WXV Expansion

[Purple 77]

I quite like that idea!

However, I think in a game that is so heavily based on trades, that trading future draft picks would cause not just a headache, but an indefinite migraine.

But the stuff above that is quite interesting  8)

[Levi434]

I quite like that idea!

However, I think in a game that is so heavily based on trades, that trading future draft picks would cause not just a headache, but an indefinite migraine.

But the stuff above that is quite interesting  8)

Lol^

Maybe each team must put up players up to a specific points value?

[Purple 77]

I quite like that idea!

However, I think in a game that is so heavily based on trades, that trading future draft picks would cause not just a headache, but an indefinite migraine.

But the stuff above that is quite interesting  8)

Lol^

Maybe each team must put up players up to a specific points value?

Is an idea worth discussion, for sure.

I've also liked the idea of trying to put a numeric value on a player, and in my own time sometimes try to think of ways of how to accurately measure it. But there is so many factors such as age, coming off an LTI, how the player was recruited, the state of the team they are in...finding the right formula for a value determined by so many variables, is quite challenging.

I love to imagine if, such a formula existed, then how useful would that be in trying to determine the fairness of a trade -> both in Worlds and real life? It would open up areas of expansion in this comp IMO.

[Levi434]

I quite like that idea!

However, I think in a game that is so heavily based on trades, that trading future draft picks would cause not just a headache, but an indefinite migraine.

But the stuff above that is quite interesting  8)

Lol^

Maybe each team must put up players up to a specific points value?

Is an idea worth discussion, for sure.

I've also liked the idea of trying to put a numeric value on a player, and in my own time sometimes try to think of ways of how to accurately measure it. But there is so many factors such as age, coming off an LTI, how the player was recruited, the state of the team they are in...finding the right formula for a value determined by so many variables, is quite challenging.

I love to imagine if, such a formula existed, then how useful would that be in trying to determine the fairness of a trade -> both in Worlds and real life? It would open up areas of expansion in this comp IMO.

It is indeed quite challenging and finding one will be sure to cause an indefinite migrane. When I was trying to establish the NFL IX's I liked the (Average divided by Age X100)? Currently meaning that Tom Mitchell is averaging 108 divided by 22 is 4.9090 x 100 = 490.91 and Lance Franklin is averaging 94.3 and is 28 which means he is worth 336.79.

It is pretty simple but then the hard part would be how much is a draft pick worth?

Anyways I might try and think of a more complex and reliable formula over the week. Need to know what factors are important though. Currently:

Average
Age
Injury History
Team
What else?

[Torpedo10]

If expansion was to happen, it would be MUCH better to figure it out like GWS/Gold Coast in the AFL. Stack them with draft picks and give them lets say one player from each club with a formula for this to be decided by ladder positions? Could also be linked to averages?

Could almost have a starter club back in 2016, giving them 6 of the first 11 draft picks in 2015 Nat draft (For example, 1,3,5,7,9,11). Just reshuffling players from the current teams into a new team is a waste IMHO.

[Ziplock]

do the new teams take some of the existing clubs players?

haven't worked that bit out yet

Memphis after 9 rounds reckon conservatively we have 4 teams guaranteed. Remembering we have 20 teams fitting into 8 this time not 18

not in worlds except as a basically defunct assistant for trading, but I find the idea interesting so I'll drop my 2c in here.

You'd have to allow the new teams to take players from the existing teams. I'd probably create points based system like what Levi says, although I'd probably just go on age and use the highest average from their last couple of seasons (last 3 maybe?), factors like team and injury history would be irritating to quantify. I'd then say allocate how many points worth of players are allowed to be taken from each team based on where they finished last season, I'd then use a draft format for the two expansion teams where they can select players from other teams. I don't think I'd bother including the draft- every team would just have to accept they're going to lose players.

If you don't want to have a different number of points ascribed to each team and instead just have overall points used by the expansion, I'd probs say that every club can name untouchable players, with the lower clubs allowed to name more, then just have a cap on how many players from each club can be selected.

[GoLions]

If expansion was to happen, it would be MUCH better to figure it out like GWS/Gold Coast in the AFL. Stack them with draft picks and give them lets say one player from each club with a formula for this to be decided by ladder positions? Could also be linked to averages?

Could almost have a starter club back in 2016, giving them 6 of the first 11 draft picks in 2015 Nat draft (For example, 1,3,5,7,9,11). Just reshuffling players from the current teams into a new team is a waste IMHO.

In theory, I think this would be ideal. Dunno if coaches would actually commit to building a team from the ground up though. Would probably want them to have some knowledge about the players being drafted and all that (meow? :P ).

But yeah, if there are coaches who would want to do this, I'd say it's the best option. If I actually had knowledge of all the kids going through the draft, then I'd probably want to do this haha.

[Ziplock]

If expansion was to happen, it would be MUCH better to figure it out like GWS/Gold Coast in the AFL. Stack them with draft picks and give them lets say one player from each club with a formula for this to be decided by ladder positions? Could also be linked to averages?

Could almost have a starter club back in 2016, giving them 6 of the first 11 draft picks in 2015 Nat draft (For example, 1,3,5,7,9,11). Just reshuffling players from the current teams into a new team is a waste IMHO.

In theory, I think this would be ideal. Dunno if coaches would actually commit to building a team from the ground up though. Would probably want them to have some knowledge about the players being drafted and all that (meow? :P ).

But yeah, if there are coaches who would want to do this, I'd say it's the best option. If I actually had knowledge of all the kids going through the draft, then I'd probably want to do this haha.

But like like 5 years to be competitive? I assume if you would be putting both teams in simultaneously you'd be alternating picks 1 to 12 between them?

So like in the 2012 draft
http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,44945.0.html

and the point where they became SC relevant

Team 1:
Patton (TBC)
Tyson (2014)
Wingard (2013)
Longer (TBC)
Docherty (2015)
Greene (2012)

^ actually looks better than it is considering inconsistent years backing up their breakouts that wingard and green had (and looking like tyson too)

Team 2:
Coniglio (TBC)
O'Meara (2014)
Buntine (TBC)
Hoskin-Eliott (TBC)
Tomlinson (TBC)
Mitchell (2015)

^That's pretty bad. With Mitchell in and out of the team, and O'meara's injury especially.

The cut off points I picked might have been a bit arbitrary, but as a backbone for a team that's a rought 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 season. I reckon you need to have to ability to take players from other teams.

[GoLions]

The cut off points I picked might have been a bit arbitrary, but as a backbone for a team that's a rought 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 season. I reckon you need to have to ability to take players from other teams.

Oh yeah I 100% agree. But via trading picks and all that. I don't think it's fair if someone like Holz or Jroo, who have built their teams to what they are now, are forced to lose players. Granted, it would make the competition a lot more even, but I just don't really think it should be done in that way.

[Memphistopheles]

What we did in another keeper league I'm in to add two new teams was the following which might work for this:

Each of the original coaches were able to nominate a certain number of players from their team they wanted to keep (in this instance it was 10 as we were only going from a 10 team to a 12 team league).

I reckon a smaller number for this competition like say just 5 players nominated per club.

Then each new team were able to pick two players from each of the other teams to form their teams. Any player not in the nominated 5 are fair game for them to grab. Although they'd also have to keep under the points cap.

So going with Ossies' original idea not only would this help the existing teams reduce the number of players they have it should allow for two, new competitive teams. They won't likely get any super-premiums but could get a really good list of consistent players and some gun youngsters.

Also the weaker teams like New Delhi can keep all their good players in those nominated 5 whereas a team like Dublin or Mexico City will have lots of stars available to be stolen outside of their 5.

Existing teams will also have to decide whether they keep established stars or future stars so it adds a strategy element.

[ossie85]

Some great ideas here :) I like a lot of them


How about this for a different fixture idea:

You play 16 teams once over 16 rounds (+ 4 weeks of finals) = 20 rounds. This skips the bye rounds completely...

And you play 3 other teams 2 or 3 times each (a best of three scenario, only play a third if after 2 matches it is 1-1) DURING the regular matches. So you'll effectively be playing 2 matches in some weeks.

Example... Dublin plays London in Rounds 1 (home), 2 (away) and 3 (neutral, if required) while at the same time playing regular scheduled matches against Beijing, Rio and Cairo (in Rounds 1, 2 and 3 respectively).

The matches against London would only count as 1 game to the overall ladder.

Dublin would later play Berlin in Rounds 8 (home), 9 (away) and 10 (neutral, if required), and later PNL in Rounds 14 (home), 15 (away) and 16 (neutral, if required). Again, the result would only count as 1 match overall.

The teams would be grouped like:

Asia
Seoul
Tokyo
Beijing
New Delhi

Europe
Dublin
London
Berlin
PNL

Americas
Rio de Janeiro
Buenos Aires
Toronto
Mexico City

Africonia
Cairo
Cape Town
Pacific
Christchurch

Other
New York
Moscow
Expansion Team 1
Expansion Team 2

Which might change year to year....

[Purple 77]

I have no problems with that fixture idea, whatsoever tbh.

[DazBurg]

TBH i'm against the idea we had alot of lower teams struggling and after they had a season or so of pain and all got active in trading doing some smart deals i feel the comp is starting to even up more then it has been in a long time

so in saying that i think if we expand it could cause the 2 new teams to suffer or slow down the teams improving


i like that there is always thoughts in improving and growing the game but also think it is as strong as ever atm and love it the way it is

[Ziplock]

TBH i'm against the idea we had alot of lower teams struggling and after they had a season or so of pain and all got active in trading doing some smart deals i feel the comp is starting to even up more then it has been in a long time

so in saying that i think if we expand it could cause the 2 new teams to suffer or slow down the teams improving


i like that there is always thoughts in improving and growing the game but also think it is as strong as ever atm and love it the way it is

You can legislate against that, with differing rules on how many players/ what players can be taken from teams based on how they're going- if anything it'd end up eqaualising the disparity between top and bottom even more.

[meow meow]

The sub is getting scrapped next year so there's another 18 proper scorers per week. There's room for one more team but taking it to 20 might be OOP city.