Rule Change Discussion for 2015/16

[elephants]

3 for marks I think

[Nige]

^

[Rids]

Just after some clarification with the scoring....

I know we have decided to go with a modified sportal UF league for 2016 but think it is important we sort it out properly before trades start to get approved etc. This way changes don't impact trades already made.

If UF don't add clangers and contested ball, then we can still use a spreadsheet to work out the scoring etc. Is that an option for worst case scenario if UF dont add them?

And what is happening with marks? Will there be a vote to see what people want? I know many drafted their initial squads with the sportal scoring in mind (no mark stats).


Think we will need to decide on the scoring, a plan B if UF dont get the stats added and stick to it from the time of decision.

[Ringo]

Do we hold up the trading period for a week whilst we decide whether to add marks and spoils by way of voting. The only stats that UF do not have on a straight correlation are Uncontested Possessions and Clangers. I am happy to leave these out and reinstate if UF decides to go ahead with clangers. Think Clangers are the real issue as we know some players butcher the ball more than others and may effect trading. That is the only real issue as I see it at the moment as well as resolving whether to extend it to spoils and marks. Can we have a bit of discussion for the next couple of days and then vote.  No real problem delaying reading as some already have trades pencilled.

Do not like the idea of having clangers in a spreadsheet as all the stats I looked at over this year they differed between SC and DT so would need to decide which system to use for clangers as well. UF does have contested possessions.

[Spite]

The only stats that UF do not have on a straight correlation are Uncontested Possessions and Clangers. I am happy to leave these out and reinstate if UF decides to go ahead with clangers.

I think this is the easiest solution and will allow us to go ahead with the trade period more quickly. Clangers will only make a very small difference to most players worth honestly so we can work out trades without them included.

[Rids]

Personally don't want to hold up the trading period at all. We are at a stage that we need to get approval for trades before doing any more discussions.

DT doesnt use clangers. We can get the clanger stats direct from AFL tables. All stats used by DT and SC are Champion Data stats (Virtual Sports runs both comps). Using a spreadsheet is very easy and it would only be necessary if UF doesn't add the other stats, which is unlikely but does depend on their contract negotiations at the end of the year - so cant be 100% locked.

[Ringo]

If we are to go down the track of adding spoils and marks we need to resolve points value.

Thinking Mark 3 points and spoils 2 points. Really have to resolve this due to the number of defenders that are high up in spoils.  May deter some clubs from trading these defenders who are normally low scorers eg Dan Merrett but would have 5 - 10 spoils per game.

[Rids]

That I spose should be put up for vote.

Maybe vote first if we go the standard sportal scoring without the marks and spoils added. At the end of the day though we do need to settle on the scoring.

[Spite]

If we are to go down the track of adding spoils and marks we need to resolve points value.

Thinking Mark 3 points and spoils 2 points. Really have to resolve this due to the number of defenders that are high up in spoils.  May deter some clubs from trading these defenders who are normally low scorers eg Dan Merrett but would have 5 - 10 spoils per game.

The thing is, we would have drafted key defenders if we knew spoils would be added. This is just an example, but when we started this competition, we all knew what the scoring system was and drafted certain players because of this. I don't see why we need to make key defenders relevant in our league, that is not what we signed up for.

I can understand if you want marks at 3 points being awarded as that "benefits" everyone and not just key backs (even if it may help them more, that's ok rather than a complete stat used to help them)

[Ringo]

as I said Rids some defenders would increase scoring if spoils added hence the need to decide on a score.  Using Merrett as an example if he averages 8 spoils a game and we set scoring at 2 that is 16 extra points per game. Would you trade him knowing that?

[Nige]

The "what we signed up for" argument is stupid imo, especially in the current BXVs landscape.

This isn't 3 years ago when BXVs started, we've adapted and changed in many different areas.

Sportal died, we culled two teams, we've had coaches come and go (only 4 of the original 18 remain), that's a lot of different changes.

Half this competition is about drafting and trading, if the scoring system changes, you can modify your list accordingly. If you choose not to, that's your fault and problem for not moving with the times.

The best example of this is me using the recycled players and rookie drafts last year to fix my list and build depth to cater to SC+DT/2, because I knew my list was half decent having gone from last (18th) to 13th, and I then made sure my team was well rounded enough to suit the scoring system we used this year.

I'm happily making plans to compensate for the shift in scoring system yet again, so that regardless of what we do or don't use, my team should be able to cope.

It's pretty obvious people don't want spoils added if their team doesn't have players to make the stat relevant, and if you're more interested in what's best for your own team rather than the league overall, that's just selfish imo.

[Rids]

as I said Rids some defenders would increase scoring if spoils added hence the need to decide on a score.  Using Merrett as an example if he averages 8 spoils a game and we set scoring at 2 that is 16 extra points per game. Would you trade him knowing that?

Yep I get that.

My suggestion was however that the first vote should be whether to change the sportal scoring which doesn't have spoils or marks. Many people originally drafted their teams and squads based on the scoring below and should get a say whether this should stay as is.

Kick    3 Points
Handball    1 Point
Contested Possession *    4 Points
Uncontested Possession **    2 Points
Tackle    3 Points
Hitout    1 Point
Clanger ***    -5 Points
Goal    6 Points
Behind    1 Point

[Rids]

If the vote is a YES to remain with the sportal scoring system as it currently is, then spoils and marks become irrelevant anyways.

[Spite]

The "what we signed up for" argument is stupid imo, especially in the current BXVs landscape.

This isn't 3 years ago when BXVs started, we've adapted and changed in many different areas.

Sportal died, we culled two teams, we've had coaches come and go (only 4 of the original 18 remain), that's a lot of different changes.

Half this competition is about drafting and trading, if the scoring system changes, you can modify your list accordingly. If you choose not to, that's your fault and problem for not moving with the times.

The best example of this is me using the recycled players and rookie drafts last year to fix my list and build depth to cater to SC+DT/2, because I knew my list was half decent having gone from last (18th) to 13th, and I then made sure my team was well rounded enough to suit the scoring system we used this year.

I'm happily making plans to compensate for the shift in scoring system yet again, so that regardless of what we do or don't use, my team should be able to cope.

It's pretty obvious people don't want spoils added if their team doesn't have players to make the stat relevant, and if you're more interested in what's best for your own team rather than the league overall, that's just selfish imo.

Nigey mate, last season we didn't even know we would be using the Dt+Sc/2 as there was a chance in the first few weeks that we would have still been using the sportal scoring system, so why would we trade out players suited for that system if the LEAGUES FIRST PREFERENCE was using the same sportal scoring system that we originally had. The trade period had even closed so you didn't do all those things you said about trading to make it all even, and if you did, then it was pure LUCK that we couldn't ge the data for the sportal scoring system and it ended up suiting you.

The culling of two teams doesn't make a difference about how times have changed. In fact you're proving my point even more because we drafted the players from those two teams BASED ON THE SPORTAL SCORING SYSTEM. Ringo sent around an excel file that had the averages of the players from those teams and people selected based on the sportal scoring system.

Honestly nothing that you said had any sort of relevancy to this discussion at all. All you did was accidentally prove my point which I find ironic because you're trying your best to sit on the fence to look like you don't care either way, even though you've already gotten upset about using UF over Stadium Sports...and even post after the vote that you had preferred Stadium sports.

[Ringo]

We have voted in the second round of voting to use a Customised Scoring system in Ultimate Footy, In keeping with this desire I am now making the following ruling on what scoring will be invoked for next year to give certainty to people who wish to trade based on which system we use.

As administrator I have this right to enhance the competition which I believe we will be doing by going down this Customized scoring system. Remember this system was narrowly defeated last year mainly due to a cost factor which has now resolved itself. And as we all agree a combination SC/DT system was not a desired outcome as evidenced by discrepancies.

So what will be the scoring system for next year:

We will use Customiized UF with points matching the ex Sportal Scoring system where there is a direct correlation. If UF add Uncontested Possessions and Clangers in January we will add. Do not think these 2 will have a great influence scoring wise so addition should be minimal.

To make some players a little more relevant in the competition we will be adding the following 2 stats only.
Marks 3 Points
Spoils 2 Points.

Have been thinking for a long time how to make key position forwards and defenders a little more relevant and adding these 2 stats will assist their profiles.

One other factor that I will clarify - UF does change positions during the season but for our competition positions as at start of round 1 will be the positions used for the year.