Americas SC banter/discussion thread

[powersuperkents]

I'm going to wait and see how events play out over the next few days/weeks to make a verdict

But I will say that, if players are banned for 2016, some form of compensatory points will be brought in for teams with the 17 banned players - e.g. 2015 average.

That is BS...  :P

I went without half my midfield for most of 2015 due to injury and I have to say that it was my favourite year coaching because of the challenge. Most teams should have the depth to cover these players and the risks attached to Essendon players were obvious. But I will honestly be outraged if a team wins the grand final because they end up with more points due to five or six guys that were not even playing. I just see something ridiculous happening if we add an arbitrary, consistent amount of points to teams each week (e.g. I would rather have an arbitrary 105ppg each week than have Dyson Heppell).

The trade period is open and I'm sure rebuilding coaches would be willing to trade out some of their better players for some of the Essendon players + the implied 1 year deferment 

I think that a coach should at least plead 'hardship' and we would leave it to a majority vote to decide the outcome (and this would only apply to a side who literally could not field a team).

Fantasy football is filled with twists and turns and I think you are putting your desire to retain the premiership (which isn't really affected - I'm pretty sure you only have inconsistent Stanton where receiving his average each week is definitely better than having him) ahead of the fantasy football experience  . I know it's extraordinary circumstances, but if ASADA had made the correct ruling a year ago, all the coaches were willing to go without the players (I distinctly remember certain trades made to avoid going without players - e.g. Kb trading out Watson).

I really just see something adverse occurring if some makeshift rule is put into place

[kilbluff1985]

i traded out Watson cause i was rebuilding man 

[powersuperkents]

i traded out Watson cause i was rebuilding man

I'm sorry mate, I recalled your post on the trade talk thread in 2014 incorrectly, but you're right;

"i just want to see if i get any interest in Jobe Watson

i'm looking for a young gun that suits my team better for the right player i can throw in one of NAT 10/19/22

he is not going cheap due to ASADA crap i'm just seeing what offers i get will only trade him for someone i'm super keen on"


I admit the Jack Steven for Hibberd trade (perfectly fair trade), will cause problems due to the ruling (as you traded him in for a premiership push)

But I'm still of the opinion that if you have the depth to cover the players there should be no hand outs and only if you cannot field a full team some measure should be taken for the side to remain competitive (but 4 playing backs, 6 playing mids, 1 playing ruck, 4 playing forwards, and 4 playing extras (one being the sub) on the list should mean no excuse). The removal of the sub rule also means that if a player is listed to play, they will not be sub-affected.

I just don't see any makeshift rule ending well - the Cats/Crows game was one thing because it was only for a week - but for the duration of a year (it just overlooks too much). I just see someone complaining every week when most teams affected have players to cover these kids.

I'll wait to see what all the coaches have to say though as I would be willing to agree with a majority view - Stephan Dank has really messed with our custom comps :-\

[powersuperkents]

I do like this option from the AmericasXVIIIs DT league

"- Once we know who the top up players are,teams will draft replacements only from those players who then will be delisted at the end of the season.

- Teams can draft from both the top up players and the leftovers from the rookie draft,who then will be delisted at the end of the season and those on a AFL list go back into the player pool

- Top up players cannot be traded out of their team

- A mini draft to be done,the order to be worked out using a combination of ladder position from last season,player quality(includes captain option) and averages,how badly the loss of the player/players affect the team which includes losing your number 1 ruck etc"

I think the draft order would need to put full emphasis on player quality though and probably be conducted after the NAB so coaches know what roles the top-up players will be filling in 2016

[kilbluff1985]

mostly just worried about my defensive line i can cover Heppell

DEF - Michael Hurley, Grant Birchall, Michael Hibberd, Brodie Smith, Paul Seedsman, Ben Jacobs, Jack Hombsch, Sam Butler, Orazio Fantasia, Billy Stretch, Nathan Drummond , Liam Dawson, Tom Cole, Darcy Tucker, Ben McKay, Bailey Williams

[powersuperkents]

mostly just worried about my defensive line i can cover Heppell

DEF - Michael Hurley, Grant Birchall, Michael Hibberd, Brodie Smith, Paul Seedsman, Ben Jacobs, Jack Hombsch, Sam Butler, Orazio Fantasia, Billy Stretch, Nathan Drummond , Liam Dawson, Tom Cole, Darcy Tucker, Ben McKay, Bailey Williams

Yeah Hibberd is a tough one because you literally only just traded him in and now this happens. I would back Hombsch to do well but if there is a draft involving the top-up players you have a good case for 3 of the top 5 picks (Hurley, Hibberd, & Hep D all premiums)

[Pkbaldy]

Fantasia will be your D1 by the end of this year ;) No need to worry.

[kilbluff1985]

just heart broken all the work done to be a contender ruined until next year

[Pkbaldy]

just heart broken all the work done to be a contender ruined until next year

Mhmmm it sucks... I avoided trading in Essendon players just in case. But losing Colyer and Hooker in BXV sucks for me.

[popedelio]

I'm losing Crameri which isn't a loss at all really/, though Ryder does hurt a little since he is my number 1 ruckman. So who has a spare ruckman they want to trade on the cheap :) hahaha

[Jukes]

How about we have T W O competitions this year

The real comp, where no banned players and teams can refill from the top-ups (and unlisted guys)

AND

The "what should have been" comp, where teams are given banned players' score in their 2015 average.

[kilbluff1985]

no i'd be pissed if i won the that should of been comp

[kilbluff1985]

had a crazy thought but under the circumstances i think i'm the worst affected would love to be able to trade this years 1st rounder for a defender

seeing what people think probably going to get told no by everyone lol

could make it any team who loses a best XVIII player due to getting banned can trade there 1st round pick but must be in the same position

[powersuperkents]

How about we have T W O competitions this year

The real comp, where no banned players and teams can refill from the top-ups (and unlisted guys)

AND

The "what should have been" comp, where teams are given banned players' score in their 2015 average.

I agree with Kb, this overlooks too much as well and would create uncertainty over who was the actual winning

To do this we would have to assume that the player would have scored the exact same score every week, never missed a game, sustained no injuries, or was never rested. The "what should have been comp." would also be easily exploited as coaches could put a guaranteed 70-110 player as their substitute (and therefore use it as a loophole for a guaranteed score upgrade).

The other concern is that average score does not tell the full picture. For example;

Stanton averaged 101.3ppg last season

However, his standard deviation was a whooping 29.3 ppg

That means he is more likely to score 72 points 50% of the time and 130.6 points for the remaining 50% of the time (how do we determine which weeks for get the high score and which weeks he gets the low scores because as far as I'm concerned, I would rather have a guaranteed 101ppg than actually have Brent Stanton haha)

The what should have been comp will start problems, it will frustrate coaches who may think the WADA appeal flowered them over (when in reality something completely different may have occurred over the 26 week period we call the 2016 AFL season). Ultimately, it provides a false perspective and could detract from a coaches hard-earned victory at the end of the year (through nothing more than speculation).

I see no problem with the trading for future draft picks for clubs affected (it may be hard to convince a coach but if you can it is fair enough)

[Football Factory]

Best and fairest way to do it is the way AXVIII DT are doing it .. pretty sure one of the XV comps is doing it that way aswell. You cant give players their average and I don't see the point of having 2 comps.