Americas SC banter/discussion thread

[powersuperkents]

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.

+1

Could not agree more. LF has conceived a perfect solution

http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,105398.0.html

Perhaps it would be a good start if all teams affected listed their banned players on this thread so Jukes can write it up

[Football Factory]

Whoa whoa .. cmon PSK we cant have opinions or make suggestions like this, we are not admin.  ;)


PS .. that was not directed at you Jukesy

[powersuperkents]

Whoa whoa .. cmon PSK we cant have opinions or make suggestions like this, we are not admin.  ;)

haha I'm willing to see what the comp. thinks.

Judging by the list, only around 12 SC relevant players will be banned (out of a total 17). So on paper the problem doesn't look too significant.

Where I see problems arising due to lack of depth resulting from the WADA findings;
1. Chicago Ruck
2. Las Vegas Defence
2. Anaheim Defence
2. Peruvian Midfield
5. Colorado Midfield

These are the positions in teams I see being most adversely affected (ranked in order - Sinner, Ducks, and Panthers in equal second). Houston can easily cover Hooker, Ottowa can easily cover Melksham, and San Fran can easily cover Stanton & Monfries (I'm not saying these considerations should be used in deciding the draft order - they are purely my observations on where teams may possibly suffer in 2016).

The unaffected teams are;
Boston
New Brooklyn
Santiago
Quito

These are just observations, as of now I'm of the opinion that LF has the best solution. But I'm open to the opinions of the rest of the league (particularly those worst affected) and will agree with a majority ruling  :)

[Football Factory]

Good points PSK

Hey Hooker is one of the best  :D 

I have plenty of cover in the backline from memory, im not fussed either way.

[powersuperkents]

Good points PSK

Hey Hooker is one of the best  :D 

I have plenty of cover in the backline from memory, im not fussed either way.

Although you & Jukes have solid cover, I don't think that should be the sole consideration. At the end of the day you have lost a premium defender and Jukes has lost a premium midfielder (and a spud forward - whom, as a Port support, I don't know whether I should be happy or sad about his suspension) and the status of the players lost also should be taken into consideration. I think whatever direction we take, we have to balance list requirements with the players lost and their status in the team (are they best 18 etc.).

Pope is in the difficult situation because Ryder is gone and with Luey & McKernan I don't see any of the top-up players being ruck men or rucks who will break into, or even consistently appear in, the Bombers best 22 (Luey will have it locked down).

Pope is taking measures to trade in a ruck which is good, however the WADA ban is most detrimental to his side imo

[Football Factory]

Yeah losing your ruck is nasty, I sent him a message yesterday regarding a ruck, see what he says.

[popedelio]

I've gone and sorted out my situation. really it is just tough luck at the end of the day, like if it was an LTI. I feel the teams that should be compensated are ones that are losing 3 or more due to the suspensions, or at the least receives better compensation. Separate competition is a bad idea imo, as I said it's just bad luck we have players that were suspended.

[kilbluff1985]

jukes why no comment about teams affected by the banned players possibly trading this years picks to cover the lines

i'd like it to be put to a vote

[powersuperkents]

jukes why no comment about teams affected by the banned players possibly trading this years picks to cover the lines

i'd like it to be put to a vote

The only problem I could see arising is;

e.g.
Anaheim Give: 2016 1st Rounder
New Brooklyn Give: John Citizen

New Brooklyn's list would then only have 51 players

Perhaps if this was to go ahead it would involve a package

e.g.
Anaheim Give: Team Spud + 2016 1st Rounder
New Brooklyn Give: John Citizen

or
Anaheim Give: 1st Rounder Top Up Pick + 2016 1st Rounder
New Brooklyn Give: John Citizen

I would be willing to vote for something like that considering the WADA bans and the impact the bans have had on some of the team's depth (some sides are one injury away from having to play a 40's player - and I know what that is like as I had to play Sexton and Webb for a large part of last year, it is frustrating and costs you some close wins).

[kilbluff1985]

yeah or could just delist someone maybe like i dropped someone to pick up a GC rookie ruck that was available after the rookie draft cause i only had one rookie pick which i used on Fantasia

[powersuperkents]

yeah or could just delist someone maybe like i dropped someone to pick up a GC rookie ruck that was available after the rookie draft cause i only had one rookie pick which i used on Fantasia

I was referring more to the team you would be trading with only having 51/52 (but that is easy to fix)

Delistment would also prevent the affected teams from having 53/52

So the system will work  :)

Looks like we just need to see if Jukes puts it to a vote

[kilbluff1985]

well no it would be a pick for a player

i would have to delist someone to make room but the team getting the pick wouldnt need to worry about it until next/this years delistings

so only whoever giving the pick for a player needs to delist someone

[powersuperkents]

well no it would be a pick for a player

i would have to delist someone to make room but the team getting the pick wouldnt need to worry about it until next/this years delistings

so only whoever giving the pick for a player needs to delist someone

But the team getting the pick loses a player and since final lists have been lodged at 52 players they will be going into the 2016 season with one player less on their list than the rest of the comp.

ie.
(52 players - the one player traded out) + (a 2016 pick) = 51 players and a 2016 pick :P

This is not a problem though - they could just be assigned a pick at the end of the top-up draft (then their list will be 52 players + a 2016 pick). That way the affected clubs won't lose their top-up pick either   :)

[Jukes]

I'm just going to have it like this I guess:

teams with a player affected will enter a draft, with order sorted by the 2015 average of the players b&. You can select dons top-up players or other unattached (i.e. nat/rookie drafted guys not picked up, or spuds like Zaccy D). These players will join your list, with the banned players staying on the list (obviously they won't have any impact in 2016) - meaning you will have to delist/trade additional players at the end of 2016. Seems like the simplest way to do it.

[kilbluff1985]

but why no talk of trading this years pick?