere.

So what is the actual rule I am suggesting? If we as coaches vote on who will enter WXV, then we should also have a yearly review and cast a vote if we think there is a coach who should no longer be in WXV

It's not like I'm asking for a lot. In order to continue making WXV the number 1 XV we need to continue to have coaches who give 100% and make themselves available regularly. You don't need to spend hours a day here, heck you don't need to be here every day but you do need to be here often enough to engage and respond during trade period, and even more importantly just regularly engage in discussion and simply participate :)

As I suggested earlier and it may have also got lost - Have Purps and Nige (Think you have been helping Puros a bit Nige so why I included you) do a review of the coaches similar of clubs review of Football Department. Know an additional task and then advise coaches individually of result and for those who they consider ineffective ask them to justify retaining coaching position.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 09, 2017, 11:20:42 AM

I can (help) do that if Purps is keen.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 09, 2017, 11:42:07 AM

Purps does enough!

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Jroo on August 09, 2017, 11:46:26 AM

Quote from: Ringo on August 09, 2017, 11:10:18 AM
As I suggested earlier and it may have also got lost - Have Purps and Nige (Think you have been helping Puros a bit Nige so why I included you) do a review of the coaches similar of clubs review of Football Department. Know an additional task and then advise coaches individually of result and for those who they consider ineffective ask them to justify retaining coaching position.

Yeah perhaps as well participation, the club's onfield results could also come into consideration. May be a bit harsh but say a team has been underperforming for years, maybe a new coach is needed

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 09, 2017, 11:49:59 AM

15. WXV expansion.

In Mortal Kombat there is a thing called a mirror match where your character fights a clone of themselves.

If it's good enough for Mortal Kombat it is good enough for us.

Do you think we could get 36 active WXV coaches? I think it'd be easy. So why not clone every player, introduce 18 new teams? Could allow Dublin to trade in Rance 2.0 or have a rule about not being able to double up, or a limit. Endless possibilities.

I don't think anyone will vote yes but imagine a new draft, and trade season OMG.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 09, 2017, 11:55:19 AM

Quote from: meow meow on August 09, 2017, 11:49:59 AM
If it's good enough for Mortal Kombat it is good enough for us.

Without a doubt the greatest thing I've ever read on FF ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 09, 2017, 11:55:22 AM

Ok, this is my view.

When someone becomes a coach, they are expected to name a team and vote in time, everything else is optional (although highly encouraged). The quiet amongst us may not simply have the desire to participate further (maybe coz they're tired from what they do throughout the day/week), and just like reading through it all. After all, we put on a good show :P. As long as they follow the rules, and do those two things that are required from them... I'll have no issue with them. I think if we had a 'review' where I could potentially sack them at the end of the year, I think it'd introduce a tense-vibe with pressure on them to engage with the comp.

With that being said, if you aren't finding that desire to engage with the comp outside of naming teams and responding to votes, then I encourage you to really reflect on whether you are enjoying this comp. If you genuinely still are, then I don't want you to leave. But if it's becoming tedious to you, then you should make a decision.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 09, 2017, 11:57:15 AM

Should do it in addition to WXV if we want to keep the original pure.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 09, 2017, 11:57:48 AM

Quote from: meow meow on August 09, 2017, 11:49:59 AM
15. WXV expansion.

In Mortal Kombat there is a thing called a mirror match where your character fights a clone of themselves.

If it's good enough for Mortal Kombat it is good enough for us.

Do you think we could get 36 active WXV coaches? I think it'd be easy. So why not clone every player, introduce 18 new teams? Could allow Dublin to trade in Rance 2.0 or have a rule about not being able to double up, or a limit. Endless possibilities.

I don't think anyone will vote yes but imagine a new draft, and trade season OMG.

Would have to bring ossie out of retirement to help admin that one :P

flower me, adminning 36 teams... *shudders*

But yes, it'd be epic.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 09, 2017, 12:02:13 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 09, 2017, 11:55:22 AM
Ok, this is my view.

When someone becomes a coach, they are expected to name a team and vote in time, everything else is optional (although highly encouraged). The quiet amongst us may not simply have the desire to participate further (maybe coz they're tired from what they do throughout the day/week), and just like reading through it all. After all, we put on a good show :P. As long as they follow the rules, and do those two things that are required from them... I'll have no issue with them. I think if we had a 'review' where I could potentially sack them at the end of the year, I think it'd introduce a tense-vibe with pressure on them to engage with the comp.

With that being said, if you aren't finding that desire to engage with the comp outside of naming teams and responding to votes, then I encourage you to really reflect on whether you are enjoying this comp. If you genuinely still are, then I don't want you to leave. But if it's becoming tedious to you, then you should make a decision.

Naming your team and voting isn't enough to be a coach IMO

Why do we have a vote for new coach applications then? If naming a team and voting are the only 2 requirements then it should be first in best dressed for coaching applications

We vote on coaches and make them apply so that we can see what they will bring to the comp, how they will fit in and engage, help develop the comp and be actively involved, so these should all be part of a coaches responsibilities

Ringo and JROO raise good points too, and they all form part of the participation argument I've raised

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 09, 2017, 12:14:07 PM

Because I'm not getting paid for doing this, I refuse to sack somebody for 'not posting enough', even though they are following the rules.

I know its selfish of me, but it wouldn't bring enjoyment for me, and it'd be an overall negative experience/drama that I could do without. Put yourselves in my shoes, then imagine telling a coach that they can't coach their team anymore? I'd then have to deal with that drama, likely alienating that person and everyone else that disagreed with the decision. Nah, no way sorry guys.

I'm open to presenting facts to under-posting coaches and saying, 'do you want to continue?', but won't be sacking them.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 09, 2017, 12:15:29 PM

Couldn't this also have the opposite effect though, and push people away?

I think I'm with team Purps here #scrapthecap

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Hellopplz on August 09, 2017, 01:26:29 PM

I'm probably one of the less active coaches but that has been due to a range of factors including less time. I do read every post though but that's usually at night before i sleep.

I don't think anybody should be sacked for lack of engagement. As Purps said, could raise the point but to get rid of somebody who may not have time but still enjoys the comp would be harsh.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 09, 2017, 01:27:04 PM

I didn't say that you need to fire people Purps

It could be something as simple as telling certain coaches that we'd like to see more participation and involvement from you, that you are not often available to discuss trades with, that you aren't really involved at all with rule talks, weekly talks etc and because of this your team continues to struggle etc

I don't see anything wrong with asking coaches to show more commitment and involvement other than to just scrape by in ghost mode naming a team once a week and replying to a multiple choice vote that they had no discussion or involvement in

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 09, 2017, 01:46:40 PM

Time to hand out some KPIs. :P

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Ringo on August 09, 2017, 02:02:33 PM

As I said no need to sack but just get alongside coaches who you consider are not performing and encourage improvement or resigning as coach if need be.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 09, 2017, 02:06:59 PM

I'll start. London continue to be irrelevant. Poor drafting and now you're going to trade out the only players who keep you in the contest occasionally. Lift Ringo!

Over to Holz to critique Christchurch.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Ringo on August 09, 2017, 03:12:43 PM

Quote from: meow meow on August 09, 2017, 02:06:59 PM
I'll start. London continue to be irrelevant. Poor drafting and now you're going to trade out the only players who keep you in the contest occasionally. Lift Ringo!

Over to Holz to critique Christchurch.

Seen that one coming LOL

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 09, 2017, 04:09:05 PM

I feel like it'd be a redundant task.

The coaches that are inactive, know they're inactive. I'm not sure what it would accomplish.

However, despite my opposition, I fully agree with RD's sentiment here. It's just I don't think there's a useful or good solution

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 09, 2017, 04:12:50 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 09, 2017, 04:09:05 PM
I feel like it'd be a redundant task.

The coaches that are inactive, know they're inactive. I'm not sure what it would accomplish.

However, despite my opposition, I fully agree with RD's sentiment here. It's just I don't think there's a useful or good solution

Fair play Purps

Maybe just the fact that the topic has been discussed openly might give them the kick start we hope to get them more active :)

I really like the coaching group we have, and I honestly don't want anyone fired. I just want more input from them

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 09, 2017, 05:07:18 PM

Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 09, 2017, 04:12:50 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 09, 2017, 04:09:05 PM
I feel like it'd be a redundant task.

The coaches that are inactive, know they're inactive. I'm not sure what it would accomplish.

However, despite my opposition, I fully agree with RD's sentiment here. It's just I don't think there's a useful or good solution

Fair play Purps

Maybe just the fact that the topic has been discussed openly might give them the kick start we hope to get them more active :)

I really like the coaching group we have, and I honestly don't want anyone fired. I just want more input from them

Let's just hope that the GUN coach has taken the hint ay RD

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Levi434 on August 09, 2017, 05:34:36 PM

You should be able to trade cap space. Cap space is probably more valuable than any player you can have.

The actual cap difference is an underrated value in trading IMO. I could trade Brad Ebert who takes up 492K for Daniel Hannerbery who takes up 710k. I haven't just traded in Hanners but I've actually traded in 218k more cash. That prevents me from taking 2 draft picks. Or adding a depth player (Jeff Garlett is 217k) (N.Graham, B.Longer or K.McIntosh are all 215k) Or it could prevent me from upgrading Jack Crisp (400k) to Dayne Beams (618k).

Basically the team trading Hanners should have the option of handing over 218k as apart of the deal.

Just to be clear: CAP SPACE IS STILL FIXED EVERY YEAR. IT DOESN'T AND SHOULD NOT CARRY OVER. So if you get 500k extra this year it does NOT mean you have 500k extra next year.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 09, 2017, 11:09:34 PM

New Rule

Trade Period

Should open first week of finals

We're all talking and dealing already, so why wait? :P

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: iZander on August 09, 2017, 11:10:50 PM

Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 09, 2017, 11:09:34 PM
New Rule

Trade Period

Should open first week of finals

We're all talking and dealing already, so why wait? :P

Finally a rule that i can second!!! haha

But i think people wont want it claiming it would "take attention away from the finals" or something :P

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 16, 2017, 06:23:16 PM

Been a week since the last post! I'll take this to mean I should compile up a PM.

I'll be looking to send all the votes in two waves. The first will be all the ones I think are ready to send, which for example doesn't include the salary cap voting. I think Holz is having a go at making one up, and I also want to provide a revised version of Holz' age discount idea again, as I didn't do it right the last time.

The results of this vote normally attracts more discussion, hence I'm sending it a little earlier.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 16, 2017, 07:09:18 PM

Note about the suggested 1 mid only in the utilities rule.

Someone said that people will just play a non playing player and have a mid at E1.

That's why I said we'll have to take the emergencies to 4 since the mid emergency won't be eligible to cover them. That part may have been lost in conversation.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 16, 2017, 07:11:04 PM

Alright, these are the topics that I feel either A) need expanding or B) needs further discussion/acknowledgement or C) needs to articulate the options for me

I'd like it to be done by the author if at all possible, which I've included:

1. Alternate Team Formats (for everyone to discuss)
2. Leadership Groups (Purple 77)
3. Cap (Purple 77, Holz)
4. Loyalty discounts (Ringo; everybody)
5. Tagging (Torp)
6. Different score multiplier (meow meow)
7. Participation (RaisyDaisy)
8. Trading Cap Space (Levi)

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 16, 2017, 07:11:25 PM

Quote from: meow meow on August 16, 2017, 07:09:18 PM
Note about the suggested 1 mid only in the utilities rule.

Someone said that people will just play a non playing player and have a mid at E1.

That's why I said we'll have to take the emergencies to 4 since the mid emergency won't be eligible to cover them. That part may have been lost in conversation.

Nope, I saw it ;)

Literally about to send big PM

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 16, 2017, 07:17:33 PM

6. AFL teams don't usually score 145 vs 150 on a weekly basis.

1500/13 = 115 seems more accurate to me.

And the draw would be more likely! Maybe that part b.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 16, 2017, 07:21:28 PM

Maybe /15 even.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Levi434 on August 16, 2017, 07:22:34 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 16, 2017, 07:11:25 PM
Literally about to send big PM

Not kidding... :o

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 16, 2017, 07:32:45 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 16, 2017, 07:11:04 PM
Alright, these are the topics that I feel either A) need expanding or B) needs further discussion/acknowledgement or C) needs to articulate the options for me

I'd like it to be done by the author if at all possible, which I've included:

1. Alternate Team Formats (for everyone to discuss)
2. Leadership Groups (Purple 77)
3. Cap (Purple 77, Holz)
4. Loyalty discounts (Ringo; everybody)
5. Tagging (Torp)
6. Different score multiplier (meow meow)
7. Participation (RaisyDaisy)
8. Trading Cap Space (Levi)

7. Closed. Just discussing it and giving it a bit of air time is enough for now

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 16, 2017, 07:42:49 PM

What about the flood/attack suggested change

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 16, 2017, 08:25:17 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 16, 2017, 07:18:22 PM

1. Rested Player Late Call-Up
Currently, if you have nominated someone to be rested in a given week and, for example, he is a forward, and someone in your forward line is a late withdrawal and you have no other forwards in your starting 18, the current interpretation of the rule is that rested player comes in at quarter points because:
- you can't rest someone if you have to field an OOP in his place; and
- if there is no one in your starting 18 that can replace a player for full points, the next available player comes in at quarter points.

A) Change to: If this scenario happens again, instead the rested player is to be ignored for selection and someone has to come in OOP like normal. The rested player would keep his rested bonus for next week. However, this is only permissible if:
- the players selected in the 18 are named in AFL best 22s at start of the week
B) Keep as is

2. Sub rule for named OOP players
Currently, if you are forced to name a player OOP and he is available to be subbed out, he can't be subbed out because the rule states that a player can only be subbed out if his replacement can come on for full points.

A) Change to: The OOP player can be subbed out for another OOP player, ONLY if the original OOP was named a result of having no available players to fill that position. Of course, the replacement will still have a 50% penalty for being OOP.
B) Keep as is

3. Ruck OOP (haven't forgotten about the 'Pinch-Hit' suggestion. That will be in the next PM)
A) Instead of a 50% penalty to your OOP player, award a 50% bonus to the opposition ruck, to make it more realistic.
B) Keep as is

4. Allow Teams to 'Trade' below Minimum Salary Cap?
A) Yes
B) No

5. Assuming the current model of the salary cap is maintained (or a slight variant is implemented):
A) Allow draft picks to count as $100k for cap purposes?
B) Allow 'available list spots' to count as $100k each?
C) Neither of the above; don't count them in the cap.

6. Rolling/Partial Lockout VC Loopholing
A) Continue to Allow
B) Disallow - meaning that only 'reasonable' and AFL selected players can be chosen as a C

7. Rolling/Partial Lockout Emgerncy Loopholing
A) Continue to Allow
B) Disallow - meaning that only 'reasonable' and AFL selected players can be chosen in the starting XV

8. Past player comebacks (implemented from 2018 onwards)
A) Keep current bidding system
B) Previous players should automatically return to the list they were on without the bidding process

9. Trading of Officially Retired Players
A) Continue to allow for those struggling with minimum cap
B) Disallow

10. Home Ground Advantage
A) Keep - adds a fun element to the game
B) Scrap - decides too many games

11. Sub Rule
A) Keep - stops injured players from ruining your game
B) Scrap - I like the luck/unpredictability factor when a player goes down early and feel like getting a replacement is a bit soft

12. Priority Picks
A) Keep the current system of:
- Lose less than 4 games in one year, you get an end of first round priority pick
- Lose less than 4 games in two consecutive years, you get a start of first round priority pick

B) Change system to:
- Lose less than 4 games in one year, you get an end of first round priority pick
- Lose less than 4 games in two consecutive years, you get a mid first round priority pick (after all non-finalists)
- Lose less than 4 games in three consecutive years, you get a start of first round priority pick

13. Utilities
A) Continue being allowed to name whomever you like, regardless of their position
B) Limit the utilities to one midfielder, where the second spot has to be a player from another position (DPP mids are allowed), whilst also extending the bench to 4 players

14. WXV Draw
If the rounded scores are the same e.g. 1297 --> 130, and 1302 --> 130, should the game be a draw?

A) Yes, adds more drama to the game
B) No, the team that scores the most points should win

15. Rookie List Salaries - should they count?
A) Yes
B) No

1. A
2. B
3. B
4. B
5. B
6. B
7. B
8. B
9. B
10. B
11. A
12. B
13. B
14. A
15. A

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 16, 2017, 08:30:38 PM

It's just a matter of time before the AFL does away with rookie lists. We should just take lists to 44 or 45 and have 2 drafts, with rookies and leftovers in the 2nd draft.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 16, 2017, 08:38:50 PM

Quote from: GoLions on August 16, 2017, 07:42:49 PM
What about the flood/attack suggested change

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 16, 2017, 07:11:04 PM
Alright, these are the topics that I feel either A) need expanding or B) needs further discussion/acknowledgement or C) needs to articulate the options for me

I'd like it to be done by the author if at all possible, which I've included:

1. Alternate Team Formats (for everyone to discuss)

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 16, 2017, 08:40:37 PM

Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 16, 2017, 07:32:45 PM
7. Closed. Just discussing it and giving it a bit of air time is enough for now

Ah yes, for the other authors, I forgot to mention that you can do that too :)

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 16, 2017, 08:49:50 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 16, 2017, 08:38:50 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 16, 2017, 07:42:49 PM
What about the flood/attack suggested change

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 16, 2017, 07:11:04 PM
Alright, these are the topics that I feel either A) need expanding or B) needs further discussion/acknowledgement or C) needs to articulate the options for me

I'd like it to be done by the author if at all possible, which I've included:

1. Alternate Team Formats (for everyone to discuss)

Ah so that's what that one meant haha

Well my suggestion was simply that, instead of 3 flood and 3 attack, we can change our formation 5 times in total. Could be 5 floods, 5 attacks, 4 floods and 1 attack, etc.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 16, 2017, 09:07:18 PM

Oh right, yeah what I had in mind is that we hadn't explored 'penalties' or other modifiers for going this way.

In acknowledging that some wanted some sort of 'price' to pay from straying from the normal XV structure, I'd simply suggest this

(assuming your opponent has a normal setup)

If you flood, your lowest scoring defender gets a 10% bonus. The oppositions' best defender gets a 10% bonus.

If you attack, your lowest scoring forward gets a 10% bonus. The oppositions' best forward gets a 10% bonus.

If you pinch hit, the opposition ruck gets a 10% bonus.

You can do any team setup you like, at a combined max of 5 times in the year, but you cannot do so in finals.

IMO, this way, the bonus, or differences in, are small enough to provide a 'cost' from straying from the traditional set up, whilst not having a LIKELY bearing on the result?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 16, 2017, 09:09:45 PM

I would like to have my proposal separate to that one :p

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 16, 2017, 09:10:53 PM

I'm a fan of getting 5 to use each year, and including Pinch hit, but I don't think you should get any bonus for any of them - only your opponent gets a bonus because you haven't been able to name a normal XV

- If you flood, your opponents lowest scoring forward gets a 10% bonus
- If you attack, your opponents lowest scoring defender gets a 10% bonus
- If you Pinch Hit, your opponents ruck gets a 10% bonus

Thoughts?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 16, 2017, 09:12:01 PM

Quote from: GoLions on August 16, 2017, 09:09:45 PM
I would like to have my proposal separate to that one :p

It will be :P given my idea is an extension of yours.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 16, 2017, 09:39:15 PM

So with number 4, and this kinda ties in with number 5 depending on the result there.

If I'm 250k below the cap with 3 vacancies, and B is voted in for #5, am I then considered as being 250k below the min cap still, or 50k above?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 16, 2017, 09:53:13 PM

Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 16, 2017, 09:10:53 PM
I'm a fan of getting 5 to use each year, and including Pinch hit, but I don't think you should get any bonus for any of them - only your opponent gets a bonus because you haven't been able to name a normal XV

- If you flood, your opponents lowest scoring forward gets a 10% bonus
- If you attack, your opponents lowest scoring defender gets a 10% bonus
- If you Pinch Hit, your opponents ruck gets a 10% bonus

Thoughts?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Torpedo10 on August 16, 2017, 09:56:07 PM

Quote from: Nige on August 16, 2017, 09:53:13 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 16, 2017, 09:10:53 PM
I'm a fan of getting 5 to use each year, and including Pinch hit, but I don't think you should get any bonus for any of them - only your opponent gets a bonus because you haven't been able to name a normal XV

- If you flood, your opponents lowest scoring forward gets a 10% bonus
- If you attack, your opponents lowest scoring defender gets a 10% bonus
- If you Pinch Hit, your opponents ruck gets a 10% bonus

Thoughts?

Full support for this idea, except I'd argue the ruck loss still needs to be slightly greater. Maybe 20%?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 16, 2017, 10:02:20 PM

I mean, ideally I think that capping the other formats to 5 is best, but no bonuses at all is the best. If anything, teams should be penalised for not having the traditional format, but I don't think giving a bonus to the other team as well is entirely necessary.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: JBs-Hawks on August 16, 2017, 10:04:25 PM

Quote from: Torpedo10 on August 16, 2017, 09:56:07 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 16, 2017, 09:53:13 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 16, 2017, 09:10:53 PM
I'm a fan of getting 5 to use each year, and including Pinch hit, but I don't think you should get any bonus for any of them - only your opponent gets a bonus because you haven't been able to name a normal XV

- If you flood, your opponents lowest scoring forward gets a 10% bonus
- If you attack, your opponents lowest scoring defender gets a 10% bonus
- If you Pinch Hit, your opponents ruck gets a 10% bonus

Thoughts?
Full support for this idea, except I'd argue the ruck loss still needs to be slightly greater. Maybe 20%?

Yea I like it

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 17, 2017, 10:31:59 AM

Quote from: GoLions on August 16, 2017, 09:39:15 PM
So with number 4, and this kinda ties in with number 5 depending on the result there.

If I'm 250k below the cap with 3 vacancies, and B is voted in for #5, am I then considered as being 250k below the min cap still, or 50k above?

50k above

But good question.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 17, 2017, 10:36:59 AM

Not gonna lie, with 7 votes in, I'm getting pretty devo about some of the eventuating results :-X

But, the people are speaking, so will have to cop on it on the chin and move on.

Which reminds me! If a vote doesn't go your way, please, do the same :-X

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 17, 2017, 10:41:16 AM

Ha! Thank you Boomz for pointing out my derp moment :P in rule 12, it's meant to say "win less than 4 games", not lose less than 4 games :P

Everyone would get PPs except for New Delhi & Seoul haha

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 17, 2017, 10:44:10 AM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 17, 2017, 10:41:16 AM
Ha! Thank you Boomz for pointing out my derp moment :P in rule 12, it's meant to say "win less than 4 games", not lose less than 4 games :P

Everyone would get PPs except for New Delhi & Seoul haha

ill vote yes for the rule as it stands, please.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 17, 2017, 11:03:04 AM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 17, 2017, 10:36:59 AM
Not gonna lie, with 7 votes in, I'm getting pretty devo about some of the eventuating results :-X

But, the people are speaking, so will have to cop on it on the chin and move on.

Which reminds me! If a vote doesn't go your way, please, do the same :-X

Saying you're pretty devo is a minor form of protest, so I'll take that as permission to riot excessively if the Sunday bonus rule isn't voted in.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Toga on August 17, 2017, 04:19:09 PM

Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 16, 2017, 10:04:25 PM
Quote from: Torpedo10 on August 16, 2017, 09:56:07 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 16, 2017, 09:53:13 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 16, 2017, 09:10:53 PM
I'm a fan of getting 5 to use each year, and including Pinch hit, but I don't think you should get any bonus for any of them - only your opponent gets a bonus because you haven't been able to name a normal XV

- If you flood, your opponents lowest scoring forward gets a 10% bonus
- If you attack, your opponents lowest scoring defender gets a 10% bonus
- If you Pinch Hit, your opponents ruck gets a 10% bonus

Thoughts?
Full support for this idea, except I'd argue the ruck loss still needs to be slightly greater. Maybe 20%?

Yea I like it

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 17, 2017, 04:44:55 PM

The 10% bonuses are kind of pointless. Just like resting. They won't amount to anything.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 17, 2017, 05:35:06 PM

Quote from: meow meow on August 17, 2017, 04:44:55 PM
The 10% bonuses are kind of pointless. Just like resting. They won't amount to anything.

And a bigger bonus, especially for rucks (the upper echelon particularly) could be particularly OP.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 17, 2017, 05:46:41 PM

Quote from: meow meow on August 17, 2017, 04:44:55 PM
The 10% bonuses are kind of pointless. Just like resting. They won't amount to anything.

However true, I think it's a nice little modifier.

Big enough for the coach to consider, small enough to have an unlikely impact on the game.

I like it.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 17, 2017, 05:48:37 PM

11 votes in

Will hold off declaring that rules with 9 votes are a winner/loser for now, because I don't want to enforce my authority yet :P

Can say

11. Sub Rule
A) Keep - stops injured players from ruining your game
B) Scrap - I like the luck/unpredictability factor when a player goes down early and feel like getting a replacement is a bit soft

... we are keeping the sub rule, currently 10 votes to 1.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: upthemaidens on August 17, 2017, 05:51:22 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 17, 2017, 05:46:41 PM
Quote from: meow meow on August 17, 2017, 04:44:55 PM
The 10% bonuses are kind of pointless. Just like resting. They won't amount to anything.

However true, I think it's a nice little modifier.

Big enough for the coach to consider, small enough to have an unlikely impact on the game.

I like it.

Maybe allow for multiple restings per week instead of just the one?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 17, 2017, 05:54:01 PM

Quote from: upthemaidens on August 17, 2017, 05:51:22 PM
Maybe allow for multiple restings per week instead of just the one?

I'll add to the list. Worth talking about.

Would only be permissible under current resting rules though i.e. you have 18 other valid players available

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 17, 2017, 06:26:02 PM

So didnt get through 50 but put up a sizable list. Did players with A surnames excluding irrelevant ones then a few example.

So its Player, Ossie Average, Holz Average, Difference, Explination if needed

Ryan Abbott 0 0 0 players who haven't played dont change
Gary Ablett 114.5 114.5 0
Blake Acres 71 71 0
Marcus Adams 80 80 0
Taylor Adams 101 106 5 - small increase to reflect that Taylor has listed his average slightly this year
Callum Ah Chee 58.5 57.5 -1
Ben Ainsworth 62 62 0
James Aish 57 57 0
Alirr Alirr 65 64 -1
Karl Amon 59 59 0
Harris Andrews 67 70 3
David Astbury 69 74 5
Shuan Atley 66 68.5 2.5

Now no major differences in any of them a few have improved a few points to reflect their increased scoring this year.

Heath Shaw 102 84.5 -17.5 major dip to reflect the truth that Shaw is no longer a 100+ defender.
Josh Kelly 89 112 22.5 kelly has gone ul alot given is a star of this comp and one of the MVP in the league
Clayton Oliver 95 112 17 note he cost more then Kelly under ossie cap because he was a 2nd year player.
Todd Goldstein 112.5 107 -5.5 Goldy clearly dropped but Ossie has that 128 season lingering in his average.
Dustin Martin 110 118 8 Dustin been a star for years so hence still priced at 110 under ossie but he is a top 3 player and my system reflects this

Nic Nat 105 105 0 under both systems priced the same so no need to worry about the libba rule
Matthew Kreuzer 90 110 20 perhaps the only contentions one but Kreuz is the number 1 ruck in the comp and 90 is way too low. Note he costs 12 points less then heath shaw

If people have any requests pleas ask.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 17, 2017, 06:43:43 PM

Has Purps not asked for at least 50 on multiple occasions?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 17, 2017, 06:51:44 PM

With 12 votes in now, we have another two rules decided:

2. Sub rule for named OOP players
Currently, if you are forced to name a player OOP and he is available to be subbed out, he can't be subbed out because the rule states that a player can only be subbed out if his replacement can come on for full points.

A) Change to: The OOP player can be subbed out for another OOP player, ONLY if the original OOP was named a result of having no available players to fill that position. Of course, the replacement will still have a 50% penalty for being OOP.
B) Keep as is

With 10 votes to 2, A wins, so that's our first difference for next year!

3. Ruck OOP (haven't forgotten about the 'Pinch-Hit' suggestion. That will be in the next PM)
A) Instead of a 50% penalty to your OOP player, award a 50% bonus to the opposition ruck, to make it more realistic.
B) Keep as is

With 10 votes to 2, B wins, so we'll continue to enforce a 50% penalty for ruck OOPs

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 17, 2017, 06:58:22 PM

And another vote in!

1. Rested Player Late Call-Up
Currently, if you have nominated someone to be rested in a given week and, for example, he is a forward, and someone in your forward line is a late withdrawal and you have no other forwards in your starting 18, the current interpretation of the rule is that rested player comes in at quarter points because:
- you can't rest someone if you have to field an OOP in his place; and
- if there is no one in your starting 18 that can replace a player for full points, the next available player comes in at quarter points.

A) Change to: If this scenario happens again, instead the rested player is to be ignored for selection and someone has to come in OOP like normal. The rested player would keep his rested bonus for next week. However, this is only permissible if:
- the players selected in the 18 are named in AFL best 22s at start of the week
B) Keep as is

With 10 votes to 3, A wins, so that is our second change for 2018!

4. Allow Teams to 'Trade' below Minimum Salary Cap?
A) Yes
B) No

With 10 votes to 3, I'm personally disappointed to see 'A' win. But the people have spoken, so that's our third change.

9. Trading of Officially Retired Players
A) Continue to allow for those struggling with minimum cap
B) Disallow

With 10 votes to 3, B wins, so this practice is officially banned and will render the trade void.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: upthemaidens on August 17, 2017, 07:01:41 PM

13. Utilities
A) Continue being allowed to name whomever you like, regardless of their position
B) Limit the utilities to one midfielder, where the second spot has to be a player from another position (DPP mids are allowed), whilst also extending the bench to 4 players

This would decrease the value of M5-M7 players, would there be any compensation for clubs who paid a pretty penny for starting mids Last season?
It's a utility, the player plays any position. Mids just happen to be the most abundant because that's where the points are and they're more available.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: JBs-Hawks on August 17, 2017, 07:03:59 PM

How are teams meant to get above the cap if they end up below it and end of trade period and there's no big salaries in drafts?

Do we then need to have penalties for being below cap like a loss of say 2nd round pick

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 17, 2017, 07:11:08 PM

Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 17, 2017, 07:03:59 PM
How are teams meant to get above the cap if they end up below it and end of trade period and there's no big salaries in drafts?

Do we then need to have penalties for being below cap like a loss of say 2nd round pick

I'm pretty disappointed that the rule changed. I feel like we should be encouraging teams to remain above the cap at all times and now we're excusing them dipping below. It's a bit fraught with danger, but the people have spoken apparently.

Quote from: upthemaidens on August 17, 2017, 07:01:41 PM
13. Utilities
A) Continue being allowed to name whomever you like, regardless of their position
B) Limit the utilities to one midfielder, where the second spot has to be a player from another position (DPP mids are allowed), whilst also extending the bench to 4 players

This would decrease the value of M5-M7 players, would there be any compensation for clubs who paid a pretty penny for starting mids Last season?
It's a utility, the player plays any position. Mids just happen to be the most abundant because that's where the points are and they're more available.

You're not gonna get compensated for having mid depth, don't be ridiculous.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 17, 2017, 07:26:49 PM

Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 17, 2017, 07:03:59 PM
How are teams meant to get above the cap if they end up below it and end of trade period and there's no big salaries in drafts?

Do we then need to have penalties for being below cap like a loss of say 2nd round pick

Tbh don't think a 2nd round pick would be harsh enough. Very surprised this rule got changed. Also what if you traded all your picks haha. Perhaps a loss of premiership points, so you start the season at somewhere between -1 and -4.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 17, 2017, 07:29:00 PM

I think we jumped the gun with the cap rule, because it needs more clarity

We voted yes to being able to dip below, BUT that was under the assumption rookie picks of 100K each would now be added to the cap pre draft

You can't have teams dip below including their rookies already, because that does in fact cause a problem

If you're doing a trade that puts you say 200K under during the trade period that's fine as long as you have more than that worth of Nat pick 100K slots

Can't say the 100K now adds, AND you can dip below

Also, the ruck rule - I know you said there's still more to come but as of now I'm assuming OOP gets full score but opponent gets 50% + 10% for Pinch Hit. I'm sure that's not the case but a bit of clarity would be appreciated

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 17, 2017, 07:29:56 PM

Quote from: Nige on August 17, 2017, 07:11:08 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 17, 2017, 07:01:41 PM
13. Utilities
A) Continue being allowed to name whomever you like, regardless of their position
B) Limit the utilities to one midfielder, where the second spot has to be a player from another position (DPP mids are allowed), whilst also extending the bench to 4 players

This would decrease the value of M5-M7 players, would there be any compensation for clubs who paid a pretty penny for starting mids Last season?
It's a utility, the player plays any position. Mids just happen to be the most abundant because that's where the points are and they're more available.
You're not gonna get compensated for having mid depth, don't be ridiculous.

Haha agreed

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 17, 2017, 07:54:00 PM

Quote from: Nige on August 17, 2017, 06:43:43 PM
Has Purps not asked for at least 50 on multiple occasions?

Feel free to make a comment that add value in regards to comments of the given examples.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 17, 2017, 08:03:41 PM

Quote from: Holz on August 17, 2017, 07:54:00 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 17, 2017, 06:43:43 PM
Has Purps not asked for at least 50 on multiple occasions?

Feel free to make a comment that add value in regards to comments of the given examples.

Don't lobby so hard for your proposed idea and then not be prepared to do the one thing requested of you.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: JBs-Hawks on August 17, 2017, 08:06:17 PM

Quote from: Holz on August 17, 2017, 07:54:00 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 17, 2017, 06:43:43 PM
Has Purps not asked for at least 50 on multiple occasions?

Feel free to make a comment that add value in regards to comments of the given examples.

Your examples showed nothing new, the random examples barely changed, and you kept showing the extreme cases

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 17, 2017, 08:10:13 PM

Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 17, 2017, 07:03:59 PM
How are teams meant to get above the cap if they end up below it and end of trade period and there's no big salaries in drafts?

Do we then need to have penalties for being below cap like a loss of say 2nd round pick

We most certainly will have penalties, I guarantee you that.

However, if draft picks/list spots are made to be worth 100k each, we'll know by the teams list lodgement whether they are on track to surpass the minimum or not.

The vast majority of coaches have voted in favour of it, so we'll be allowing it.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 17, 2017, 08:31:41 PM

Highest averaging player goes to me as my compo for teams that finish below the minimum cap. Vote it in.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 17, 2017, 08:35:30 PM

Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 17, 2017, 08:06:17 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 17, 2017, 07:54:00 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 17, 2017, 06:43:43 PM
Has Purps not asked for at least 50 on multiple occasions?

Feel free to make a comment that add value in regards to comments of the given examples.

Your examples showed nothing new, the random examples barely changed, and you kept showing the extreme cases

Most players dont change thats the point only the extreme cases show changes its called a tinker.

I went athabetical and captured most of the As

Name some players you want.

Sounds like you just dont like the rule as it correctly takes away your advantage from the flawed system. If yiu were unbias the rule makes sense.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 17, 2017, 08:40:19 PM

So if it is in fact 'tinkering' then it's a very slight change.

And the fact that it's only making adjustments to 'extreme cases' and the vast majority of players are unaffected, then why bother changing it?

That's change for the sake of change.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 17, 2017, 08:47:26 PM

Quote from: Holz on August 17, 2017, 06:26:02 PM
So didnt get through 50 but put up a sizable list. Did players with A surnames excluding irrelevant ones then a few example.

So its Player, Ossie Average, Holz Average, Difference, Explination if needed

Ryan Abbott 0 0 0 players who haven't played dont change
Gary Ablett 114.5 114.5 0
Blake Acres 71 71 0
Marcus Adams 80 80 0
Taylor Adams 101 106 5 - small increase to reflect that Taylor has listed his average slightly this year
Callum Ah Chee 58.5 57.5 -1
Ben Ainsworth 62 62 0
James Aish 57 57 0
Alirr Alirr 65 64 -1
Karl Amon 59 59 0
Harris Andrews 67 70 3
David Astbury 69 74 5
Shuan Atley 66 68.5 2.5

Now no major differences in any of them a few have improved a few points to reflect their increased scoring this year.

Heath Shaw 102 84.5 -17.5 major dip to reflect the truth that Shaw is no longer a 100+ defender.
Josh Kelly 89 112 22.5 kelly has gone ul alot given is a star of this comp and one of the MVP in the league
Clayton Oliver 95 112 17 note he cost more then Kelly under ossie cap because he was a 2nd year player.
Todd Goldstein 112.5 107 -5.5 Goldy clearly dropped but Ossie has that 128 season lingering in his average.
Dustin Martin 110 118 8 Dustin been a star for years so hence still priced at 110 under ossie but he is a top 3 player and my system reflects this

Nic Nat 105 105 0 under both systems priced the same so no need to worry about the libba rule
Matthew Kreuzer 90 110 20 perhaps the only contentions one but Kreuz is the number 1 ruck in the comp and 90 is way too low. Note he costs 12 points less then heath shaw

If people have any requests pleas ask.

I don't think the younger guys should be, using Oliver and Kelly as an example, priced using just their performance from this year. It's the first time that they have hit these heights, who knows, they might not back it up. Think it should be somewhere in-between what you and Oss have.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Adamant on August 17, 2017, 08:50:27 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 17, 2017, 08:10:13 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 17, 2017, 07:03:59 PM
How are teams meant to get above the cap if they end up below it and end of trade period and there's no big salaries in drafts?

Do we then need to have penalties for being below cap like a loss of say 2nd round pick

We most certainly will have penalties, I guarantee you that.

Sorry but what was the point of putting this up for vote if we are going to enforce penalties for dipping below the cap? Surely nobody in their right mind will let their team dip below the cap if they are going to be at risk of losing draft picks, premiership points etc. ???

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 17, 2017, 08:54:08 PM

Quote from: Adamant on August 17, 2017, 08:50:27 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 17, 2017, 08:10:13 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 17, 2017, 07:03:59 PM
How are teams meant to get above the cap if they end up below it and end of trade period and there's no big salaries in drafts?

Do we then need to have penalties for being below cap like a loss of say 2nd round pick

We most certainly will have penalties, I guarantee you that.

Sorry but what was the point of putting this up for vote if we are going to enforce penalties for dipping below the cap? Surely nobody in their right mind will let their team dip below the cap if they are going to be at risk of losing draft picks, premiership points etc. ???

If you're below the cap at the end of the trade period, then surely you'd have to cop some sort of penalty, otherwise why have the minimum cap?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 17, 2017, 08:54:52 PM

Quote from: GoLions on August 17, 2017, 08:54:08 PM
Quote from: Adamant on August 17, 2017, 08:50:27 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 17, 2017, 08:10:13 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 17, 2017, 07:03:59 PM
How are teams meant to get above the cap if they end up below it and end of trade period and there's no big salaries in drafts?

Do we then need to have penalties for being below cap like a loss of say 2nd round pick

We most certainly will have penalties, I guarantee you that.

Sorry but what was the point of putting this up for vote if we are going to enforce penalties for dipping below the cap? Surely nobody in their right mind will let their team dip below the cap if they are going to be at risk of losing draft picks, premiership points etc. ???
If you're below the cap at the end of the trade period, then surely you'd have to cop some sort of penalty, otherwise why have the minimum cap?

Actually Ada, I just realised what you were getting at, and I 100% agree

#scrapthecap

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 17, 2017, 09:18:03 PM

New rule suggestion

Anything and everything to do with the cap to stay exactly as it has been this season, ending all discussions/debate/votes about it

We all got through this year just fine

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 17, 2017, 09:29:42 PM

Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 17, 2017, 09:18:03 PM
New rule suggestion

Anything and everything to do with the cap to stay exactly as it has been this season, ending all discussions/debate/votes about it

We all got through this year just fine

Gets my vote.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Torpedo10 on August 17, 2017, 09:30:15 PM

Quote from: Nige on August 17, 2017, 09:29:42 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 17, 2017, 09:18:03 PM
New rule suggestion

Anything and everything to do with the cap to stay exactly as it has been this season, ending all discussions/debate/votes about it

We all got through this year just fine
Gets my vote.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 17, 2017, 09:57:23 PM

Oh for goodness sake!

We had that opportunity before we started discussing rules, and everyone except one wanted to discuss rules.

Quote from: Adamant on August 17, 2017, 08:50:27 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 17, 2017, 08:10:13 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 17, 2017, 07:03:59 PM
How are teams meant to get above the cap if they end up below it and end of trade period and there's no big salaries in drafts?

Do we then need to have penalties for being below cap like a loss of say 2nd round pick

We most certainly will have penalties, I guarantee you that.

Sorry but what was the point of putting this up for vote if we are going to enforce penalties for dipping below the cap? Surely nobody in their right mind will let their team dip below the cap if they are going to be at risk of losing draft picks, premiership points etc. ???

I thought people knew this when they were voting? What did people think a minimum cap was there for?

Really, really frustrating.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 17, 2017, 10:02:03 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 17, 2017, 09:57:23 PM
Oh for goodness sake!

We had that opportunity before we started discussing rules, and everyone except one wanted to discuss rules.

Quote from: Adamant on August 17, 2017, 08:50:27 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 17, 2017, 08:10:13 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 17, 2017, 07:03:59 PM
How are teams meant to get above the cap if they end up below it and end of trade period and there's no big salaries in drafts?

Do we then need to have penalties for being below cap like a loss of say 2nd round pick

We most certainly will have penalties, I guarantee you that.

Sorry but what was the point of putting this up for vote if we are going to enforce penalties for dipping below the cap? Surely nobody in their right mind will let their team dip below the cap if they are going to be at risk of losing draft picks, premiership points etc. ???

I thought people knew this when they were voting? What did people think a minimum cap was there for?

Really, really frustrating.

Could not agree with you more.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 17, 2017, 10:09:40 PM

Quote from: GoLions on August 17, 2017, 10:02:03 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 17, 2017, 09:57:23 PM
Oh for goodness sake!

We had that opportunity before we started discussing rules, and everyone except one wanted to discuss rules.

Quote from: Adamant on August 17, 2017, 08:50:27 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 17, 2017, 08:10:13 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 17, 2017, 07:03:59 PM
How are teams meant to get above the cap if they end up below it and end of trade period and there's no big salaries in drafts?

Do we then need to have penalties for being below cap like a loss of say 2nd round pick

We most certainly will have penalties, I guarantee you that.

Sorry but what was the point of putting this up for vote if we are going to enforce penalties for dipping below the cap? Surely nobody in their right mind will let their team dip below the cap if they are going to be at risk of losing draft picks, premiership points etc. ???

I thought people knew this when they were voting? What did people think a minimum cap was there for?

Really, really frustrating.
Could not agree with you more.

I feel for you purp. It was obvious when voted on.

Some people are just lazy and complain offering no solution themselves just shooting down people putting in effort

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 17, 2017, 10:19:41 PM

Quote from: Holz on August 17, 2017, 10:09:40 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 17, 2017, 10:02:03 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 17, 2017, 09:57:23 PM
Oh for goodness sake!

We had that opportunity before we started discussing rules, and everyone except one wanted to discuss rules.

Quote from: Adamant on August 17, 2017, 08:50:27 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 17, 2017, 08:10:13 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 17, 2017, 07:03:59 PM
How are teams meant to get above the cap if they end up below it and end of trade period and there's no big salaries in drafts?

Do we then need to have penalties for being below cap like a loss of say 2nd round pick

We most certainly will have penalties, I guarantee you that.

Sorry but what was the point of putting this up for vote if we are going to enforce penalties for dipping below the cap? Surely nobody in their right mind will let their team dip below the cap if they are going to be at risk of losing draft picks, premiership points etc. ???

I thought people knew this when they were voting? What did people think a minimum cap was there for?

Really, really frustrating.
Could not agree with you more.

I feel for you purp. It was obvious when voted on.

Some people are just lazy and complain offering no solution themselves just shooting down people putting in effort

Nawww, look at all us admins getting along :')

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 17, 2017, 10:22:24 PM

Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 17, 2017, 09:18:03 PM
New rule suggestion

Anything and everything to do with the cap to stay exactly as it has been this season, ending all discussions/debate/votes about it

We all got through this year just fine

Its not a tough rule.

Who averaged more this year shaw or kelly : kelly by 30

Who will average more next year. Most will say kelly.

Therefore kelly has to cost more or why have a cap

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 17, 2017, 10:33:59 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 17, 2017, 09:57:23 PM
Oh for goodness sake!

We had that opportunity before we started discussing rules, and everyone except one wanted to discuss rules.

Was that Boomz? :P

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 17, 2017, 10:41:14 PM

Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 17, 2017, 07:29:00 PM
I think we jumped the gun with the cap rule, because it needs more clarity

We voted yes to being able to dip below, BUT that was under the assumption rookie picks of 100K each would now be added to the cap pre draft

You can't have teams dip below including their rookies already, because that does in fact cause a problem

If you're doing a trade that puts you say 200K under during the trade period that's fine as long as you have more than that worth of Nat pick 100K slots

Can't say the 100K now adds, AND you can dip below

Also, the ruck rule - I know you said there's still more to come but as of now I'm assuming OOP gets full score but opponent gets 50% + 10% for Pinch Hit. I'm sure that's not the case but a bit of clarity would be appreciated

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 17, 2017, 10:31:59 AM
Quote from: GoLions on August 16, 2017, 09:39:15 PM
So with number 4, and this kinda ties in with number 5 depending on the result there.

If I'm 250k below the cap with 3 vacancies, and B is voted in for #5, am I then considered as being 250k below the min cap still, or 50k above?

50k above

But good question.

See RD, I ask the good questions

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 17, 2017, 11:06:41 PM

Like I said, I voted to allow teams to dip below the cap during the trade period because I thought draft picks would now be worth 100k, giving teams an extra 500k-1M in cap space in the first place meaning most teams wouldn't actually even dip below it

We might be 3 weeks into a trade period and a team with a low cap like London does a trade that puts them under by 200k. I don't see a problem with that because they still have the remainder of the trade period to do more trades to get them back above the minimum

We need to afford these teams the flexibility to trade accordingly, so if they dip below for a short period of time during the trade period than that should be fine, but they need to eventually get back over it before the trade period ends

We can either make draft picks worth 100k during the trade period (which I think is common sense), and that alone should see no team falling under in the first place, or we can let them dip below but if they don't get above by the completion of trade period then they are penalised

Personally, I'd like to see both - draft picks worth 100k increasing your cap straight away and allowing teams to dip below during the period (even with the picks added and counted) but being penalised if they don't get above before the trade period ends

There's always enough spuds going around worth a few hundred K that they could always trade in if need be to get them back above in time. I'd be shocked if a team actually dipped below with the above new rules and couldn't get back above in time, but in the extremely remote chance that it did in fact happen then the penalty needs to be significant, because you've been given more than enough time, and more than enough of a warning. 4 Premiership points being deducted would be sufficient, and the loss of their 1st round pick. That's more than enough of a reason to tread lightly and go below in the first place

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 17, 2017, 11:13:20 PM

Fwiw the draft picks counting as 100k shouldn't be an option. I could have 6 draft picks and 0 vacancies on my list. So let's say I'm allowed to go 500k under the cap (which would be 100k over if draft picks were 100k), then trade period ends and I'm still in the same position. Doesn't really work. Should only be list vacancies that count as 100k.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 17, 2017, 11:17:52 PM

Quote from: GoLions on August 17, 2017, 11:13:20 PM
Fwiw the draft picks counting as 100k shouldn't be an option. I could have 6 draft picks and 0 vacancies on my list. So let's say I'm allowed to go 500k under the cap (which would be 100k over if draft picks were 100k), then trade period ends and I'm still in the same position. Doesn't really work. Should only be list vacancies that count as 100k.

That's what I meant sorry

100k per pick, but the only 100k picks that count are the ones that you will have on your list, so basically all of your players plus X amount of picks that gets you 40 seniors and 5 rookies

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: MajorLazer on August 17, 2017, 11:20:11 PM

Ok I've stayed pretty quiet regarding anything of any sort of actual importance to this comp, but here's my two cents on voting for allowing teams to dip under the minimum.

Also let me premise this by saying I may have misinterpreted things here and there so more than happy for someone to explain it more clearly to me.

How I see it is that because the trade period is before the draft and teams are going to have to delist players to comply with the maximum cap, there will/should always be a way to get back over the cap. Being under the minimum is obviously a bad thing for the evenness of the competition, but I think that the fact that if you are under the min cap and have to draft some afl list cloggers, it is a decent 'waste' of draft picks and is a decent current punishment.

If a team is still under the min cap after the draft, well then that's when punishments should be severe. This is where I probably didn't think it through as much as I should've as we hadn't discussed punishments at all. I definitely think draft pick(s) should be taken away. Premiership points could as well be stripped, but I would also look towards at least a formal warning against the coach, and potentially being replaced as coach. May seem harsh, but it's a pretty simple task to at least make the team somewhat competitive.

That's enough serious stuff from me for a while. Pls give me all your good players.

PS. Also in favour of list vacancies being 100k

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 17, 2017, 11:26:24 PM

Would have been easier for you to just quote my previous post :P

Good minds think alike ;)

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: MajorLazer on August 17, 2017, 11:29:27 PM

Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 17, 2017, 11:26:24 PM
Would have been easier for you to just quote my previous post :P

Good minds think alike ;)

Yeah I like seeming somewhat serious every now and then and had started getting my ramble on.

Bad luck thinking like me. ;)

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Ricochet on August 17, 2017, 11:48:40 PM

Quote from: Holz on August 17, 2017, 08:35:30 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 17, 2017, 08:06:17 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 17, 2017, 07:54:00 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 17, 2017, 06:43:43 PM
Has Purps not asked for at least 50 on multiple occasions?

Feel free to make a comment that add value in regards to comments of the given examples.

Your examples showed nothing new, the random examples barely changed, and you kept showing the extreme cases

Most players dont change thats the point only the extreme cases show changes its called a tinker.

I went athabetical and captured most of the As

Name some players you want.

Sounds like you just dont like the rule as it correctly takes away your advantage from the flawed system. If yiu were unbias the rule makes sense.

Here's 45

1) Marc Murphy
2) Steele Sidebottom
3) Stefan Martin
4) Robbie Gray
5) Jeremy Howe
6) Jake Lloyd
7) Matt Crouch
8 ) Jack Ziebell
9) Daniel Rich
10) Sebastian Ross
11) Jeremy Cameron
12) Bachar Houli
13) Hamish Hartlett
14) Jack Martin
15) Jack Darling
16) Aaron Mullett
17) Nick Vlastuin
18) Travis Cloke
19) Phil Davis
20) Nathan Krakouer
21) Adam Oxley
22) Nick Robertson
23) Darcy Tucker
24) Ed Langdon
25) Nakia Cockatoo
26) Riley Knight
27) Liam Sumner
28) Paddy McCartin
29) Harley Balic
30) Brayden Sier
31) Jake Barrett
32) Nick O'Kearney
33) Brandon Jack
34) Archie Smith
35) Simon White
36) Harry Morrison
37) Brady Grey
38) Blake Grewar
39) Mitchell Hinge
40) Sam Simpson
R1) Jordan Foote
R2) Dallas Willsmore
R3) Jordan Dawson
R4) Cameron Loersch
R5) Sam Murray

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: JBs-Hawks on August 17, 2017, 11:53:11 PM

Quote from: Ricochet on August 17, 2017, 11:48:40 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 17, 2017, 08:35:30 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 17, 2017, 08:06:17 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 17, 2017, 07:54:00 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 17, 2017, 06:43:43 PM
Has Purps not asked for at least 50 on multiple occasions?

Feel free to make a comment that add value in regards to comments of the given examples.

Your examples showed nothing new, the random examples barely changed, and you kept showing the extreme cases

Most players dont change thats the point only the extreme cases show changes its called a tinker.

I went athabetical and captured most of the As

Name some players you want.

Sounds like you just dont like the rule as it correctly takes away your advantage from the flawed system. If yiu were unbias the rule makes sense.

Here's 45

1) Marc Murphy
2) Steele Sidebottom
3) Stefan Martin
4) Robbie Gray
5) Jeremy Howe
6) Jake Lloyd
7) Matt Crouch
8 ) Jack Ziebell
9) Daniel Rich
10) Sebastian Ross
11) Jeremy Cameron
12) Bachar Houli
13) Hamish Hartlett
14) Jack Martin
15) Jack Darling
16) Aaron Mullett
17) Nick Vlastuin
18) Travis Cloke
19) Phil Davis
20) Nathan Krakouer
21) Adam Oxley
22) Nick Robertson
23) Darcy Tucker
24) Ed Langdon
25) Nakia Cockatoo
26) Riley Knight
27) Liam Sumner
28) Paddy McCartin
29) Harley Balic
30) Brayden Sier
31) Jake Barrett
32) Nick O'Kearney
33) Brandon Jack
34) Archie Smith
35) Simon White
36) Harry Morrison
37) Brady Grey
38) Blake Grewar
39) Mitchell Hinge
40) Sam Simpson
R1) Jordan Foote
R2) Dallas Willsmore
R3) Jordan Dawson
R4) Cameron Loersch
R5) Sam Murray

+ Brad

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Jay on August 18, 2017, 12:07:40 AM

Quote from: Nige on August 17, 2017, 07:11:08 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 17, 2017, 07:03:59 PM
How are teams meant to get above the cap if they end up below it and end of trade period and there's no big salaries in drafts?

Do we then need to have penalties for being below cap like a loss of say 2nd round pick
I'm pretty disappointed that the rule changed. I feel like we should be encouraging teams to remain above the cap at all times and now we're excusing them dipping below. It's a bit fraught with danger, but the people have spoken apparently.

Quote from: upthemaidens on August 17, 2017, 07:01:41 PM
13. Utilities
A) Continue being allowed to name whomever you like, regardless of their position
B) Limit the utilities to one midfielder, where the second spot has to be a player from another position (DPP mids are allowed), whilst also extending the bench to 4 players

This would decrease the value of M5-M7 players, would there be any compensation for clubs who paid a pretty penny for starting mids Last season?
It's a utility, the player plays any position. Mids just happen to be the most abundant because that's where the points are and they're more available.
You're not gonna get compensated for having mid depth, don't be ridiculous.

I think not being able to play two midfielders at the utility is more ridiculous.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 12:22:54 AM

Quote from: Jay on August 18, 2017, 12:07:40 AM
Quote from: Nige on August 17, 2017, 07:11:08 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 17, 2017, 07:03:59 PM
How are teams meant to get above the cap if they end up below it and end of trade period and there's no big salaries in drafts?

Do we then need to have penalties for being below cap like a loss of say 2nd round pick
I'm pretty disappointed that the rule changed. I feel like we should be encouraging teams to remain above the cap at all times and now we're excusing them dipping below. It's a bit fraught with danger, but the people have spoken apparently.

Quote from: upthemaidens on August 17, 2017, 07:01:41 PM
13. Utilities
A) Continue being allowed to name whomever you like, regardless of their position
B) Limit the utilities to one midfielder, where the second spot has to be a player from another position (DPP mids are allowed), whilst also extending the bench to 4 players

This would decrease the value of M5-M7 players, would there be any compensation for clubs who paid a pretty penny for starting mids Last season?
It's a utility, the player plays any position. Mids just happen to be the most abundant because that's where the points are and they're more available.
You're not gonna get compensated for having mid depth, don't be ridiculous.
I think not being able to play two midfielders at the utility is more ridiculous.

I know it sounds crazy, but if it gets voted in then you could always, ya know, trade a mid mayhaps.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Jroo on August 18, 2017, 12:25:43 AM

From what I gathered I took going under the min cap as you're allowed to trade to get under it as long as you get over it by the end of the draft, so since that's been voted in perhaps we'll have to vote on punishments if that's not the case

Also I was a fan of removing HGA during the H&A season, it's allocated randomly so surely we should just be judging games on who actually scored the most. Finals I'm happy for it to stay since you deserve an advantage for finishing higher on the ladder

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 12:32:07 AM

Quote from: JROO8 on August 18, 2017, 12:25:43 AM
From what I gathered I took going under the min cap as you're allowed to trade to get under it as long as you get over it by the end of the draft, so since that's been voted in perhaps we'll have to vote on punishments if that's not the case

Also I was a fan of removing HGA during the H&A season, it's allocated randomly so surely we should just be judging games on who actually scored the most. Finals I'm happy for it to stay since you deserve an advantage for finishing higher on the ladder

As a (currently) lower team, i like that if i have HGA, i have a much better chance at knocking over one of the top teams, like NDT or Seoul. And a pie team like Dublin might be able to beat me if they have HGA. And if I'm playing someone like NDT or Seoul and they have HGA, then i can always ~~tank~~ give it my best shot.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Toga on August 18, 2017, 12:41:28 AM

I like HGA - definitely adds a lot to the 'realness' of the game.

As for the dipping below minimum cap rule, I personally didn't see too much of an issue because I thought it would have the same effect as it currently does (e.g. preventing complete uncompetitiveness) but would provide teams struggling at the minimum a bit more flexibility in the timing of their trades. Didn't realise this was contentious!

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Ricochet on August 18, 2017, 01:10:56 AM

Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 17, 2017, 11:53:11 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on August 17, 2017, 11:48:40 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 17, 2017, 08:35:30 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 17, 2017, 08:06:17 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 17, 2017, 07:54:00 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 17, 2017, 06:43:43 PM
Has Purps not asked for at least 50 on multiple occasions?

Feel free to make a comment that add value in regards to comments of the given examples.

Your examples showed nothing new, the random examples barely changed, and you kept showing the extreme cases

Most players dont change thats the point only the extreme cases show changes its called a tinker.

I went athabetical and captured most of the As

Name some players you want.

Sounds like you just dont like the rule as it correctly takes away your advantage from the flawed system. If yiu were unbias the rule makes sense.

Here's 45

1) Marc Murphy
2) Steele Sidebottom
3) Stefan Martin
4) Robbie Gray
5) Jeremy Howe
6) Jake Lloyd
7) Matt Crouch
8 ) Jack Ziebell
9) Daniel Rich
10) Sebastian Ross
11) Jeremy Cameron
12) Bachar Houli
13) Hamish Hartlett
14) Jack Martin
15) Jack Darling
16) Aaron Mullett
17) Nick Vlastuin
18) Travis Cloke
19) Phil Davis
20) Nathan Krakouer
21) Adam Oxley
22) Nick Robertson
23) Darcy Tucker
24) Ed Langdon
25) Nakia Cockatoo
26) Riley Knight
27) Liam Sumner
28) Paddy McCartin
29) Harley Balic
30) Brayden Sier
31) Jake Barrett
32) Nick O'Kearney
33) Brandon Jack
34) Archie Smith
35) Simon White
36) Harry Morrison
37) Brady Grey
38) Blake Grewar
39) Mitchell Hinge
40) Sam Simpson
R1) Jordan Foote
R2) Dallas Willsmore
R3) Jordan Dawson
R4) Cameron Loersch
R5) Sam Murray

+ Brad

$1

don't need a special formula to work out his value

But seriously holz, do those 40odd. I think your idea has merit but needa see it.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Levi434 on August 18, 2017, 01:16:44 AM

We should flat out STOP trade discussion and threads about trades until AFTER the finals. I know I've discussed trades already but still.

Trade discussion thread should open the day after the GF. Trade confirmation thread should open a week after the GF.

Give the teams in finals some respect and some time to shine. Trade period takes up like 4 months. The least we could do is allow the teams in the GRAND FINAL to have some time to shine. Don't they deserve it?

Avoid the inevitable 1-month lull that we will have when trades die down. As we sit right now, trades have been happening for over a month. I'd say about 20 trades are already locked in. If this was a real comp we'd all be getting huge fines right now.

We simply don't need to have all this going on right now. Trading will be all of our primary focus for the next 4 months after finals finish. I see no harm in waiting a few weeks whilst finals and other things take centre stage.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Jay on August 18, 2017, 01:32:57 AM

Quote from: Levi434 on August 18, 2017, 01:16:44 AM
We should flat out STOP trade discussion and threads about trades until AFTER the finals. I know I've discussed trades already but still.

Trade discussion thread should open the day after the GF. Trade confirmation thread should open a week after the GF.

Give the teams in finals some respect and some time to shine. Trade period takes up like 4 months. The least we could do is allow the teams in the GRAND FINAL to have some time to shine. Don't they deserve it?

Avoid the inevitable 1-month lull that we will have when trades die down. As we sit right now, trades have been happening for over a month. I'd say about 20 trades are already locked in. If this was a real comp we'd all be getting huge fines right now.

We simply don't need to have all this going on right now. Trading will be all of our primary focus for the next 4 months after finals finish. I see no harm in waiting a few weeks whilst finals and other things take centre stage.

There's a good idea! :)

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 02:03:04 AM

Quote from: Jay on August 18, 2017, 01:32:57 AM
Quote from: Levi434 on August 18, 2017, 01:16:44 AM
We should flat out STOP trade discussion and threads about trades until AFTER the finals. I know I've discussed trades already but still.

Trade discussion thread should open the day after the GF. Trade confirmation thread should open a week after the GF.

Give the teams in finals some respect and some time to shine. Trade period takes up like 4 months. The least we could do is allow the teams in the GRAND FINAL to have some time to shine. Don't they deserve it?

Avoid the inevitable 1-month lull that we will have when trades die down. As we sit right now, trades have been happening for over a month. I'd say about 20 trades are already locked in. If this was a real comp we'd all be getting huge fines right now.

We simply don't need to have all this going on right now. Trading will be all of our primary focus for the next 4 months after finals finish. I see no harm in waiting a few weeks whilst finals and other things take centre stage.
There's a good idea! :)

There's only so much that people are gonna say in each finals week thread. A 'ban' on trade talks would just mean even more discussion in a thread like this, not extra discussion and banter in the finals threads. So if aiming to have finals games as the only focus, rules discussion would need to be postponed until after the GF. And then trade confirmations would likely need to be postponed further until rules are all sorted, which would take ages if starting after finals. And it would suck :P

Also, people would likely just discuss trades privately anyway.

I'd also like to think that the teams not in finals being able to focus on trade talks early helps in evening the comp, as the top teams are focusing more on finals and may miss out on some juicy deals :p

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 18, 2017, 08:55:45 AM

Quote from: Ricochet on August 18, 2017, 01:10:56 AM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 17, 2017, 11:53:11 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on August 17, 2017, 11:48:40 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 17, 2017, 08:35:30 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 17, 2017, 08:06:17 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 17, 2017, 07:54:00 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 17, 2017, 06:43:43 PM
Has Purps not asked for at least 50 on multiple occasions?

Feel free to make a comment that add value in regards to comments of the given examples.

Your examples showed nothing new, the random examples barely changed, and you kept showing the extreme cases

Most players dont change thats the point only the extreme cases show changes its called a tinker.

I went athabetical and captured most of the As

Name some players you want.

Sounds like you just dont like the rule as it correctly takes away your advantage from the flawed system. If yiu were unbias the rule makes sense.

Here's 45

1) Marc Murphy
2) Steele Sidebottom
3) Stefan Martin
4) Robbie Gray
5) Jeremy Howe
6) Jake Lloyd
7) Matt Crouch
8 ) Jack Ziebell
9) Daniel Rich
10) Sebastian Ross
11) Jeremy Cameron
12) Bachar Houli
13) Hamish Hartlett
14) Jack Martin
15) Jack Darling
16) Aaron Mullett
17) Nick Vlastuin
18) Travis Cloke
19) Phil Davis
20) Nathan Krakouer
21) Adam Oxley
22) Nick Robertson
23) Darcy Tucker
24) Ed Langdon
25) Nakia Cockatoo
26) Riley Knight
27) Liam Sumner
28) Paddy McCartin
29) Harley Balic
30) Brayden Sier
31) Jake Barrett
32) Nick O'Kearney
33) Brandon Jack
34) Archie Smith
35) Simon White
36) Harry Morrison
37) Brady Grey
38) Blake Grewar
39) Mitchell Hinge
40) Sam Simpson
R1) Jordan Foote
R2) Dallas Willsmore
R3) Jordan Dawson
R4) Cameron Loersch
R5) Sam Murray

+ Brad
$1

don't need a special formula to work out his value

But seriously holz, do those 40odd. I think your idea has merit but needa see it.

Im away from long weekend.

I might compeomise and go 90% 5% 5% for 18+ so guys like kelly are a little cheaper so 108 instead of 112. Still up from 90 under ossie.

What do people think?

Ill do both rating NDT

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Ringo on August 18, 2017, 09:53:40 AM

Just to clarify the minimum cap as I was one who wanted it after having 2 trades rejected last year because of it.

This amendment allowing draft picks to be worth 100k and have list vacancies has alleviated the problem. The issue will be on coaches to monitor to ensure that they are above minimum cap prior to season start.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 18, 2017, 11:07:08 AM

Trade confab thread deleted so we can all focus on watching Pacific get smashed.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 18, 2017, 11:24:17 AM

Quote from: meow meow on August 18, 2017, 11:07:08 AM
Trade confab thread deleted so we can all focus on watching Pacific get smashed.

Oh wow, it was actually deleted. Nice.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 12:16:29 PM

Quote from: Holz on August 18, 2017, 08:55:45 AM
Quote from: Ricochet on August 18, 2017, 01:10:56 AM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 17, 2017, 11:53:11 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on August 17, 2017, 11:48:40 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 17, 2017, 08:35:30 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 17, 2017, 08:06:17 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 17, 2017, 07:54:00 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 17, 2017, 06:43:43 PM
Has Purps not asked for at least 50 on multiple occasions?

Feel free to make a comment that add value in regards to comments of the given examples.

Your examples showed nothing new, the random examples barely changed, and you kept showing the extreme cases

Most players dont change thats the point only the extreme cases show changes its called a tinker.

I went athabetical and captured most of the As

Name some players you want.

Sounds like you just dont like the rule as it correctly takes away your advantage from the flawed system. If yiu were unbias the rule makes sense.

Here's 45

1) Marc Murphy
2) Steele Sidebottom
3) Stefan Martin
4) Robbie Gray
5) Jeremy Howe
6) Jake Lloyd
7) Matt Crouch
8 ) Jack Ziebell
9) Daniel Rich
10) Sebastian Ross
11) Jeremy Cameron
12) Bachar Houli
13) Hamish Hartlett
14) Jack Martin
15) Jack Darling
16) Aaron Mullett
17) Nick Vlastuin
18) Travis Cloke
19) Phil Davis
20) Nathan Krakouer
21) Adam Oxley
22) Nick Robertson
23) Darcy Tucker
24) Ed Langdon
25) Nakia Cockatoo
26) Riley Knight
27) Liam Sumner
28) Paddy McCartin
29) Harley Balic
30) Brayden Sier
31) Jake Barrett
32) Nick O'Kearney
33) Brandon Jack
34) Archie Smith
35) Simon White
36) Harry Morrison
37) Brady Grey
38) Blake Grewar
39) Mitchell Hinge
40) Sam Simpson
R1) Jordan Foote
R2) Dallas Willsmore
R3) Jordan Dawson
R4) Cameron Loersch
R5) Sam Murray

+ Brad
$1

don't need a special formula to work out his value

But seriously holz, do those 40odd. I think your idea has merit but needa see it.

Im away from long weekend.

I might compeomise and go 90% 5% 5% for 18+ so guys like kelly are a little cheaper so 108 instead of 112. Still up from 90 under ossie.

What do people think?

Ill do both rating NDT

Yeah that could be a bit better then

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 18, 2017, 12:20:27 PM

Yeah to clarify just in case, there would only be penalties if your list lodgement (list vacanies included as 100k) was below the minimum cap, not during the trade period.

We can definitely discuss those penalties now

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 12:22:44 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 18, 2017, 12:20:27 PM
Yeah to clarify just in case, there would only be penalties if your list lodgement (list vacanies included as 100k) was below the minimum cap, not during the trade period.

We can definitely discuss those penalties now

Loss of premiership points

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 18, 2017, 12:24:03 PM

With Berlin (waiting til last), London and PNL to vote

Votes 5, 6, 7, 8, 12 and 15 still in contention.

10. Home Ground Advantage
A) Keep - adds a fun element to the game
B) Scrap - decides too many games

The first 3 coaches voted B, and I was getting devo :P so I'm personally thankful that A wins with 10 votes to 5

13. Utilities
A) Continue being allowed to name whomever you like, regardless of their position
B) Limit the utilities to one midfielder, where the second spot has to be a player from another position (DPP mids are allowed), whilst also extending the bench to 4 players

With 10 votes to 5, A wins. Utilities will continue to be free range.

14. WXV Draw
If the rounded scores are the same e.g. 1297 --> 130, and 1302 --> 130, should the game be a draw?

A) Yes, adds more drama to the game
B) No, the team that scores the most points should win

With 11 votes to 4, B wins. No changes will be made.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Ringo on August 18, 2017, 12:46:39 PM

London will be voting soon - been ill the last few days.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 18, 2017, 12:48:17 PM

Quote from: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 12:22:44 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 18, 2017, 12:20:27 PM
Yeah to clarify just in case, there would only be penalties if your list lodgement (list vacanies included as 100k) was below the minimum cap, not during the trade period.

We can definitely discuss those penalties now
Loss of premiership points

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Toga on August 18, 2017, 01:05:59 PM

Phew, would've been devo if 10 or 13 had have changed :P

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 01:11:07 PM

Quote from: Toga on August 18, 2017, 01:05:59 PM
Phew, would've been devo if 10 or 13 had have changed :P

I reckon the utilities rule is a cool concept. I dunno how well it would work, but maybe it's something we could try out in pre-season?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 18, 2017, 01:12:29 PM

Disappointed that 13 didn't change tbh.

It would have added an appropriate amount of spice to this wonderful comp.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 18, 2017, 01:20:29 PM

Quote from: Nige on August 18, 2017, 12:48:17 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 12:22:44 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 18, 2017, 12:20:27 PM
Yeah to clarify just in case, there would only be penalties if your list lodgement (list vacanies included as 100k) was below the minimum cap, not during the trade period.

We can definitely discuss those penalties now
Loss of premiership points

4 Premiership points AND 1st NAT Pick

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: JBs-Hawks on August 18, 2017, 01:20:34 PM

Chuck 13 straight in the trash can, no need to reward lack of mid depth.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: iZander on August 18, 2017, 01:22:35 PM

Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 18, 2017, 01:20:34 PM
Chuck 13 straight in the trash can, no need to reward lack of mid depth.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 18, 2017, 01:23:09 PM

Also the deletion of the trade thread really just means trade talks are gonna shift to PMs and Discord, and there'll be more fuss about the rules as they get released.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Ricochet on August 18, 2017, 01:23:59 PM

I voted for teams to be able to go below the minimum cap, as long as they finish above the min cap at the end of the trade period. In the past we had quite a few trades we couldn't do because it would bring us below the cap, or we were already below and every trade had to be an increase in cap value. So we know its a pain in the ass.

But also know how important the min cap is.

Everyone knows its to stop teams trading into a position that's uncompetitive, so i'm not sure the penalty (for not finishing the trade period above the min cap) should make them more uncompetitive the next season. In fact it'd almost be a positive so they'd have more chance of a higher draft pick.

I know that if I was in that position of rebuild again then the things i'd value most would be high draft picks, for the youth you can pick up and their trade value. So maybe a future first rounder is the right penalty? Won't impact them on the upcoming season, but is a pretty big penalty that would definitely be a deterrent

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 18, 2017, 01:24:24 PM

Quote from: Nige on August 18, 2017, 01:12:29 PM
Disappointed that 13 didn't change tbh.

It would have added an appropriate amount of spice to this wonderful comp.

Wouldn't be nice if you copped a few injuries and then had to flood/attack plus have a def/fwd as a Utility, meaning you have a perfectly healthy mid as an emergency simply because you couldn't start two mids on the Interchange

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: iZander on August 18, 2017, 01:24:32 PM

Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 18, 2017, 01:20:29 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 18, 2017, 12:48:17 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 12:22:44 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 18, 2017, 12:20:27 PM
Yeah to clarify just in case, there would only be penalties if your list lodgement (list vacanies included as 100k) was below the minimum cap, not during the trade period.

We can definitely discuss those penalties now
Loss of premiership points

4 Premiership points AND 1st NAT Pick

Premiership points lol

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 01:26:09 PM

Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 18, 2017, 01:20:29 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 18, 2017, 12:48:17 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 12:22:44 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 18, 2017, 12:20:27 PM
Yeah to clarify just in case, there would only be penalties if your list lodgement (list vacanies included as 100k) was below the minimum cap, not during the trade period.

We can definitely discuss those penalties now
Loss of premiership points

4 Premiership points AND 1st NAT Pick

It'd need to be a consistent penalty. Can't punish via draft picks because they may have traded them all away. Would also be an inconsistent penalty, as someone could lose N1 and someone could lose N80 (extreme example I know). Could say you lose your first round pick for the following season, but again, someone could lose N1 and someone could lose N18. Premiership points is equal for everyone, so that's why it appeals to me. If someone can think of something else though, that'd be consistent across any team, then speak up, cause I can't think of anything else atm :P

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 18, 2017, 01:26:26 PM

Quote from: iZander on August 18, 2017, 01:24:32 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 18, 2017, 01:20:29 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 18, 2017, 12:48:17 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 12:22:44 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 18, 2017, 12:20:27 PM
Yeah to clarify just in case, there would only be penalties if your list lodgement (list vacanies included as 100k) was below the minimum cap, not during the trade period.

We can definitely discuss those penalties now
Loss of premiership points

4 Premiership points AND 1st NAT Pick

Premiership points lol

Alright, we'll settle on termination then. 8)

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 01:27:57 PM

Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 18, 2017, 01:24:24 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 18, 2017, 01:12:29 PM
Disappointed that 13 didn't change tbh.

It would have added an appropriate amount of spice to this wonderful comp.

Wouldn't be nice if you copped a few injuries and then had to flood/attack plus have a def/fwd as a Utility, meaning you have a perfectly healthy mid as an emergency simply because you couldn't start two mids on the Interchange

Yeah, that was the one thing where I thought...this would flowering suck ass :P

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 18, 2017, 01:28:33 PM

Quote from: Nige on August 18, 2017, 01:23:09 PM
Also the deletion of the trade thread really just means trade talks are gonna shift to PMs and Discord, and there'll be more fuss about the rules as they get released.

I think meow went a little early on making that decision

Deleting the thread won't change a thing, but it will be nice to have a break from reading Vardy/Roughy posts I guess :P

No way a team will actually finish the trade period under the cap anyway. Plenty of spuds to draft in for nothing

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: iZander on August 18, 2017, 01:29:09 PM

Quote from: Ricochet on August 18, 2017, 01:23:59 PM
I voted for teams to be able to go below the minimum cap, as long as they finish above the min cap at the end of the trade period. In the past we had quite a few trades we couldn't do because it would bring us below the cap, or we were already below and every trade had to be an increase in cap value. So we know its a pain in the ass.

But also know how important the min cap is.

Everyone knows its to stop teams trading into a position that's uncompetitive, so i'm not sure the penalty (for not finishing the trade period above the min cap) should make them more uncompetitive the next season. In fact it'd almost be a positive so they'd have more chance of a higher draft pick.

I know that if I was in that position of rebuild again then the things i'd value most would be high draft picks, for the youth you can pick up and their trade value. So maybe a future first rounder is the right penalty? Won't impact them on the upcoming season, but is a pretty big penalty that would definitely be a deterrent

This is by far the best punishment suggested so far, cant go taking first rounders from a team on the bottom. Still dont like it in practice because theyll probably still be struggling the next year as well. Why not just make it they lose the coaching position? Clearly you dont want people to go under the cap, but you cant go taking away first rounders and stuff.

Personally taking premiership points would really stop Dillos going under, because damn that would hurt us ::)

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 18, 2017, 01:30:33 PM

Quote from: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 01:26:09 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 18, 2017, 01:20:29 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 18, 2017, 12:48:17 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 12:22:44 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 18, 2017, 12:20:27 PM
Yeah to clarify just in case, there would only be penalties if your list lodgement (list vacanies included as 100k) was below the minimum cap, not during the trade period.

We can definitely discuss those penalties now
Loss of premiership points

4 Premiership points AND 1st NAT Pick
It'd need to be a consistent penalty. Can't punish via draft picks because they may have traded them all away. Would also be an inconsistent penalty, as someone could lose N1 and someone could lose N80 (extreme example I know). Could say you lose your first round pick for the following season, but again, someone could lose N1 and someone could lose N18. Premiership points is equal for everyone, so that's why it appeals to me. If someone can think of something else though, that'd be consistent across any team, then speak up, cause I can't think of anything else atm :P

Good point

They lose 4 points, and then their best player is put in a pool for the rest of us to bid on :P ;D

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: JBs-Hawks on August 18, 2017, 01:30:33 PM

Teams that are below the cap probably don't care about premiership points too much as they are rebuilding / tanking. A 2nd round pick the following year would be a strong enough deterrent to make sure they stay above

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 01:31:54 PM

Quote from: iZander on August 18, 2017, 01:29:09 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on August 18, 2017, 01:23:59 PM
I voted for teams to be able to go below the minimum cap, as long as they finish above the min cap at the end of the trade period. In the past we had quite a few trades we couldn't do because it would bring us below the cap, or we were already below and every trade had to be an increase in cap value. So we know its a pain in the ass.

But also know how important the min cap is.

Everyone knows its to stop teams trading into a position that's uncompetitive, so i'm not sure the penalty (for not finishing the trade period above the min cap) should make them more uncompetitive the next season. In fact it'd almost be a positive so they'd have more chance of a higher draft pick.

I know that if I was in that position of rebuild again then the things i'd value most would be high draft picks, for the youth you can pick up and their trade value. So maybe a future first rounder is the right penalty? Won't impact them on the upcoming season, but is a pretty big penalty that would definitely be a deterrent
This is by far the best punishment suggested so far, cant go taking first rounders from a team on the bottom. Still dont like it in practice because theyll probably still be struggling the next year as well. Why not just make it they lose the coaching position? Clearly you dont want people to go under the cap, but you cant go taking away first rounders and stuff.

Personally taking premiership points would really stop Dillos going under, because damn that would hurt us ::)

You seem to have contradicted yourself a fair bit, is it the best or worst suggested? :P

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 01:33:06 PM

Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 18, 2017, 01:30:33 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 01:26:09 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 18, 2017, 01:20:29 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 18, 2017, 12:48:17 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 12:22:44 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 18, 2017, 12:20:27 PM
Yeah to clarify just in case, there would only be penalties if your list lodgement (list vacanies included as 100k) was below the minimum cap, not during the trade period.

We can definitely discuss those penalties now
Loss of premiership points

4 Premiership points AND 1st NAT Pick
It'd need to be a consistent penalty. Can't punish via draft picks because they may have traded them all away. Would also be an inconsistent penalty, as someone could lose N1 and someone could lose N80 (extreme example I know). Could say you lose your first round pick for the following season, but again, someone could lose N1 and someone could lose N18. Premiership points is equal for everyone, so that's why it appeals to me. If someone can think of something else though, that'd be consistent across any team, then speak up, cause I can't think of anything else atm :P

Good point

They lose 4 points, and then their best player is put in a pool for the rest of us to bid on :P ;D

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: iZander on August 18, 2017, 01:34:36 PM

Quote from: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 01:31:54 PM
Quote from: iZander on August 18, 2017, 01:29:09 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on August 18, 2017, 01:23:59 PM
I voted for teams to be able to go below the minimum cap, as long as they finish above the min cap at the end of the trade period. In the past we had quite a few trades we couldn't do because it would bring us below the cap, or we were already below and every trade had to be an increase in cap value. So we know its a pain in the ass.

But also know how important the min cap is.

Everyone knows its to stop teams trading into a position that's uncompetitive, so i'm not sure the penalty (for not finishing the trade period above the min cap) should make them more uncompetitive the next season. In fact it'd almost be a positive so they'd have more chance of a higher draft pick.

I know that if I was in that position of rebuild again then the things i'd value most would be high draft picks, for the youth you can pick up and their trade value. So maybe a future first rounder is the right penalty? Won't impact them on the upcoming season, but is a pretty big penalty that would definitely be a deterrent
This is by far the best punishment suggested so far, cant go taking first rounders from a team on the bottom. Still dont like it in practice because theyll probably still be struggling the next year as well. Why not just make it they lose the coaching position? Clearly you dont want people to go under the cap, but you cant go taking away first rounders and stuff.

Personally taking premiership points would really stop Dillos going under, because damn that would hurt us ::)
You seem to have contradicted yourself a fair bit, is it the best or worst suggested? :P

The best, because its suggested that it be future first rounders not current first rounders. But still dont like it haha

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Ricochet on August 18, 2017, 01:35:29 PM

Quote from: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 01:26:09 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 18, 2017, 01:20:29 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 18, 2017, 12:48:17 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 12:22:44 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 18, 2017, 12:20:27 PM
Yeah to clarify just in case, there would only be penalties if your list lodgement (list vacanies included as 100k) was below the minimum cap, not during the trade period.

We can definitely discuss those penalties now
Loss of premiership points

4 Premiership points AND 1st NAT Pick
It'd need to be a consistent penalty. Can't punish via draft picks because they may have traded them all away. Would also be an inconsistent penalty, as someone could lose N1 and someone could lose N80 (extreme example I know). Could say you lose your first round pick for the following season, but again, someone could lose N1 and someone could lose N18. Premiership points is equal for everyone, so that's why it appeals to me. If someone can think of something else though, that'd be consistent across any team, then speak up, cause I can't think of anything else atm :P

Draft picks reflect where a team is at though. If a grand finalist (pick 18) has traded below the minimum cap (unlikely), it might be a good thing lol. And any top 10 pick is going to be super valuable to the team that holds it

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 18, 2017, 01:35:37 PM

Quote from: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 12:22:44 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 18, 2017, 12:20:27 PM
Yeah to clarify just in case, there would only be penalties if your list lodgement (list vacanies included as 100k) was below the minimum cap, not during the trade period.

We can definitely discuss those penalties now
Loss of premiership points

Loss of life.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 01:35:44 PM

Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 18, 2017, 01:30:33 PM
Teams that are below the cap probably don't care about premiership points too much as they are rebuilding / tanking. A 2nd round pick the following year would be a strong enough deterrent to make sure they stay above

Toronto went from 2nd last to almost making a prelim. Teams can turn it around in the space of a year, regardless of their position on the ladder. A loss of 4 points if they slipped under last off-season would have seen them miss the 8 this year.

2nd round pick for the following year would mean absolutely nothing tbqh.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 18, 2017, 01:36:41 PM

Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 18, 2017, 01:24:24 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 18, 2017, 01:12:29 PM
Disappointed that 13 didn't change tbh.

It would have added an appropriate amount of spice to this wonderful comp.

Wouldn't be nice if you copped a few injuries and then had to flood/attack plus have a def/fwd as a Utility, meaning you have a perfectly healthy mid as an emergency simply because you couldn't start two mids on the Interchange

Eh, that's where I think it would actually make it interesting.

A lot of teams like to have 6 or 7 strong mids to beef up their interchange and have a solid mid emg, almost making it 4-6-1-4.

Personally, I've always been in favour of having a well rounded/balanced list. I just reckon some teams like to just load up in the mids therefore compromising their depth in defs/rucks/fwds and allow the mid firepower to compensate.

Also, I don't see it as 'rewarding' a lack of mid depth at all. I just think it adds a bit more strategy as such to list management, ensuring you can adapt and build a good list is all part of the comp and the challenging of coaching a team in this game.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 01:38:49 PM

See, this is why I voted against going under the min cap, because I knew it would cause issues already :P

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 01:39:45 PM

How about, if you voted to change the min cap rule and you go under, you lose your future first rounder and 1 premiership point. If you voted to keep as is, you get no punishment :)

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 18, 2017, 01:42:28 PM

Quote from: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 01:35:44 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 18, 2017, 01:30:33 PM
Teams that are below the cap probably don't care about premiership points too much as they are rebuilding / tanking. A 2nd round pick the following year would be a strong enough deterrent to make sure they stay above
Toronto went from 2nd last to almost making a prelim. Teams can turn it around in the space of a year, regardless of their position on the ladder. A loss of 4 points if they slipped under last off-season would have seen them miss the 8 this year.

2nd round pick for the following year would mean absolutely nothing tbqh.

Yeah I agree. The same case can almost be made for Cairo, we basically turned it around in the space of a year as well. Yeah sure, we ended up like 13th, but we were top 8 for a bulk of the year when basically everyone had written us off for 2017. Just had one of the worst 6 week runs I've seen in any comp haha.

Competent coaching can easily fix any list, which is genuinely why I think termination (as harsh as it sounds) isn't a terrible idea. I mean, it's pretty clear what you have to do, and if you end up not hitting the brief, that's your own fault and only doing detriment to your own team (as well just creating an easy-beat team in the process).

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Ricochet on August 18, 2017, 01:44:22 PM

Quote from: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 01:35:44 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 18, 2017, 01:30:33 PM
Teams that are below the cap probably don't care about premiership points too much as they are rebuilding / tanking. A 2nd round pick the following year would be a strong enough deterrent to make sure they stay above
Toronto went from 2nd last to almost making a prelim. Teams can turn it around in the space of a year, regardless of their position on the ladder. A loss of 4 points if they slipped under last off-season would have seen them miss the 8 this year.

2nd round pick for the following year would mean absolutely nothing tbqh.

There were also about 8 teams that were below them on cap value prior to the draft.

I agree 2nd rounder isn't probably enough. Needs to be a deterrent and something those teams would value highly

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 01:44:45 PM

Quote from: Nige on August 18, 2017, 01:42:28 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 01:35:44 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 18, 2017, 01:30:33 PM
Teams that are below the cap probably don't care about premiership points too much as they are rebuilding / tanking. A 2nd round pick the following year would be a strong enough deterrent to make sure they stay above
Toronto went from 2nd last to almost making a prelim. Teams can turn it around in the space of a year, regardless of their position on the ladder. A loss of 4 points if they slipped under last off-season would have seen them miss the 8 this year.

2nd round pick for the following year would mean absolutely nothing tbqh.
Yeah I agree. The same case can almost be made for Cairo, we basically turned it around in the space of a year as well. Yeah sure, we ended up like 13th, but we were top 8 for a bulk of the year when basically everyone had written us off for 2017. Just had one of the worst 6 week runs I've seen in any comp haha.

Competent coaching can easily fix any list, which is genuinely why I think termination (as harsh as it sounds) isn't a terrible idea. I mean, it's pretty clear what you have to do, and if you end up not hitting the brief, that's your own fault and only doing detriment to your own team (as well just creating an easy-beat team in the process).

I think termination is a tad harsh, but perhaps it counts for like 2 warnings or something.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 18, 2017, 01:45:37 PM

Quote from: Nige on August 18, 2017, 01:36:41 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 18, 2017, 01:24:24 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 18, 2017, 01:12:29 PM
Disappointed that 13 didn't change tbh.

It would have added an appropriate amount of spice to this wonderful comp.

Wouldn't be nice if you copped a few injuries and then had to flood/attack plus have a def/fwd as a Utility, meaning you have a perfectly healthy mid as an emergency simply because you couldn't start two mids on the Interchange
Eh, that's where I think it would actually make it interesting.

A lot of teams like to have 6 or 7 strong mids to beef up their interchange and have a solid mid emg, almost making it 4-6-1-4.

Personally, I've always been in favour of having a well rounded/balanced list. I just reckon some teams like to just load up in the mids therefore compromising their depth in defs/rucks/fwds and allow the mid firepower to compensate.

Also, I don't see it as 'rewarding' a lack of mid depth at all. I just think it adds a bit more strategy as such to list management, ensuring you can adapt and build a good list is all part of the comp and the challenging of coaching a team in this game.

Defenders and forwards are already hard enough to get and cost a lot - this will make it even harder :P

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Toga on August 18, 2017, 01:46:53 PM

Quote from: iZander on August 18, 2017, 01:22:35 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 18, 2017, 01:20:34 PM
Chuck 13 straight in the trash can, no need to reward lack of mid depth.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 18, 2017, 01:46:54 PM

All this talk about what the penalty should be for a team that ends under the cap

There has to be close to zero percent of a chance it actually happens

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: iZander on August 18, 2017, 01:47:29 PM

Quote from: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 01:44:45 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 18, 2017, 01:42:28 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 01:35:44 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 18, 2017, 01:30:33 PM
Teams that are below the cap probably don't care about premiership points too much as they are rebuilding / tanking. A 2nd round pick the following year would be a strong enough deterrent to make sure they stay above
Toronto went from 2nd last to almost making a prelim. Teams can turn it around in the space of a year, regardless of their position on the ladder. A loss of 4 points if they slipped under last off-season would have seen them miss the 8 this year.

2nd round pick for the following year would mean absolutely nothing tbqh.
Yeah I agree. The same case can almost be made for Cairo, we basically turned it around in the space of a year as well. Yeah sure, we ended up like 13th, but we were top 8 for a bulk of the year when basically everyone had written us off for 2017. Just had one of the worst 6 week runs I've seen in any comp haha.

Competent coaching can easily fix any list, which is genuinely why I think termination (as harsh as it sounds) isn't a terrible idea. I mean, it's pretty clear what you have to do, and if you end up not hitting the brief, that's your own fault and only doing detriment to your own team (as well just creating an easy-beat team in the process).
I think termination is a tad harsh, but perhaps it counts for like 2 warnings or something.

You're right, you can go from last to finals in one year, but Cairo had pick 1 and 2 last year so something tells me they had to build a team up for more than 1 year before doing that.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Toga on August 18, 2017, 01:48:28 PM

Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 18, 2017, 01:46:54 PM
All this talk about what the penalty should be for a team that ends under the cap

There has to be close to zero percent of a chance it actually happens

Agreed. This is why I don't think a significantly harsh penalty (like loss of 1st rounder) should be an issue.

If you competently manage your list, like I think everyone in WXV can, then this is a non-issue.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 01:48:38 PM

Quote from: Ricochet on August 18, 2017, 01:44:22 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 01:35:44 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 18, 2017, 01:30:33 PM
Teams that are below the cap probably don't care about premiership points too much as they are rebuilding / tanking. A 2nd round pick the following year would be a strong enough deterrent to make sure they stay above
Toronto went from 2nd last to almost making a prelim. Teams can turn it around in the space of a year, regardless of their position on the ladder. A loss of 4 points if they slipped under last off-season would have seen them miss the 8 this year.

2nd round pick for the following year would mean absolutely nothing tbqh.
There were also about 8 teams that were below them on cap value prior to the draft.

I agree 2nd rounder isn't probably enough. Needs to be a deterrent and something those teams would value highly

Was just showing that it's not necessarily the bottom teams that this could happen to

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 01:52:11 PM

Quote from: iZander on August 18, 2017, 01:47:29 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 01:44:45 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 18, 2017, 01:42:28 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 01:35:44 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 18, 2017, 01:30:33 PM
Teams that are below the cap probably don't care about premiership points too much as they are rebuilding / tanking. A 2nd round pick the following year would be a strong enough deterrent to make sure they stay above
Toronto went from 2nd last to almost making a prelim. Teams can turn it around in the space of a year, regardless of their position on the ladder. A loss of 4 points if they slipped under last off-season would have seen them miss the 8 this year.

2nd round pick for the following year would mean absolutely nothing tbqh.
Yeah I agree. The same case can almost be made for Cairo, we basically turned it around in the space of a year as well. Yeah sure, we ended up like 13th, but we were top 8 for a bulk of the year when basically everyone had written us off for 2017. Just had one of the worst 6 week runs I've seen in any comp haha.

Competent coaching can easily fix any list, which is genuinely why I think termination (as harsh as it sounds) isn't a terrible idea. I mean, it's pretty clear what you have to do, and if you end up not hitting the brief, that's your own fault and only doing detriment to your own team (as well just creating an easy-beat team in the process).
I think termination is a tad harsh, but perhaps it counts for like 2 warnings or something.
You're right, you can go from last to finals in one year, but Cairo had pick 1 and 2 last year so something tells me they had to build a team up for more than 1 year before doing that.

Do Cairo really count as a team though

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 18, 2017, 01:53:33 PM

Quote from: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 01:44:45 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 18, 2017, 01:42:28 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 01:35:44 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 18, 2017, 01:30:33 PM
Teams that are below the cap probably don't care about premiership points too much as they are rebuilding / tanking. A 2nd round pick the following year would be a strong enough deterrent to make sure they stay above
Toronto went from 2nd last to almost making a prelim. Teams can turn it around in the space of a year, regardless of their position on the ladder. A loss of 4 points if they slipped under last off-season would have seen them miss the 8 this year.

2nd round pick for the following year would mean absolutely nothing tbqh.
Yeah I agree. The same case can almost be made for Cairo, we basically turned it around in the space of a year as well. Yeah sure, we ended up like 13th, but we were top 8 for a bulk of the year when basically everyone had written us off for 2017. Just had one of the worst 6 week runs I've seen in any comp haha.

Competent coaching can easily fix any list, which is genuinely why I think termination (as harsh as it sounds) isn't a terrible idea. I mean, it's pretty clear what you have to do, and if you end up not hitting the brief, that's your own fault and only doing detriment to your own team (as well just creating an easy-beat team in the process).
I think termination is a tad harsh, but perhaps it counts for like 2 warnings or something.

That works too I guess. The only warnings handed out all year were in the final week where Zander had a senior moment and Boomz was AWOL, so I guess it's a big enough penalty that one more mistake could be costly.

Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 18, 2017, 01:45:37 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 18, 2017, 01:36:41 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 18, 2017, 01:24:24 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 18, 2017, 01:12:29 PM
Disappointed that 13 didn't change tbh.

It would have added an appropriate amount of spice to this wonderful comp.

Wouldn't be nice if you copped a few injuries and then had to flood/attack plus have a def/fwd as a Utility, meaning you have a perfectly healthy mid as an emergency simply because you couldn't start two mids on the Interchange
Eh, that's where I think it would actually make it interesting.

A lot of teams like to have 6 or 7 strong mids to beef up their interchange and have a solid mid emg, almost making it 4-6-1-4.

Personally, I've always been in favour of having a well rounded/balanced list. I just reckon some teams like to just load up in the mids therefore compromising their depth in defs/rucks/fwds and allow the mid firepower to compensate.

Also, I don't see it as 'rewarding' a lack of mid depth at all. I just think it adds a bit more strategy as such to list management, ensuring you can adapt and build a good list is all part of the comp and the challenging of coaching a team in this game.

Good Defenders and forwards are already hard enough to get and cost a lot - this will make it even harder :P

Added the key word.

Forcing a team to potentially play a Nick Smith type (first name that came to mind as we have him, plays every weeks, but only scores okay) in a way would help to further level the comp, and it would makes have to try and make sure they had decent D/F5-6 types.

It's only really a negative for those that want to wave their dick with big scores every week and show off how good their mids actually are.

Quote from: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 01:52:11 PM
Do Cairo really count as a team though

Thanks for finishing below us and handing us our first African Cup. :)

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 01:53:44 PM

Quote from: Toga on August 18, 2017, 01:48:28 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 18, 2017, 01:46:54 PM
All this talk about what the penalty should be for a team that ends under the cap

There has to be close to zero percent of a chance it actually happens

Agreed. This is why I don't think a significantly harsh penalty (like loss of 1st rounder) should be an issue.

If you competently manage your list, like I think everyone in WXV can, then this is a non-issue.

If there's no penalty then why have a min cap? If we assume everyone can manage their list competently enough, then...

#scrapthecap

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 01:57:05 PM

Quote from: Nige on August 18, 2017, 01:53:33 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 01:52:11 PM
Do Cairo really count as a team though
Thanks for finishing below us and handing us our first African Cup. :)

Inside job 8)

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 18, 2017, 01:58:15 PM

Quote from: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 01:57:05 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 18, 2017, 01:53:33 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 01:52:11 PM
Do Cairo really count as a team though
Thanks for finishing below us and handing us our first African Cup. :)
Inside job 8)

It's the only reason we Polo agreed to let you leave.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Ringo on August 18, 2017, 02:02:12 PM

Quote from: iZander on August 18, 2017, 01:29:09 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on August 18, 2017, 01:23:59 PM
I voted for teams to be able to go below the minimum cap, as long as they finish above the min cap at the end of the trade period. In the past we had quite a few trades we couldn't do because it would bring us below the cap, or we were already below and every trade had to be an increase in cap value. So we know its a pain in the ass.

But also know how important the min cap is.

Everyone knows its to stop teams trading into a position that's uncompetitive, so i'm not sure the penalty (for not finishing the trade period above the min cap) should make them more uncompetitive the next season. In fact it'd almost be a positive so they'd have more chance of a higher draft pick.

I know that if I was in that position of rebuild again then the things i'd value most would be high draft picks, for the youth you can pick up and their trade value. So maybe a future first rounder is the right penalty? Won't impact them on the upcoming season, but is a pretty big penalty that would definitely be a deterrent
This is by far the best punishment suggested so far, cant go taking first rounders from a team on the bottom. Still dont like it in practice because theyll probably still be struggling the next year as well. Why not just make it they lose the coaching position? Clearly you dont want people to go under the cap, but you cant go taking away first rounders and stuff.

Personally taking premiership points would really stop Dillos going under, because damn that would hurt us ::)

Really like this idea as it will still enable the team to build and get competitive. So basically if a club remains under cap for 2018 then they lose their first round pick in 2019 even if a priority.
Question then if a team chooses to keep a delisted player on list to avoid going under minimum cap should we be looking at that as well or is that the loophole that will be available to avoid.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 02:03:50 PM

Quote from: Ringo on August 18, 2017, 02:02:12 PM
Quote from: iZander on August 18, 2017, 01:29:09 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on August 18, 2017, 01:23:59 PM
I voted for teams to be able to go below the minimum cap, as long as they finish above the min cap at the end of the trade period. In the past we had quite a few trades we couldn't do because it would bring us below the cap, or we were already below and every trade had to be an increase in cap value. So we know its a pain in the ass.

But also know how important the min cap is.

Everyone knows its to stop teams trading into a position that's uncompetitive, so i'm not sure the penalty (for not finishing the trade period above the min cap) should make them more uncompetitive the next season. In fact it'd almost be a positive so they'd have more chance of a higher draft pick.

I know that if I was in that position of rebuild again then the things i'd value most would be high draft picks, for the youth you can pick up and their trade value. So maybe a future first rounder is the right penalty? Won't impact them on the upcoming season, but is a pretty big penalty that would definitely be a deterrent
This is by far the best punishment suggested so far, cant go taking first rounders from a team on the bottom. Still dont like it in practice because theyll probably still be struggling the next year as well. Why not just make it they lose the coaching position? Clearly you dont want people to go under the cap, but you cant go taking away first rounders and stuff.

Personally taking premiership points would really stop Dillos going under, because damn that would hurt us ::)
Really like this idea as it will still enable the team to build and get competitive. So basically if a club remains under cap for 2018 then they lose their first round pick in 2019 even if a priority.
Question then if a team chooses to keep a delisted player on list to avoid going under minimum cap should we be looking at that as well or is that the loophole that will be available to avoid.

That'd be dodgy af and I'd hope Purps doesn't allow anyone to do that haha

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 02:04:30 PM

Quote from: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 02:03:50 PM
Quote from: Ringo on August 18, 2017, 02:02:12 PM
Quote from: iZander on August 18, 2017, 01:29:09 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on August 18, 2017, 01:23:59 PM
I voted for teams to be able to go below the minimum cap, as long as they finish above the min cap at the end of the trade period. In the past we had quite a few trades we couldn't do because it would bring us below the cap, or we were already below and every trade had to be an increase in cap value. So we know its a pain in the ass.

But also know how important the min cap is.

Everyone knows its to stop teams trading into a position that's uncompetitive, so i'm not sure the penalty (for not finishing the trade period above the min cap) should make them more uncompetitive the next season. In fact it'd almost be a positive so they'd have more chance of a higher draft pick.

I know that if I was in that position of rebuild again then the things i'd value most would be high draft picks, for the youth you can pick up and their trade value. So maybe a future first rounder is the right penalty? Won't impact them on the upcoming season, but is a pretty big penalty that would definitely be a deterrent
This is by far the best punishment suggested so far, cant go taking first rounders from a team on the bottom. Still dont like it in practice because theyll probably still be struggling the next year as well. Why not just make it they lose the coaching position? Clearly you dont want people to go under the cap, but you cant go taking away first rounders and stuff.

Personally taking premiership points would really stop Dillos going under, because damn that would hurt us ::)
Really like this idea as it will still enable the team to build and get competitive. So basically if a club remains under cap for 2018 then they lose their first round pick in 2019 even if a priority.
Question then if a team chooses to keep a delisted player on list to avoid going under minimum cap should we be looking at that as well or is that the loophole that will be available to avoid.
That'd be dodgy af and I'd hope Purps doesn't allow anyone to do that haha

Loss of premiership points and future first round pick if you do ;)

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 18, 2017, 02:04:43 PM

Quote from: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 02:03:50 PM
Quote from: Ringo on August 18, 2017, 02:02:12 PM
Quote from: iZander on August 18, 2017, 01:29:09 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on August 18, 2017, 01:23:59 PM
I voted for teams to be able to go below the minimum cap, as long as they finish above the min cap at the end of the trade period. In the past we had quite a few trades we couldn't do because it would bring us below the cap, or we were already below and every trade had to be an increase in cap value. So we know its a pain in the ass.

But also know how important the min cap is.

Everyone knows its to stop teams trading into a position that's uncompetitive, so i'm not sure the penalty (for not finishing the trade period above the min cap) should make them more uncompetitive the next season. In fact it'd almost be a positive so they'd have more chance of a higher draft pick.

I know that if I was in that position of rebuild again then the things i'd value most would be high draft picks, for the youth you can pick up and their trade value. So maybe a future first rounder is the right penalty? Won't impact them on the upcoming season, but is a pretty big penalty that would definitely be a deterrent
This is by far the best punishment suggested so far, cant go taking first rounders from a team on the bottom. Still dont like it in practice because theyll probably still be struggling the next year as well. Why not just make it they lose the coaching position? Clearly you dont want people to go under the cap, but you cant go taking away first rounders and stuff.

Personally taking premiership points would really stop Dillos going under, because damn that would hurt us ::)
Really like this idea as it will still enable the team to build and get competitive. So basically if a club remains under cap for 2018 then they lose their first round pick in 2019 even if a priority.
Question then if a team chooses to keep a delisted player on list to avoid going under minimum cap should we be looking at that as well or is that the loophole that will be available to avoid.
That'd be dodgy af and I'd hope Purps doesn't allow anyone to do that haha

Now that's termination worthy!

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 18, 2017, 02:37:26 PM

Something to do with empty list spots (filled by picks) being worth 100k has not yet been considered. What happens when Lester scores so much that having him and 39 empty list spaces still puts me over the cap?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 18, 2017, 03:01:27 PM

Toronto and Cairo improved with the help of early picks

New York, in our first season was the most impressive turn around :P

NDT quickly improved too. Just shows that if you know what you're doing and aren't afraid to get involved and make big changes you can turn things around quickly

I think the whole youth rebuild approach is majority flawed and teams going down that route will never be competitive

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 18, 2017, 03:16:45 PM

We'll show you RD!

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 18, 2017, 03:21:01 PM

Seoul are going alright. They took lots of picks to the draft when others were almost desperate to get rid of them and look who is laughing now. Pacific got their two stars how? From the draft. Even the trade wizard Holz drafts well and turns late picks into extras to add on and bring in the gurus. NY sold their future for minimal success.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 18, 2017, 03:42:00 PM

Quote from: meow meow on August 18, 2017, 03:21:01 PM
NY sold their future for minimal success.

SPS and Berry for Stringer, ew

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Adamant on August 18, 2017, 03:44:14 PM

Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 18, 2017, 03:01:27 PM
Toronto and Cairo improved with the help of early picks

False. We traded my first round pick last year for Darcy Parish, who was on traded in the deal for Pendlebury, which actually ended up losing us more points than we gained. The only priority pick we received was at the start of the second round (22 iirc), which we used to turn Sheed into Hanley, again another loss in points.

All of our improvement came through trading alone, as well as a few guns getting back to their best.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 18, 2017, 04:03:33 PM

That's my point Ada - you traded hard and got out of the mess

Teams that just draft kids and wait for them to hopefully develop into something will continue to be cellar dwellars

Meow, you have more than enough experienced players to balance your youngsters and be competitive - you've actually got a nice mix, although you've lost most of your experience to retirement now, but it's a great strat

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 18, 2017, 04:05:32 PM

I force delist AFL delisted/retired players, you are not allowed to keep them

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 18, 2017, 04:10:31 PM

Me and PNL to go

6. Rolling/Partial Lockout VC Loopholing
A) Continue to Allow
B) Disallow - meaning that only 'reasonable' and AFL selected players can be chosen as a C

B wins, 10 votes to 6. You can no longer VC loophole

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 18, 2017, 04:19:47 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 18, 2017, 04:05:32 PM
I force delist AFL delisted/retired players, you are not allowed to keep them

:'(

I was hoping we could keep Gibbo as our new mascot

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Adamant on August 18, 2017, 04:19:59 PM

Well Thursday night games just got a whole lot more boring.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 18, 2017, 04:32:33 PM

Quote from: Adamant on August 18, 2017, 04:19:59 PM
Well Thursday night games just got a whole lot more boring.

What if you have none playing and your opponent has 3? Unfair advantage.

Just bet on random shower to make games interesting. The added entertainment factor alone makes it value for money even if you don't win. Yeah I've got a problem. Wish Ryan Gamble was still playing.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 18, 2017, 04:33:29 PM

Trade me Eddie Betts and a pick so I can grab Josh Multi.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Hellopplz on August 18, 2017, 05:55:27 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 18, 2017, 04:10:31 PM
Me and PNL to go

We should be able to get to it tomorrow.

I've been sick lately so haven't been on same time as Daz :(.

Also PNL is having a rebuild but we have been getting youth in for years, so not as far behind as we thought. We proved our doubters wrong to some extent :p.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: upthemaidens on August 19, 2017, 06:41:05 PM

How about instead of HGA, we have the ability to rev up the supporters at a Home game 3 times a year.
The President makes a plea to the fans to show their true colours, or a supporter drive, advertising campaign etc. etc.

Another idea when it's a players milestone game that player would get a bonus.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 19, 2017, 06:54:15 PM

Quote from: upthemaidens on August 19, 2017, 06:41:05 PM
How about instead of HGA, we have the ability to rev up the supporters at a Home game 3 times a year.
The President makes a plea to the fans to show their true colours, or a supporter drive, advertising campaign etc. etc.

Another idea when it's a players milestone game that player would get a bonus.

Nice ideas :)

Purps, do you have the stats on how many games where actually decided by HGA this season?

I know last weeks was :'(

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 19, 2017, 07:08:12 PM

Quote from: upthemaidens on August 19, 2017, 06:41:05 PM
How about instead of HGA, we have the ability to rev up the supporters at a Home game 3 times a year.
The President makes a plea to the fans to show their true colours, or a supporter drive, advertising campaign etc. etc.

Another idea when it's a players milestone game that player would get a bonus.

But it is only effective if your lowest scorer is above 50 :P

And Sam would be furious.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 19, 2017, 08:58:58 PM

Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 19, 2017, 06:54:15 PM
Quote from: upthemaidens on August 19, 2017, 06:41:05 PM
How about instead of HGA, we have the ability to rev up the supporters at a Home game 3 times a year.
The President makes a plea to the fans to show their true colours, or a supporter drive, advertising campaign etc. etc.

Another idea when it's a players milestone game that player would get a bonus.

Nice ideas :)

Purps, do you have the stats on how many games where actually decided by HGA this season?

I know last weeks was :'(

If I had the inclination, it'd take a tedious hour or so.

So no, I don't have them :-X

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 19, 2017, 08:59:21 PM

Quote from: upthemaidens on August 19, 2017, 06:41:05 PM
How about instead of HGA, we have the ability to rev up the supporters at a Home game 3 times a year.
The President makes a plea to the fans to show their true colours, or a supporter drive, advertising campaign etc. etc.

Another idea when it's a players milestone game that player would get a bonus.

That's actually kinda cool

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 19, 2017, 09:09:52 PM

Alrighty! All votes are in. The results are as follows

Note, one team didn't vote for rules already decided (and published) before they submitted their vote.

1. Rested Player Late Call-Up
Currently, if you have nominated someone to be rested in a given week and, for example, he is a forward, and someone in your forward line is a late withdrawal and you have no other forwards in your starting 18, the current interpretation of the rule is that rested player comes in at quarter points because:
- you can't rest someone if you have to field an OOP in his place; and
- if there is no one in your starting 18 that can replace a player for full points, the next available player comes in at quarter points.

A) Change to: If this scenario happens again, instead the rested player is to be ignored for selection and someone has to come in OOP like normal. The rested player would keep his rested bonus for next week. However, this is only permissible if:
- the players selected in the 18 are named in AFL best 22s at start of the week
B) Keep as is

A: 13
B: 4

2. Sub rule for named OOP players
Currently, if you are forced to name a player OOP and he is available to be subbed out, he can't be subbed out because the rule states that a player can only be subbed out if his replacement can come on for full points.

A) Change to: The OOP player can be subbed out for another OOP player, ONLY if the original OOP was named a result of having no available players to fill that position. Of course, the replacement will still have a 50% penalty for being OOP.
B) Keep as is

A: 13
B: 4

3. Ruck OOP (haven't forgotten about the 'Pinch-Hit' suggestion. That will be in the next PM)
A) Instead of a 50% penalty to your OOP player, award a 50% bonus to the opposition ruck, to make it more realistic.
B) Keep as is

A: 4
B: 13

4. Allow Teams to 'Trade' below Minimum Salary Cap?
A) Yes
B) No

A: 13
B: 4

5. Assuming the current model of the salary cap is maintained (or a slight variant is implemented):
A) Allow draft picks to count as $100k for cap purposes?
B) Allow 'available list spots' to count as $100k each?
C) Neither of the above; don't count them in the cap.

A: 6
B: 10
C: 2

6. Rolling/Partial Lockout VC Loopholing
A) Continue to Allow
B) Disallow - meaning that only 'reasonable' and AFL selected players can be chosen as a C

A: 6
B: 12

7. Rolling/Partial Lockout Emgerncy Loopholing
A) Continue to Allow
B) Disallow - meaning that only 'reasonable' and AFL selected players can be chosen in the starting XV

A: 8
B: 10

8. Past player comebacks (implemented from 2018 onwards)
A) Keep current bidding system
B) Previous players should automatically return to the list they were on without the bidding process

A: 8
B: 10

9. Trading of Officially Retired Players
A) Continue to allow for those struggling with minimum cap
B) Disallow

A: 4
B: 13

10. Home Ground Advantage
A) Keep - adds a fun element to the game
B) Scrap - decides too many games

A: 13
B: 5

11. Sub Rule
A) Keep - stops injured players from ruining your game
B) Scrap - I like the luck/unpredictability factor when a player goes down early and feel like getting a replacement is a bit soft

A: 16
B: 1

12. Priority Picks
A) Keep the current system of:
- Lose less than 4 games in one year, you get an end of first round priority pick
- Lose less than 4 games in two consecutive years, you get a start of first round priority pick

B) Change system to:
- Lose less than 4 games in one year, you get an end of first round priority pick
- Lose less than 4 games in two consecutive years, you get a mid first round priority pick (after all non-finalists)
- Lose less than 4 games in three consecutive years, you get a start of first round priority pick

A: 8
B: 10

13. Utilities
A) Continue being allowed to name whomever you like, regardless of their position
B) Limit the utilities to one midfielder, where the second spot has to be a player from another position (DPP mids are allowed), whilst also extending the bench to 4 players

A: 13
B: 5

14. WXV Draw
If the rounded scores are the same e.g. 1297 --> 130, and 1302 --> 130, should the game be a draw?

A) Yes, adds more drama to the game
B) No, the team that scores the most points should win

A: 4
B: 14

15. Rookie List Salaries - should they count?
A) Yes
B) No

A: 10
B: 8

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 19, 2017, 09:16:12 PM

I hope they don't mind, but for sake of interest, I tallied up how many votes each coach got 'right' i.e. their vote corresponded with the result.

Who were our most influential coaches?

With 13 out of 15, Cairo, Dublin and PNL.

Whereas our 'change' agents if you will, with 5 out of 15, was Rio!

13 teams got 10 or more 'right'

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 19, 2017, 09:46:35 PM

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 20, 2017, 08:34:15 PM

24ish hours left of Rule Discussion! I'll be sending out the last vote about this time tomorrow.

Trade period review aside, this will be your LAST opportunity to modify a rule of the game for another year. I'm very stubborn about this.

I might tomorrow morning post a correctly discounted old players list tomorrow, that takes into account of those players that are 30 and above, not just above 30.

That's right, I don't want it, but I'll still do it for you lot :P

If you have any requests for me to draw up anything, now is the time.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 21, 2017, 12:46:19 AM

New idea for the 'price' of each player in the cap:

Whatever their average is, double it.

Take that new value, and multiply it by 5.

Now, divide that by their original average.

Finally, subtract 10 from this new value.

That is the new price of the player in question. Use this for all players, and then work out the new average, min, and max caps.

Ez.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Ricochet on August 21, 2017, 02:24:01 AM

Nah even better idea

We use whateva the media speculates the player is getting paid in real life

Unfortunate for whoever has Chris Mayne but seems the most logical solution

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 21, 2017, 04:40:06 AM

Quote from: Ricochet on August 21, 2017, 02:24:01 AM
Nah even better idea

We use whateva the media speculates the player is getting paid in real life

Unfortunate for whoever has Chris Mayne but seems the most logical solution

Could actually help London stay above the min cap while trading.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Ricochet on August 21, 2017, 10:32:09 AM

Quote from: GoLions on August 21, 2017, 04:40:06 AM
Quote from: Ricochet on August 21, 2017, 02:24:01 AM
Nah even better idea

We use whateva the media speculates the player is getting paid in real life

Unfortunate for whoever has Chris Mayne but seems the most logical solution
Could actually help London stay above the min cap while trading.

See, it's perfect

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 21, 2017, 10:41:40 AM

Ok, so I've done a discount on ALL players born 30 years before the current year.

So if you were born in 1987, you get a 3% discount.

If born in 1986, you get 6%, 1985, 9% etc.

If we do this, the 'base year' will increase by 1 every year, so next year it'll be 1988

Below, are all the effected players

Player	Year born	Old Price	Discounted Price
M Priddis	1985	$669,000	$609,000
H Shaw	1985	$593,000	$540,000
S Mitchell	1982	$588,000	$482,000
D Mundy	1985	$576,000	$524,000
G Ablett	1984	$565,000	$497,000
B Goddard	1985	$555,000	$505,000
S Martin	1986	$531,000	$499,000
L Montagna	1983	$550,000	$468,000
S Mumford	1986	$549,000	$516,000
K Simpson	1984	$549,000	$483,000
J Lewis	1986	$544,000	$511,000
M Murphy	1987	$518,000	$502,000
L Franklin	1987	$488,000	$473,000
JJ Kennedy	1987	$486,000	$471,000
M Boyd	1982	$481,000	$394,000
N Riewoldt	1982	$476,000	$390,000
B Deledio	1987	$446,000	$433,000
S Burgoyne	1982	$476,000	$390,000
A Sandilands	1982	$469,000	$385,000
K Jack	1987	$457,000	$443,000
J Westhoff	1986	$431,000	$405,000
B Vince	1985	$460,000	$419,000
M Barlow	1987	$434,000	$421,000
L Hodge	1984	$452,000	$398,000
L Picken	1986	$431,000	$405,000
J McVeigh	1985	$438,000	$399,000
A Swallow	1987	$403,000	$391,000
S Thompson	1983	$410,000	$349,000
E Betts	1986	$388,000	$365,000
R Griffen	1986	$385,000	$362,000
J Gibson	1984	$382,000	$336,000
J Waite	1983	$380,000	$323,000
S Hurn	1987	$383,000	$372,000
B Stanton	1986	$377,000	$354,000
R Douglas	1987	$369,000	$358,000
M Rischitelli	1986	$366,000	$344,000
K Tippett	1987	$363,000	$352,000
Ja Roughead	1987	$361,000	$350,000
S Johnson	1983	$358,000	$304,000
D Wells	1985	$351,000	$319,000
H Taylor	1986	$362,000	$340,000
M LeCras	1986	$333,000	$313,000
R Murphy	1982	$360,000	$295,000
H Grundy	1986	$349,000	$328,000
D Petrie	1982	$344,000	$282,000
J Watson	1985	$321,000	$292,000
I Maric	1986	$329,000	$309,000
Dany Pearce	1986	$321,000	$302,000
A Mackie	1984	$328,000	$289,000
L Spurr	1987	$308,000	$299,000
P Puopolo	1987	$298,000	$289,000
M Johnson	1984	$300,000	$264,000
SD Thompson	1986	$292,000	$274,000
M Baguley	1987	$289,000	$280,000
M Rosa	1986	$267,000	$251,000
S Gilbert	1986	$254,000	$239,000
S Dempster	1984	$264,000	$232,000
C Pedersen	1987	$280,000	$272,000
T Dickson	1987	$245,000	$238,000
L Dunn	1987	$255,000	$247,000
T Lonergan	1984	$241,000	$212,000
T Cloke	1987	$239,000	$232,000
D Thomas	1987	$230,000	$223,000
T Goldsack	1987	$222,000	$215,000
S Butler	1986	$217,000	$204,000
D Morris	1982	$209,000	$171,000
S Rowe	1987	$201,000	$195,000
Ja Kelly	1983	$204,000	$173,000
A Monfries	1987	$185,000	$179,000
D Armfield	1986	$182,000	$171,000
H Ballantyne	1987	$185,000	$179,000
J Griffin	1986	$185,000	$174,000
H Lumumba	1986	$167,000	$157,000
Ma White	1987	$166,000	$161,000
J Patfull	1984	$161,000	$142,000
A Silvagni	1987	$142,000	$138,000
T Mzungu	1986	$141,000	$133,000
Z Dawson	1986	$124,000	$117,000
H Hocking	1987	$105,000	$102,000

Team	Current	Age Discounted
Beijing Thunder	$11,125,000	11,093,000
Berlin Brewers	$11,238,000	10,959,000
Buenos Aires Armadillos	$9,444,000	9,420,000
Cairo Sands	$9,856,000	9,773,000
Cape Town Cobras	$10,082,000	10,037,000
Christchurch Saints	$11,208,000	10,614,000
Dublin Destroyers	$11,248,000	11,222,000
London Royals	$10,225,000	10,204,000
Mexico City Suns	$10,918,000	10,595,000
Moscow Spetsnaz	$10,548,000	10,524,000
New Delhi Tigers	$11,368,000	11,313,000
New York Revolution	$11,147,000	10,936,000
Pacific Islanders	$11,928,000	11,872,000
PNL Reindeers	$9,951,000	9,837,000
Rio de Janeiro Jaguars	$11,512,000	11,199,000
Seoul Magpies	$10,802,000	10,777,000
Tokyo Samurai	$9,938,000	9,931,000
Toronto Wolves	$10,574,000	10,522,000
AVERAGE	$10,728,444	$10,601,556
AVERAGE + 5%	$11,264,867	$11,131,633
AVERAGE - 15%	$9,119,178	$9,011,322

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 22, 2017, 01:26:02 AM

Quote from: GoLions on August 21, 2017, 12:46:19 AM
New idea for the 'price' of each player in the cap:

Whatever their average is, double it.

Take that new value, and multiply it by 5.

Now, divide that by their original average.

Finally, subtract 10 from this new value.

That is the new price of the player in question. Use this for all players, and then work out the new average, min, and max caps.

Ez.

You left this out of your vote Purps, so i can't respond properly yet until you send another vote out.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 22, 2017, 01:26:57 AM

Quote from: Ricochet on August 21, 2017, 02:24:01 AM
Nah even better idea

We use whateva the media speculates the player is getting paid in real life

Unfortunate for whoever has Chris Mayne but seems the most logical solution

Also this one. It's like you don't even want the comp to be even smh.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Ricochet on August 22, 2017, 09:59:14 AM

Quote from: GoLions on August 22, 2017, 01:26:57 AM
Quote from: Ricochet on August 21, 2017, 02:24:01 AM
Nah even better idea

We use whateva the media speculates the player is getting paid in real life

Unfortunate for whoever has Chris Mayne but seems the most logical solution
Also this one. It's like you don't even want the comp to be even smh.

Our voices always fall on deaf ears

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 22, 2017, 10:43:58 AM

So on reflection I have looked at modifying the 18+ game on some of the comments about Kelly Oliver etc...

18+ games: 100% of the current season is their average
11-17 games: 50% of the current average 30% of last years and 20% of the year before
6-10 games: 35% of the current average 40% of last years and 25% of the year before
5 or under: 20% of the current average 50% of last years and 30% of the year before.
0 games: 60% of last year and 40% of the year before.

I think the 18+ games: should be 90% of current season and 5% of the previous seasons.

SO just doing the top NDT players.

Marc Murphy: Ossie 101, Holz original 109, Holz New 107
Sidey: O: 102, H1 97 H2 98
Stef Martin: 100 under all 3
Gray: O:104, H1 93 H2 95
Howe O:87 H1:96 H2:95
Llyod O:81 H1:88 H2:87
M.Crouch: O:92 H1:110 H2:107

The Holz 2.0 puts bolters a little down and sliders a little up.

The biggest difference can be seen in Robbie Gray v Matt Crouch. Now Gray has slipped down to a 93 average but under the current system is priced at a 104, where as my new system has him at 95. Matt Crouch has been improving each year 68 92 now 100, the current system has him at a low 92 a massive 18 points under his current average, i have him at 107.

Not sure about you but

110 average Mid should cost more then a 93 mid in my books. i have Matt Crouch 12 points more then Gray and in real life he averaged 17 points more. Under the current system Gray costs 12 points more despite averaging 17 points less.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 22, 2017, 11:06:59 AM

Quote from: GoLions on August 22, 2017, 01:26:57 AM
Quote from: Ricochet on August 21, 2017, 02:24:01 AM
Nah even better idea

We use whateva the media speculates the player is getting paid in real life

Unfortunate for whoever has Chris Mayne but seems the most logical solution
Also this one. It's like you don't even want the comp to be even smh.

GL kinda just goes out the other ear, with all of his #scrapthecap garbage :P

It's the price to pay I guess for having that agenda :-X

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 22, 2017, 11:12:38 AM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 22, 2017, 11:06:59 AM
Quote from: GoLions on August 22, 2017, 01:26:57 AM
Quote from: Ricochet on August 21, 2017, 02:24:01 AM
Nah even better idea

We use whateva the media speculates the player is getting paid in real life

Unfortunate for whoever has Chris Mayne but seems the most logical solution
Also this one. It's like you don't even want the comp to be even smh.

GL kinda just goes out the other ear, with all of his #scrapthecap garbage :P

It's the price to pay I guess for having that agenda :-X

I made a genuine cap suggestion tyvm. Give me a spreadsheet with all players and I'll do the new cap for every single one.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 22, 2017, 11:15:30 AM

Quote from: GoLions on August 22, 2017, 11:12:38 AM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 22, 2017, 11:06:59 AM
Quote from: GoLions on August 22, 2017, 01:26:57 AM
Quote from: Ricochet on August 21, 2017, 02:24:01 AM
Nah even better idea

We use whateva the media speculates the player is getting paid in real life

Unfortunate for whoever has Chris Mayne but seems the most logical solution
Also this one. It's like you don't even want the comp to be even smh.

GL kinda just goes out the other ear, with all of his #scrapthecap garbage :P

It's the price to pay I guess for having that agenda :-X
I made a genuine cap suggestion tyvm. Give me a spreadsheet with all players and I'll do the new cap for every single one.

Game on

https://jumpshare.com/v/54PSfRc7GOwbG3FJ3iHT

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 22, 2017, 11:23:06 AM

Quote from: GoLions on August 21, 2017, 12:46:19 AM
New idea for the 'price' of each player in the cap:

Whatever their average is, double it.

Take that new value, and multiply it by 5.

Now, divide that by their original average.

Finally, subtract 10 from this new value.

That is the new price of the player in question. Use this for all players, and then work out the new average, min, and max caps.

Ez.

Had to make a slight adjustment in case they don't play a game and thus avg is 0

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 22, 2017, 11:30:08 AM

Quote from: GoLions on August 22, 2017, 11:23:06 AM
Quote from: GoLions on August 21, 2017, 12:46:19 AM
New idea for the 'price' of each player in the cap:

Whatever their average is, double it.

Take that new value, and multiply it by 5.

Now, divide that by their original average.

Finally, subtract 10 from this new value.

That is the new price of the player in question. Use this for all players, and then work out the new average, min, and max caps.

Ez.
Had to make a slight adjustment in case they don't play a game and thus avg is 0

https://jumpshare.com/v/rvdT4bZcwq4GOErHiVAQ

Column G fellas and fedettes

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 22, 2017, 11:31:13 AM

That's how it's done btw Holz

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 22, 2017, 11:32:50 AM

Quote from: GoLions on August 22, 2017, 11:31:13 AM
That's how it's done btw Holz

I kinda think Danger should cost more then Aaron Black

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 22, 2017, 11:39:24 AM

Hahaha, I thought it was supposed to be zero or one each when I first glanced it, but thought otherwise when you wanted data :P

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 22, 2017, 11:41:08 AM

Kinda crazy I have 10 votes already.

Someone do another one so I can release a couple of results :P

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 22, 2017, 11:42:01 AM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 22, 2017, 11:41:08 AM
Kinda crazy I have 10 votes already.

Someone do another one so I can release a couple of results :P

I said I would when you send out another vote with my cap suggestion :P

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 22, 2017, 11:42:36 AM

Holz can you show me how much Griffen will cost under all the caps?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 22, 2017, 11:54:58 AM

Quote from: meow meow on August 22, 2017, 11:42:36 AM
Holz can you show me how much Griffen will cost under all the caps?

under Ossie Cap its 89
Under Holz Cap its a raw number of 85 then down to 80 because he will be 32 next year.

So essentially 89 under Ossie v 80 under Holz

considering he came out 52 77 then injured im happy my formula came out with an average 9 points under.

under both systems he would get the injury discount though.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 22, 2017, 11:57:18 AM

How the fluff will I be able to get over the cap if discounted Griff, Wells, Sandi and Waite cost flower all, and Dempster, Mitchell, Murphy, Petrie, Montagna and McVeigh retire? I'll be 8 million under.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 22, 2017, 12:04:27 PM

Quote from: Holz on August 22, 2017, 11:54:58 AM
Quote from: meow meow on August 22, 2017, 11:42:36 AM
Holz can you show me how much Griffen will cost under all the caps?

under Ossie Cap its 89
Under Holz Cap its a raw number of 85 then down to 80 because he will be 32 next year.

So essentially 89 under Ossie v 80 under Holz

considering he came out 52 77 then injured im happy my formula came out with an average 9 points under.

under both systems he would get the injury discount though.

What about under Rico's?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 22, 2017, 12:06:01 PM

Quote from: meow meow on August 22, 2017, 11:57:18 AM
How the fluff will I be able to get over the cap if discounted Griff, Wells, Sandi and Waite cost flower all, and Dempster, Mitchell, Murphy, Petrie, Montagna and McVeigh retire? I'll be 8 million under.

They dont cost nothing they cost closer to their true value.

its not hard at getting over the cap at all.

The minimum cap will likely fall and you will be over it regardless.

You will have guys who rise in cap too. Blakely is 80 in Ossie Cap but 89 in my cap so basically Griffen and Blakely balance each other out perfectly.

which proves the system is good

Ossie:
Blakely 80
Griffen 89

Holz
Blakely 89
Griffen 80

Blakely is >>>> Griffen.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 22, 2017, 12:09:23 PM

And that's why I voted for your cap.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 22, 2017, 12:17:21 PM

Quote from: meow meow on August 22, 2017, 12:09:23 PM
And that's why I voted for your cap.

well thank you, most players arent really affected and basically all teams will have guys who go up and go down.

like Griffen Blakely

M.Crouch R.Gray etc..

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Ricochet on August 22, 2017, 02:58:37 PM

Quote from: meow meow on August 22, 2017, 12:09:23 PM
And that's why I voted for your cap.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 22, 2017, 07:12:28 PM

So with

Berlin
Pacific
PNL
Rio
Tokyo

to vote, we can say these votes have been decided:

1. Different cosmetic WXV score multiplier
Currently, WXV totals are divided by 10 to present an AFL-like scoreline.
A) Keep as is, don't really care
B) Divide by 15 instead, to make scores lower and more 'AFL-like'

With 12 votes to 1, A wins

7. Submitting a list lodgement where you are below the minimum cap (and started over it)
Penalties
A) Loss of 4 premiership points (will not benefit their future draft pick, i.e. if you finish 16th coz of penalty, but earned 14th, then you would get pick 5 and not pick 3) in the next year
B) Loss of first round draft pick in the next year
C) Both A & C

Although termination was floated as a valid option, I feel like it's kinda overkill, at least to begin with.

But with 10 votes to 1 & 2, C wins.

9. Trading Cap Space
A) Allow, will add strategy to the game (cap space will reset to normal in the following year)
B) Don't allow

With 12 votes to 1, B wins.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: MajorLazer on August 22, 2017, 07:32:55 PM

Yo Purpa with 7 I think you made a little goof. Think it was supposed to be both A&B not A&C but don't worry think we understood what you meant

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 22, 2017, 07:51:08 PM

Quote from: MajorLazer on August 22, 2017, 07:32:55 PM
Yo Purpa with 7 I think you made a little goof. Think it was supposed to be both A&B not A&C but don't worry think we understood what you meant

Thanks General condensed-light :-[ I'd say it's because I can't see W, A, S, D, E and C on my keyboard, but yeah, that ain't true.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 23, 2017, 01:33:14 PM

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/afl/teams/brisbane/brisbane-coach-chris-fagan-says-ryan-lester-is-the-lions-most-important-player/news-story/67f7342b42b57fb59183e238694514a9

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 23, 2017, 03:56:40 PM

Another vote in, so we can now declare this one

2. Alternate Team Formats
Currently, you are able to 'Flood' 3 times per year, and 'Attack' 3 times per year.
A) Change to 5 times in total for the year; where you can have any combination of these different structures i.e 5 floods, 0 attacks, or 4-1, 3-2, 2-3, 1-4, or 0-5
B) Keep as is.
C) Get rid of them entirely

With 10 votes to 3 & 1, A wins.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 24, 2017, 02:19:42 PM

all votes in!

1. Different cosmetic WXV score multiplier
Currently, WXV totals are divided by 10 to present an AFL-like scoreline.
A) Keep as is, don't really care
B) Divide by 15 instead, to make scores lower and more 'AFL-like'

A: 17
B: 1

2. Alternate Team Formats
Currently, you are able to 'Flood' 3 times per year, and 'Attack' 3 times per year.
A) Change to 5 times in total for the year; where you can have any combination of these different structures i.e 5 floods, 0 attacks, or 4-1, 3-2, 2-3, 1-4, or 0-5
B) Keep as is.
C) Get rid of them entirely

A: 14
B: 3
C: 1

3. Pinch Hit
A) In addition to Flooding and Attacking, there is also 'Pinch Hitting' where you can name a third utility in place of a ruck without penalty. If 'A' wins in the rule #2 above, it'll form part of the 5 in total. If 'B' wins, you can name this strategy 3 times per year
B) Don't allow.

A: 8
B: 10

4. Alternative Team Format modifiers
A) If you flood, your lowest scoring defender gets a 10% bonus. The oppositions' best defender gets a 10% bonus. If you attack, your lowest scoring forward gets a 10% bonus. The oppositions' best forward gets a 10% bonus. If you pinch hit, the opposition ruck gets a 10% bonus.
B) Option A, but only the opposition receives a bonus, and you do not
C) Don't have bonuses

A: 4
B: 3
C: 11

6. Leadership Groups
A) Keep it: with all restrictions and allowances i.e. mid-season re-selection, injury demotions/promotions
B) Scrap it
C) Keep it, but get rid of the mid-season window where you can re-select it without consequence.

A: 6
B: 10
C: 2

7. Submitting a list lodgement where you are below the minimum cap (and started over it)
Penalties
A) Loss of 4 premiership points (will not benefit their future draft pick, i.e. if you finish 16th coz of penalty, but earned 14th, then you would get pick 5 and not pick 3) in the next year
B) Loss of first round draft pick in the next year
C) Both A & C

A: 4
B: 2
C: 12

8. Loyalty Discounts
A) Allow a plus/minus 5% salary to those players that have stayed at a club for 3 consecutive years
B) Don't allow

A: 7
B: 11

9. Trading Cap Space
A) Allow, will add strategy to the game (cap space will reset to normal in the following year)
B) Don't allow

A: 2
B: 16

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 24, 2017, 02:22:15 PM

The cap vote is not published?!

Why? Because I still feel there was confusion surrounding the vote, and there were a couple of coaches that came to me seeking clarification and suggesting the age discount vote should have been separate.

The results I got I feel are too subjective for me to make a decision, given the confusion of some coaches, and I feel it is best to re-send a clarification vote, which I will do shortly.

Apologies for not getting it right the first time, but I really think this is the best way to do it.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 24, 2017, 02:39:06 PM

We're having a vote where if you don't care about rules or contribute to Worlds, you don't get a vote because Holz is upset at everyone who didn't vote for his cap.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 24, 2017, 02:48:47 PM

Quote from: Nige on August 24, 2017, 02:39:06 PM
We're having a vote where if you don't care about rules or contribute to Worlds, you don't get a vote because Holz is upset at everyone who didn't vote for his cap.

Dont twist my words.

I said if people had no strong opinion on a rule then there should be a vote for abstain.

That way if 7 people love a rule change and 2 people hate a rule change but then 9 couldn't care less one way or the other. Then the rule should change should get up. Its likely the people who dont care just vote to keep it as it is even though they would have no issue if it occured.

There are a few rules I would have abstained on.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 24, 2017, 02:55:44 PM

Alright, lets just see what happens with these votes first.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 24, 2017, 03:24:42 PM

Flood/Attack stays with no bonus/penalty and pinch hit doesn't come in?

Sigh

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 24, 2017, 03:24:46 PM

Quote from: Holz on August 24, 2017, 02:48:47 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 24, 2017, 02:39:06 PM
We're having a vote where if you don't care about rules or contribute to Worlds, you don't get a vote because Holz is upset at everyone who didn't vote for his cap.

Dont twist my words.

I said if people had no strong opinion on a rule then there should be a vote for abstain.

That way if 7 people love a rule change and 2 people hate a rule change but then 9 couldn't care less one way or the other. Then the rule should change should get up. Its likely the people who dont care just vote to keep it as it is even though they would have no issue if it occured.

There are a few rules I would have abstained on.

You assume that all the people who didn't vote for your cap don't care?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 24, 2017, 03:30:44 PM

Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 24, 2017, 03:24:42 PM
Flood/Attack stays with no bonus/penalty and pinch hit doesn't come in?

Sigh

Until I see a short player compete in the ruck with the aid of a baseball bat I'll never vote for pinch hit.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 24, 2017, 03:32:29 PM

Quote from: GoLions on August 24, 2017, 03:24:46 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 24, 2017, 02:48:47 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 24, 2017, 02:39:06 PM
We're having a vote where if you don't care about rules or contribute to Worlds, you don't get a vote because Holz is upset at everyone who didn't vote for his cap.

Dont twist my words.

I said if people had no strong opinion on a rule then there should be a vote for abstain.

That way if 7 people love a rule change and 2 people hate a rule change but then 9 couldn't care less one way or the other. Then the rule should change should get up. Its likely the people who dont care just vote to keep it as it is even though they would have no issue if it occured.

There are a few rules I would have abstained on.
You assume that all the people who didn't vote for your cap don't care?

Not at all it was a general statement. Nige posted that I was whinging about the cap rule not going up. All I did was voice an opinion on the general voting process. So to answer your question, no i dont assume people dont care if they dont vote for my cap change.

Hence why I said there where a few rules i would have abstained on.

like Rule 2

2. Alternate Team Formats
Currently, you are able to 'Flood' 3 times per year, and 'Attack' 3 times per year.
A) Change to 5 times in total for the year; where you can have any combination of these different structures i.e 5 floods, 0 attacks, or 4-1, 3-2, 2-3, 1-4, or 0-5
B) Keep as is.
C) Get rid of them entirely

honestly i have no opinion one way or the other on this one. So I think i just voted for B. I could have easily have voted A or C

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 24, 2017, 03:33:04 PM

Quote from: meow meow on August 24, 2017, 03:30:44 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 24, 2017, 03:24:42 PM
Flood/Attack stays with no bonus/penalty and pinch hit doesn't come in?

Sigh

Until I see a short player compete in the ruck with the aid of a baseball bat I'll never vote for pinch hit.

Sir Daniel of Caleb could do it.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on August 24, 2017, 03:49:36 PM

Quote from: Holz on August 24, 2017, 03:32:29 PM
Quote from: GoLions on August 24, 2017, 03:24:46 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 24, 2017, 02:48:47 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 24, 2017, 02:39:06 PM
We're having a vote where if you don't care about rules or contribute to Worlds, you don't get a vote because Holz is upset at everyone who didn't vote for his cap.

Dont twist my words.

I said if people had no strong opinion on a rule then there should be a vote for abstain.

That way if 7 people love a rule change and 2 people hate a rule change but then 9 couldn't care less one way or the other. Then the rule should change should get up. Its likely the people who dont care just vote to keep it as it is even though they would have no issue if it occured.

There are a few rules I would have abstained on.
You assume that all the people who didn't vote for your cap don't care?

Not at all it was a general statement. Nige posted that I was whinging about the cap rule not going up. All I did was voice an opinion on the general voting process. So to answer your question, no i dont assume people dont care if they dont vote for my cap change.

Hence why I said there where a few rules i would have abstained on.

like Rule 2

2. Alternate Team Formats
Currently, you are able to 'Flood' 3 times per year, and 'Attack' 3 times per year.
A) Change to 5 times in total for the year; where you can have any combination of these different structures i.e 5 floods, 0 attacks, or 4-1, 3-2, 2-3, 1-4, or 0-5
B) Keep as is.
C) Get rid of them entirely

honestly i have no opinion one way or the other on this one. So I think i just voted for B. I could have easily have voted A or C

It allows a bit more lenience to teams who get destroyed by injuries in either fwd or def, or extra flexibility to those who have plenty of depth in each line.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 24, 2017, 03:51:58 PM

Get some depth, don't change the rules because you can't depth.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 24, 2017, 04:33:16 PM

Quote from: Nige on August 24, 2017, 03:33:04 PM
Quote from: meow meow on August 24, 2017, 03:30:44 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 24, 2017, 03:24:42 PM
Flood/Attack stays with no bonus/penalty and pinch hit doesn't come in?

Sigh

Until I see a short player compete in the ruck with the aid of a baseball bat I'll never vote for pinch hit.
Sir Daniel of Caleb could do it.

Quote from: meow meow on August 24, 2017, 03:51:58 PM
Get some depth, don't change the rules because you can't depth.

Why should you be able to flood and attack because you have no depth, and do so without a penalty but for the one position where there is literally 20 active players, you cop a massive penalty if you don''t have depth there, but the positions with hundreds of players cop no penalty and can flood/attack?

It's totally flawed, and I cannot believe the rule isn't changing - in fact it's somehow got even better for teams with poor def/fwd depth because the penalty/bonus is no longer in!

Crazy. Makes zero sense

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 24, 2017, 04:58:36 PM

Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 24, 2017, 04:33:16 PM
Quote from: meow meow on August 24, 2017, 03:51:58 PM
Get some depth, don't change the rules because you can't depth.

Why should you be able to flood and attack because you have no depth, and do so without a penalty but for the one position where there is literally 20 active players, you cop a massive penalty if you don''t have depth there, but the positions with hundreds of players cop no penalty and can flood/attack?

It's totally flawed, and I cannot believe the rule isn't changing - in fact it's somehow got even better for teams with poor def/fwd depth because the penalty/bonus is no longer in!

Crazy. Makes zero sense

its not just about depth, I have used it just because i have a higher scoring F5 then D4.

like this week id used it if i could to play Tom Hawkins over Weits even though i might have 6-7 defenders playing this week.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 24, 2017, 05:11:20 PM

No more Leadership Groups, which I find ironic given that they'd be better without the possibility of loopholing haha

Still, glad we tried it out.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 24, 2017, 05:15:56 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 24, 2017, 05:11:20 PM
No more Leadership Groups, which I find ironic given that they'd be better without the possibility of loopholing haha

Still, glad we tried it out.

Matt Crouch wasn't a fan of them

it benefited Dublin to keep the leadership groups, but reckon it was unfair to NDT that they couldn't captain Matt. So thats why i voted to get rid of them

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Ricochet on August 24, 2017, 05:20:58 PM

Quote from: Holz on August 24, 2017, 05:15:56 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 24, 2017, 05:11:20 PM
No more Leadership Groups, which I find ironic given that they'd be better without the possibility of loopholing haha

Still, glad we tried it out.

Matt Crouch wasn't a fan of them

it benefited Dublin to keep the leadership groups, but reckon it was unfair to NDT that they couldn't captain Matt. So thats why i voted to get rid of them

Voted to keep it lol

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Torpedo10 on August 24, 2017, 05:24:32 PM

Quote from: Ricochet on August 24, 2017, 05:20:58 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 24, 2017, 05:15:56 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 24, 2017, 05:11:20 PM
No more Leadership Groups, which I find ironic given that they'd be better without the possibility of loopholing haha

Still, glad we tried it out.

Matt Crouch wasn't a fan of them

it benefited Dublin to keep the leadership groups, but reckon it was unfair to NDT that they couldn't captain Matt. So thats why i voted to get rid of them
Voted to keep it lol

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 24, 2017, 05:26:40 PM

Quote from: Ricochet on August 24, 2017, 05:20:58 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 24, 2017, 05:15:56 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 24, 2017, 05:11:20 PM
No more Leadership Groups, which I find ironic given that they'd be better without the possibility of loopholing haha

Still, glad we tried it out.

Matt Crouch wasn't a fan of them

it benefited Dublin to keep the leadership groups, but reckon it was unfair to NDT that they couldn't captain Matt. So thats why i voted to get rid of them
Voted to keep it lol

hey at least it shows we are voting in the best interest of the comp.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on August 24, 2017, 05:43:32 PM

Quote from: Holz on August 24, 2017, 04:58:36 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 24, 2017, 04:33:16 PM
Quote from: meow meow on August 24, 2017, 03:51:58 PM
Get some depth, don't change the rules because you can't depth.

Why should you be able to flood and attack because you have no depth, and do so without a penalty but for the one position where there is literally 20 active players, you cop a massive penalty if you don''t have depth there, but the positions with hundreds of players cop no penalty and can flood/attack?

It's totally flawed, and I cannot believe the rule isn't changing - in fact it's somehow got even better for teams with poor def/fwd depth because the penalty/bonus is no longer in!

Crazy. Makes zero sense

its not just about depth, I have used it just because i have a higher scoring F5 then D4.

like this week id used it if i could to play Tom Hawkins over Weits even though i might have 6-7 defenders playing this week.

So not only can you use flood/attack to make up for your poor depth/trading you can also use it to exploit fielding better players

Yet the rucks get smashed 50%

Makes sense

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 24, 2017, 06:00:01 PM

11 votes already, awesome!

Just mine and 6 others to go, and we'll call it quits for another 11-12 months :-X

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on August 24, 2017, 06:00:45 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on August 24, 2017, 06:00:01 PM
11 votes already, awesome!

Just mine and 6 others to go, and we'll call it quits for another 11-12 months :-X

I'm holding you to this. :P

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 24, 2017, 06:01:22 PM

Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 24, 2017, 05:43:32 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 24, 2017, 04:58:36 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 24, 2017, 04:33:16 PM
Quote from: meow meow on August 24, 2017, 03:51:58 PM
Get some depth, don't change the rules because you can't depth.

Why should you be able to flood and attack because you have no depth, and do so without a penalty but for the one position where there is literally 20 active players, you cop a massive penalty if you don''t have depth there, but the positions with hundreds of players cop no penalty and can flood/attack?

It's totally flawed, and I cannot believe the rule isn't changing - in fact it's somehow got even better for teams with poor def/fwd depth because the penalty/bonus is no longer in!

Crazy. Makes zero sense

its not just about depth, I have used it just because i have a higher scoring F5 then D4.

like this week id used it if i could to play Tom Hawkins over Weits even though i might have 6-7 defenders playing this week.

So not only can you use flood/attack to make up for your poor depth/trading you can also use it to exploit fielding better players

Yet the rucks get smashed 50%

Makes sense

you only need to field 1 ruck though and the good thing is there is often only 1 or 2 back up.

So its not too hard to get a ruck handcuff.

you need something really unlucky like Goldy Preuss Daw all injured. Which is rare.

ill happily cop the 50% though.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: JBs-Hawks on August 24, 2017, 06:14:16 PM

Quote from: Nige on August 24, 2017, 03:33:04 PM
Quote from: meow meow on August 24, 2017, 03:30:44 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 24, 2017, 03:24:42 PM
Flood/Attack stays with no bonus/penalty and pinch hit doesn't come in?

Sigh

Until I see a short player compete in the ruck with the aid of a baseball bat I'll never vote for pinch hit.
Sir Daniel of Caleb could do it.

Confirmed Caleb is the ruck you need!

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Toga on August 24, 2017, 06:25:56 PM

Yeah bugger would've liked to see leadership groups stay. Oh well.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Levi434 on August 24, 2017, 07:30:42 PM

How about we allow coaches to throw 1-3 players into a draft. Then based upon some random formula the draft order is calculated based upon the quality of player you put it.

Example:
Holz throws in Todd Goldstein (80 rated)
meow throws in Ryan Lester (99 rated)
Levi throws in Ben Jacobs (79 rated)
Torp throws in Tim Taranto (90 rated)

The draft order would be:
1. meow
2. Torp
3. Holz
4. Levi

Would be pretty cool I recon. Satisfies peoples urge for drafts without adding 18 more teams in.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 24, 2017, 08:57:57 PM

Adding more coaches in would be the goal. The more the merrier. I get sick of talking to myself sometimes, even though it's the only intelligent conversation I get around here.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Levi434 on August 25, 2017, 01:04:53 AM

Honestly though.

How much is 1 Paddy dow worth?

I thought he should be priced at 113. But then on discord we decided that 1 mil cap was fair. But then we thought that 2 top ten picks was fair. Like you have to use pick 1 + 2 for Paddy dow.

But then we thought about the possibility of expanding to 36 teams. Imagine having 2 Paddy dow's? Would that mean you'd have to give the top 4 picks?

Honestly I'm kind of lost.

Dove is the only one I love, but dow is making me ask questions... you know the questions all teenagers ask about their orientation...

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Adamant on August 25, 2017, 01:17:35 AM

I thought we decided that picks 1 and 2 were a reasonable base. But then you'd have to add another two top 20 picks (let's say 8 + 18) for the 'premium' factor that is Paddy dow. Even then he'd still probably be undervalued.

If we expand to 36 teams then that's a whole new ball game. I'd be tempted to just assign the entire first round of the draft to secure the services of two Paddy dow's.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Levi434 on August 25, 2017, 01:21:48 AM

Thank you for your reply Adamant. That is what we decided but I was just a little flustered but I guess here is the big question:

Is that fair to the rest of the comp?

We can assume a team with Paddy dow is locked in to win the premiership for as long as he plays. Say 23 years. Is that really fair?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 25, 2017, 08:57:29 AM

Let's get one thing straight. You don't love them. I love them.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 28, 2017, 09:53:15 AM

1. Salary Cap v Points Cap (with no age discount)

Which cap would you like?

A) Salary Cap; the way it is now.
B) Points Cap; as explained by Holz here
A: 11
B: 7

2. Age discount

Would you like to see an age discount, where all players born in 1987 or earlier receive a 3% discount for every year earlier they were born? That is, if born in 1987, you would receive a 3% discount. 1986 --> 6%, 1985 --> 9% etc. This base year will be 1988 in 2018, 1989 in 2019 etc.

A) Yes, I would like to see an age discount on player cap values.
B) No, I would not like to see an age discount on player cap values.

A: 10
B: 8

I'll open up some threads

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 28, 2017, 10:28:12 AM

Well thats surprising, the one i thought was nothing but logical to auto pass failed and the one i thought was highly subjective passed.

ohh well move on to trade Period.

got to see if I can pick up Josh Kelly from Seoul. Only a 90 average mid, shouldnt cost too much :P Might see if i can pick up Heath Shaw as a 95 defender and chuck a little extra on.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: JBs-Hawks on August 28, 2017, 11:33:20 AM

Quote from: Holz on August 28, 2017, 10:28:12 AM
Well thats surprising, the one i thought was nothing but logical to auto pass failed and the one i thought was highly subjective passed.

ohh well move on to trade Period.

got to see if I can pick up Josh Kelly from Seoul. Only a 90 average mid, shouldnt cost too much :P Might see if i can pick up Heath Shaw as a 95 defender and chuck a little extra on.

Yes because there cap value is exactly the same as trade value.

So I'll give you 8 of my spuds for Dusty hopefully it passes and I'm not giving too much overs!

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on August 28, 2017, 11:57:25 AM

Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 28, 2017, 11:33:20 AM
Quote from: Holz on August 28, 2017, 10:28:12 AM
Well thats surprising, the one i thought was nothing but logical to auto pass failed and the one i thought was highly subjective passed.

ohh well move on to trade Period.

got to see if I can pick up Josh Kelly from Seoul. Only a 90 average mid, shouldnt cost too much :P Might see if i can pick up Heath Shaw as a 95 defender and chuck a little extra on.

Yes because there cap value is exactly the same as trade value.

So I'll give you 8 of my spuds for Dusty hopefully it passes and I'm not giving too much overs!

It was a joke at the cap and im talking straight trade not 8 for 1.

I'm not sure what the cap is to be honest. Not a reflection of scoring power either with the 83 average player costing 100k more then then the 114 average player.

You know thats not right.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 30, 2017, 08:24:35 PM

Is the cap going to be revised later? Or are the min/max set? Currently it includes all the retirees prices, which will inflate the average immensely.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on August 30, 2017, 08:35:51 PM

Quote from: meow meow on August 30, 2017, 08:24:35 PM
Is the cap going to be revised later? Or are the min/max set? Currently it includes all the retirees prices, which will inflate the average immensely.

It's consistent with all previous years, so it's set.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on August 30, 2017, 09:09:14 PM

Can you remind me of this next year? It's quite stupid to include the values of Sam Mitchell, Joey, Nroo for next years cap.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Levi434 on September 16, 2017, 06:55:37 PM

Please Watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6njnBSMGqA

I'd appreciate if people paused to read relevant information because I think this would definitely take WXV to the next level.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on September 16, 2017, 07:03:02 PM

Quote from: Levi434 on September 16, 2017, 06:55:37 PM
Please Watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6njnBSMGqA

I'd appreciate if people paused to read relevant information because I think this would definitely take WXV to the next level.

Heads up for everyone else, be sure to mute the video :P

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Levi434 on September 16, 2017, 07:04:18 PM

Quote from: Levi434 on September 16, 2017, 06:55:37 PM
Please Watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6njnBSMGqA

I'd appreciate if people paused to read relevant information because I think this would definitely take WXV to the next level.

I should also mention that the spreadsheet changes according to the player you are negotiating with. This is purely an example which I used.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Adamant on September 16, 2017, 07:50:34 PM

That's pretty sick.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on September 16, 2017, 08:38:23 PM

I absolutely love it as a new comp.

I despise it for worlds. We have spent 6 years building these teams free agency will ruin it.

However if its a new comp then im all for it. Ill put my hand up as a coach.

My team name Monaco Moneyballers

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on September 16, 2017, 09:53:51 PM

That is pretty amazing. That spreadsheet would actually be insane too.

I'm all for exploring the idea :) just probably more in depth next year, in the next rules discussion period. But don't mind a yes/no at the concept now, to implant the seed of thought for next year

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on January 08, 2018, 10:42:17 AM

Alright, I'm starting to wake up 'round here again. Hope everyone has had (or is still having) a good break!

About to send the "Trade Period Review" PM, which talks about 3 major trade processing alternatives (specifics to be refined in later votes depending on which alternative wins).

Use this space to discuss before you respond to the PM if you like :)

A) Keep the current system (allowing all voices to be heard). If this option wins, we'll then review the "neg" brackets i.e. 0-3 = autopass, 4-5 votes = passes but admin can fail it etc.

B) Give me total power over trade rulings (reducing trade processing time significantly).

C) Establish a trade committee (reducing trade processing time). This committee would comprise of about 5 members, which will consist of me and 4 others (WXV inclusive or not) either chosen by me or the WXV coaches.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on January 08, 2018, 10:52:28 AM

Also, just for interests sake...

These are the amount of times Team X negged a trade (out of 116)

15
13
12
9
8
7
7
7
7
7
6
5
4
3
1
1
0

Which is a total of 112.

Which is interesting, coz last year it was 86 in total.

But then there's good ol 2015, which totalled 169.

But yeah, PM me if you're interested to see how many trades you negged :)

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on January 08, 2018, 11:30:32 AM

Quote from: Purple 77 on January 08, 2018, 10:42:17 AM
Alright, I'm starting to wake up 'round here again. Hope everyone has had (or is still having) a good break!

About to send the "Trade Period Review" PM, which talks about 3 major trade processing alternatives (specifics to be refined in later votes depending on which alternative wins).

Use this space to discuss before you respond to the PM if you like :)

A) Keep the current system (allowing all voices to be heard). If this option wins, we'll then review the "neg" brackets i.e. 0-3 = autopass, 4-5 votes = passes but admin can fail it etc.

B) Give me total power over trade rulings (reducing trade processing time significantly).

C) Establish a trade committee (reducing trade processing time). This committee would comprise of about 5 members, which will consist of me and 4 others (WXV inclusive or not) either chosen by me or the WXV coaches.

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/4195pEbftyL._SX342_.jpg)
All Hail the King.

Long may he reign

(https://images.bigcartel.com/product_images/178560671/rosspurple.jpg?auto=format&fit=max&h=1000&w=1000)

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Torpedo10 on January 08, 2018, 11:37:27 AM

Quote from: Purple 77 on January 08, 2018, 10:52:28 AM
Also, just for interests sake...

These are the amount of times Team X negged a trade (out of 116)

15
13
12
9
8
7
7
7
7
7
6
5
4
3
1
1
0

Which is a total of 112.

Which is interesting, coz last year it was 86 in total.

But then there's good ol 2015, which totalled 169.

But yeah, PM me if you're interested to see how many trades you negged :)

Zero feels good. :P

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on January 08, 2018, 12:24:37 PM

15 feels better

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on January 08, 2018, 12:28:43 PM

D) All teams vote except London (crazy negs) and PNL (trades are already decided by the time they finally get around to voting).

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Nige on January 08, 2018, 12:32:26 PM

Quote from: meow meow on January 08, 2018, 12:28:43 PM
D) All teams vote except London (crazy negs) and PNL (trades are already decided by the time they finally get around to voting).

Feels wrong to include PNL in the latter category and not Pacific.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on January 08, 2018, 01:57:14 PM

Quote from: meow meow on January 08, 2018, 12:28:43 PM
D) All teams vote except London (crazy negs) and PNL (trades are already decided by the time they finally get around to voting).

;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: DazBurg on January 08, 2018, 02:34:49 PM

Quote from: meow meow on January 08, 2018, 12:28:43 PM
D) All teams vote except London (crazy negs) and PNL (trades are already decided by the time they finally get around to voting).

easy,
of the 116 trades 90% are the same 3 teams

so either A: commit to passing all regardless involving these 3
or
B: commit to negging all trades involving these 3

either way turnaround issue solved for for the 104/116 trades
:P :P :P

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Ringo on January 08, 2018, 04:57:41 PM

Quote from: DazBurg on January 08, 2018, 02:34:49 PM
Quote from: meow meow on January 08, 2018, 12:28:43 PM
D) All teams vote except London (crazy negs) and PNL (trades are already decided by the time they finally get around to voting).
easy,
of the 116 trades 90% are the same 3 teams

so either A: commit to passing all regardless involving these 3
or
B: commit to negging all trades involving these 3

either way turnaround issue solved for for the 104/116 trades
:P :P :P

How do you negs are crazy when voting is supposed to secret >:( >:( If this is let out then I would be disappointed and would have to consider my role as a coach in this competition) Fair amount of time is spent analysing trades for fairness and eveness of the competition as per guidelines so sorry to hold up by abiding with guidelines. Have also had a number of Personal Issues these last 6 months which effected time to analyse the trades,

Anyway my thoughts on the rule change is that Purps approve all trades and if 3/4 coaches object then goes to a trades comittee for final approval. This option also available for rejected trades. Not in the options so need to consider how to vote.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on January 08, 2018, 05:01:29 PM

Quote from: Ringo on January 08, 2018, 04:57:41 PM
Quote from: DazBurg on January 08, 2018, 02:34:49 PM
Quote from: meow meow on January 08, 2018, 12:28:43 PM
D) All teams vote except London (crazy negs) and PNL (trades are already decided by the time they finally get around to voting).
easy,
of the 116 trades 90% are the same 3 teams

so either A: commit to passing all regardless involving these 3
or
B: commit to negging all trades involving these 3

either way turnaround issue solved for for the 104/116 trades
:P :P :P
How do you negs are crazy when voting is supposed to secret >:( >:( If this is let out then I would be disappointed and would have to consider my role as a coach in this competition) Fair amount of time is spent analysing trades for fairness and eveness of the competition as per guidelines so sorry to hold up by abiding with guidelines. Have also had a number of Personal Issues these last 6 months which effected time to analyse the trades,

Anyway my thoughts on the rule change is that Purps approve all trades and if 3/4 coaches object then goes to a trades comittee for final approval. This option also available for rejected trades. Not in the options so need to consider how to vote.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that meow hacked into Purps' account and looked through all his PMs to see how everybody voted for every single trade vote over the last few years.

Or took an educated guess.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Ringo on January 08, 2018, 05:07:26 PM

Quote from: GoLions on January 08, 2018, 05:01:29 PM
Quote from: Ringo on January 08, 2018, 04:57:41 PM
Quote from: DazBurg on January 08, 2018, 02:34:49 PM
Quote from: meow meow on January 08, 2018, 12:28:43 PM
D) All teams vote except London (crazy negs) and PNL (trades are already decided by the time they finally get around to voting).
easy,
of the 116 trades 90% are the same 3 teams

so either A: commit to passing all regardless involving these 3
or
B: commit to negging all trades involving these 3

either way turnaround issue solved for for the 104/116 trades
:P :P :P
How do you negs are crazy when voting is supposed to secret >:( >:( If this is let out then I would be disappointed and would have to consider my role as a coach in this competition) Fair amount of time is spent analysing trades for fairness and eveness of the competition as per guidelines so sorry to hold up by abiding with guidelines. Have also had a number of Personal Issues these last 6 months which effected time to analyse the trades,

Anyway my thoughts on the rule change is that Purps approve all trades and if 3/4 coaches object then goes to a trades comittee for final approval. This option also available for rejected trades. Not in the options so need to consider how to vote.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that meow hacked into Purps' account and looked through all his PMs to see how everybody voted for every single trade vote over the last few years.

Or took an educated guess.

OK we negged quite a few in 2015 but have not negged a lot in the last 2 years.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on January 08, 2018, 09:10:39 PM

Everything kept anonymous, I can assure.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on January 08, 2018, 09:44:38 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on January 08, 2018, 09:10:39 PM
Everything kept anonymous, I can assure.

(https://i.imgur.com/HTQqsnC.gif)

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Torpedo10 on January 09, 2018, 10:29:11 PM

I'm confident there's been no wrongdoing, but when you get negged trades you are sent reasoning. Particular people around here have distinct tone. :P

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: crowls on January 10, 2018, 08:26:04 AM

Quote from: Torpedo10 on January 09, 2018, 10:29:11 PM
I'm confident there's been no wrongdoing, but when you get negged trades you are sent reasoning. Particular people around here have distinct tone. :P

[color=rgb(135, 135, 135) !important]

synonyms:mood, quality, feel, style, note, air, attitude, character, spirit, flavour, grain, temper, humour, effect;

[/font][/size][/color]

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: fanTCfool on January 10, 2018, 01:26:01 PM

Quote from: crowls on January 10, 2018, 08:26:04 AM
Quote from: Torpedo10 on January 09, 2018, 10:29:11 PM
I'm confident there's been no wrongdoing, but when you get negged trades you are sent reasoning. Particular people around here have distinct tone. :P
[color=rgb(135, 135, 135) !important]
synonyms:mood[/size][/font], quality, feel, style, note, air, attitude, character, spirit, flavour, grain, temper, humour, effect;
[/color]

Sometimes I wonder with you crowls...

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on January 13, 2018, 03:53:42 PM

Oh, and that's the other one.

WXV Rookie promotions?

I want to keep a rookie list still - sorry :P - but given now the AFL doesn't have to promote their rookies anymore to make them eligible for selection, should we?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on January 13, 2018, 04:05:16 PM

Whilst I'm still interested to hear from Mexico City, Pacific and Christchurch

I count 11 people voting option A - keep as is.

For those that explained their choice, there seemed to be a feeling that you wouldn't mind me taking control to decide all trades (provided there was some kinda DRS or Hawkeye), but felt the current system was doing the job well.

And I do appreciate the faith :P but I also feel you'd all turn on me the moment I neg another Lee Spurr/Lewis Taylor* trade or McKernan + DVR FOR Pick 12 trade* :P. FWIW, I reckon I would have stopped like, 4-5 more trades that were rejected in the last trade period, and probably passed 1-2 that were rejected. So I'd probably be a touch more stricter than the current system.

I'll send out another vote to review the "neg levels" in the next day or two.

*hand picked examples that brush my ego to this day

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Ringo on January 13, 2018, 06:38:28 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on January 13, 2018, 03:53:42 PM
Oh, and that's the other one.

WXV Rookie promotions?

I want to keep a rookie list still - sorry :P - but given now the AFL doesn't have to promote their rookies anymore to make them eligible for selection, should we?

Maybe just follow the AFL lead. Even though as Rookies can be named from Rd 1 they are still only on a list for 2 years. So we have the rookie list and draft but these players can only be listed as rookies for 2 years.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on January 13, 2018, 07:25:11 PM

Quote from: Ringo on January 13, 2018, 06:38:28 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on January 13, 2018, 03:53:42 PM
Oh, and that's the other one.

WXV Rookie promotions?

I want to keep a rookie list still - sorry :P - but given now the AFL doesn't have to promote their rookies anymore to make them eligible for selection, should we?
Maybe just follow the AFL lead. Even though as Rookies can be named from Rd 1 they are still only on a list for 2 years. So we have the rookie list and draft but these players can only be listed as rookies for 2 years.

Sounds fair to me

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on January 13, 2018, 10:29:42 PM

We have a system where 5 people out of 18 bring down a trade.

But 4/15 cant bring down the system.

Surely we need 9 negs to block a trade.

If we listen to the majority on voting for the right to vote the surely we need to listen to the majority on trades. Or is that logic flawed

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Levi434 on January 16, 2018, 06:34:45 PM

How does this new rookies thing work? If it passes does it mean we will have 45 players to choose from every week instead of 40? Or is it now that rookies and players can be freely promoted/demoted but to name them they'll still need to be on the main list?

I was a fan of the rookie promotion rule. How they go back to the rookie list after 6 weeks. I still recon you should have to demote someone in order to use a rookie. Perhaps just remove the LTI tag about who it is.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on January 16, 2018, 09:54:14 PM

The proposal would mean you'd have 45 players to choose from. They're still on your rookie list, it's just that they'd be available for selection under the proposal.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on January 17, 2018, 12:02:39 PM

calling it now

The majority of people will say we should vote by minority.
The minority of people will say we should vote by majority.

(https://img.memecdn.com/paradox-paradox-paradox_o_424621.jpg)

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on January 17, 2018, 12:05:39 PM

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on January 29, 2018, 01:36:13 PM

So, 17 out of 18 teams have voted.

QuoteShould we abolish/remove the need to promote rookies in order to play them mid-season?

Vote A or B

A) Yes
B) No

We had 16 "Yes" voters (a few did vote B, but all other evidence suggested they meant to vote A, so I counted them as such)

So gone are the days of promoting rookies in order to play them!

QuoteA) Keep as is
0-3 votes = auto-pass
4-5 votes = trade passes, but admin has power to overturn
6-7 votes = trade fails, but admin has power to overturn
8+ votes = auto-fail

B) Stricter
0-2 votes = auto-pass
3-4 votes = trade passes, but admin has power to overturn
5-6 votes = trade fails, but admin has power to overturn
7+ votes = auto-fail

C) More Lenient
0-4 votes = auto-pass
5-6 votes = trade passes, but admin has power to overturn
7-8 votes = trade fails, but admin has power to overturn
9+ votes = auto-fail

D) Majority Rules
0-7 votes = auto-pass
8 votes = trade passes, but admin has power to overturn
9 votes = trade fails, but admin has power to overturn
10+ votes = auto-fail

A) 8
B) 5
C) 2
D) 2

Found this vote quite interesting! There was as many people that wanted it stricter than those who wanted it more lenient. But, with 8 people voting to keep the way it is (and also the option that falls between B & C), I feel satisfied that A wins.

So will be keeping as normal :)

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on January 29, 2018, 01:42:46 PM

So once again the majority vote that the minority should get the say over the majority.

(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/554/picard-facepalm.jpg)

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Torpedo10 on January 29, 2018, 01:45:19 PM

Quote from: Holz on January 29, 2018, 01:42:46 PM
So once again the majority vote that the minority should get the say over the majority.

(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/554/picard-facepalm.jpg)

It sure is weird!

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on February 02, 2018, 05:51:29 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on January 29, 2018, 01:36:13 PM
So, 17 out of 18 teams have voted.

I didn't vote because I was told that we can't change shower until next year, when I protested about something.

Something like this...

2018 salaries
Average $10,059,444.44
MAX = Average +5% $10,562,416.67
MIN = Average -15% $8,550,527.78

WXV Club
New Delhi Tigers
Dublin Destroyers
Berlin Brewers
Beijing Thunder
Moscow Spetsnaz
Pacific Islanders
Christchurch Saints
Toronto Wolves
Seoul Magpies
New York Revolution
Cairo Sands
Cape Town Cobras
Buenos Aires Armadillos
Tokyo Samurai
Mexico City Suns
London Royals
Rio de Janeiro Jaguars
PNL Reindeers

Current Cap
$11,082,000
$11,017,000
$10,942,000
$10,887,000
$10,796,000
$10,750,000
$10,574,000
$10,554,000
$10,393,000
$9,930,000
$9,735,000
$9,406,000
$9,366,000
$9,231,000
$9,208,000
$9,153,000
$9,128,000
$8,918,000

CAP CHEAT!!!
CAP CHEAT!!!
CAP CHEAT!!!
CAP CHEAT!!!
CAP CHEAT!!!
CAP CHEAT!!!
CAP CHEAT!!!

Let's keep this fresh in the mind until next off season thanks folks.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Levi434 on February 02, 2018, 05:55:24 PM

Ban those cap cheats! Horrible and disgusting!

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on February 02, 2018, 05:59:32 PM

Quote from: meow meow on February 02, 2018, 05:51:29 PM

I didn't vote because I was told that we can't change shower until next year, when I protested about something.

You want to remove all the retired guys, but you have all these rookies coming in who are valued at 100k but will score.

I guess if you want to do it that way then you could increase the number to 10% above cap if you do that.

2018 salaries
Average $10,059,444.44
MAX = Average +10% $11,065,388.88
MIN = Average -15% $8,550,527.78

CAP CHEAT!!!

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on February 02, 2018, 08:35:18 PM

Lol meow :P

But just to be clear, the trade vote always happens in December/January, and I only tacked on the Rookie Promotion thing because I forgot to do it in the last lot... or it didn't happen yet... one of those.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on March 05, 2018, 01:15:47 PM

So do we get 4 emergencies now or what?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on March 05, 2018, 01:40:49 PM

Quote from: meow meow on March 05, 2018, 01:15:47 PM
So do we get 4 emergencies now or what?

You'll have to remind me with the context, but no? With a couple of long weekend exceptions.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on March 05, 2018, 01:44:43 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on March 05, 2018, 01:40:49 PM
Quote from: meow meow on March 05, 2018, 01:15:47 PM
So do we get 4 emergencies now or what?

You'll have to remind me with the context, but no? With a couple of long weekend exceptions.

4 emergencies named in AFL squads now.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Ringo on March 05, 2018, 04:39:31 PM

Quote from: meow meow on March 05, 2018, 01:44:43 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on March 05, 2018, 01:40:49 PM
Quote from: meow meow on March 05, 2018, 01:15:47 PM
So do we get 4 emergencies now or what?

You'll have to remind me with the context, but no? With a couple of long weekend exceptions.

4 emergencies named in AFL squads now.

Fair question given the latest AFL Tweak.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on March 05, 2018, 05:01:09 PM

Quote from: Ringo on March 05, 2018, 04:39:31 PM
Quote from: meow meow on March 05, 2018, 01:44:43 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on March 05, 2018, 01:40:49 PM
Quote from: meow meow on March 05, 2018, 01:15:47 PM
So do we get 4 emergencies now or what?

You'll have to remind me with the context, but no? With a couple of long weekend exceptions.

4 emergencies named in AFL squads now.
Fair question given the latest AFL Tweak.

4 emergency seems a no brainier. there are 4 positions and unless you have DPP players on your emergency bench your going to be leaving one position empty (most likely a ruck)

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Purple 77 on March 05, 2018, 06:06:15 PM

Oh I see.

Hmm, my gut reaction is no, but I could be swayed. I tend to think we play with 5 emergencies anyway, given our utility spots. I also think a 15-3 ratio compares with the new afl 22-4.

Teams rarely have a second ruck available, and if they do, well, put them in as an emergency I say. I'd also prefer to not have anymore rule changes for the time being.

So overall, I'd prefer no, but await the feel of the consensus

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Holz on March 05, 2018, 06:11:56 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on March 05, 2018, 06:06:15 PM
Oh I see.

Hmm, my gut reaction is no, but I could be swayed. I tend to think we play with 5 emergencies anyway, given our utility spots. I also think a 15-3 ratio compares with the new afl 22-4.

Teams rarely have a second ruck available, and if they do, well, put them in as an emergency I say. I'd also prefer to not have anymore rule changes for the time being.

So overall, I'd prefer no, but await the feel of the consensus

Most teams have a handcuff.

So say your number 1 ruck is under a late withdrawal cloud or worse a unexpected late withdrawal. Its better to have your back up ruck at e4.

If no e4 thrn you need to sacrifice a mid, fwd or def.

Does it even have to go to a vote? I cant see why anyone would not want it. Dont other comps all have it?

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: iZander on March 05, 2018, 06:35:09 PM

Quote from: Holz on March 05, 2018, 06:11:56 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on March 05, 2018, 06:06:15 PM
Oh I see.

Hmm, my gut reaction is no, but I could be swayed. I tend to think we play with 5 emergencies anyway, given our utility spots. I also think a 15-3 ratio compares with the new afl 22-4.

Teams rarely have a second ruck available, and if they do, well, put them in as an emergency I say. I'd also prefer to not have anymore rule changes for the time being.

So overall, I'd prefer no, but await the feel of the consensus

Most teams have a handcuff.

So say your number 1 ruck is under a late withdrawal cloud or worse a unexpected late withdrawal. Its better to have your back up ruck at e4.

If no e4 thrn you need to sacrifice a mid, fwd or def.

Does it even have to go to a vote? I cant see why anyone would not want it. Dont other comps all have it?

Yeah have 10 emergencies as far as im concerned, you dont wanna see donuts
Wont matter for Dillos though, we struggled naming 3 last year

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on March 05, 2018, 06:37:41 PM

Quote from: Holz on March 05, 2018, 06:11:56 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on March 05, 2018, 06:06:15 PM
Oh I see.

Hmm, my gut reaction is no, but I could be swayed. I tend to think we play with 5 emergencies anyway, given our utility spots. I also think a 15-3 ratio compares with the new afl 22-4.

Teams rarely have a second ruck available, and if they do, well, put them in as an emergency I say. I'd also prefer to not have anymore rule changes for the time being.

So overall, I'd prefer no, but await the feel of the consensus

Most teams have a handcuff.

So say your number 1 ruck is under a late withdrawal cloud or worse a unexpected late withdrawal. Its better to have your back up ruck at e4.

If no e4 thrn you need to sacrifice a mid, fwd or def.

Does it even have to go to a vote? I cant see why anyone would not want it. Dont other comps all have it?

I change my vote to stick with 3 emergencies

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: meow meow on March 05, 2018, 07:32:40 PM

The CAP CHEATS!!! will probably name 4 anyway, and be allowed to have their E4 come in when needed.

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: RaisyDaisy on March 05, 2018, 07:44:58 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on March 05, 2018, 06:06:15 PM
I tend to think we play with 5 emergencies anyway, given our utility spots.

Last time I checked XV meant 15, not 13 :P

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: GoLions on March 05, 2018, 07:57:58 PM

Quote from: RaisyDaisy on March 05, 2018, 07:44:58 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on March 05, 2018, 06:06:15 PM
I tend to think we play with 5 emergencies anyway, given our utility spots.

Last time I checked XV meant 15, not 13 :P

Well, not everyone understands

Quote"If this was World XIII's they would be the Premiership favourites. D3-D4, M4-M6 and F3-F4 amongst the worst in the comp."

Title: Re: WXV Rules Discussion 2017
Post by: Levi434 on March 05, 2018, 09:07:58 PM

Pregame warmups gone as well?

FanFooty Forum

AFL fantasy competitions => WXV Archives => World XVs => XVs Competitions => 2017 => Topic started by: Purple 77 on August 01, 2017, 12:13:11 PM