2016 WXV Awards and 2016 Rules Discussion

[meow meow]

I.e. points scored aren't linear, a 50 averaging player is worth far less than half that of a 100 averaging player.

What if one goes 99, 101, 99, 101 etc and the other goes 100, 0, 100, 0 etc?

[meow meow]

Ah okay. Looks nice!

[DazBurg]

First Suggestion:

For every 3 years a player is on your roster they get a discount towards the salary/points cap.

Nat Fyfe has been on Berlin's roster for 3 years and currently has a points allocation of 1600. Next year he only counts say 75%, meaning only 1200 towards the cap.

Love this idea

ofc that is because PNL one of the most loyal lists

but there should be something like this

so there is advantages to trading and advantages to not it is your choice

[meow meow]

Is the prem the % of times they go 100+?

[Holz]

The current cap, though I think has been successful, is far worse at reflecting reality than the new IMO. Mexico City and Dublin have dominated the competition for 3 years, and the cap has them at the top.

Teams 3 to 13 are all pretty close in Cap terms, and will have no problem staying under, and all are competitive teams week to week. While the bottom 5 have had some big struggles recently.

The teams that have won the last 4 flags have been teams that have preferred older players. Thus it make sense that older players are priced higher IMO. Cheaper youth encourages people to go for youth.... And you seem to be arguing against yourself Holz by saying 'teams will just drop spuds'... well, if older players are relatively dearer, that will be harder to do.

Your other points are just arguing against a cap, regardless of what system it is. That's not what this is suggesting. If you want to put up a rule change to remove the cap, feel free to do so.

The Cap isn't to make every team EQUAL, it is to provide an equal playing field.

how does it make it equal?

Bontempelli has an average of 97.1 but despite this he is basically the most valuable player in the comp. He is essentially worth the same as Nick Dal Santo.

Pacific has an amazing list and far better then Mexico. If you let the current system play out Mexico will retire and they will guranteed fall down the ladder. Teams will not give up their stars all it does it take away their bench so Rio who is also old, has been hit with injuries why shouldnt they have a 75 fwd or 75 def who is old sitting in the reserves.

I actually think the older cap reflects the system far more as taking away the youth potential is the biggest flaw. Having a premium factor for performance and durability rewards the past not the future.

Under the AFL system you have guys like Tom Boyd on $1 million because of what they will do, not what they have done.

If Mexico walked up to Pacific and said ill give you Brent Harvey, Nick Reiwoldt, Heath Shaw and Brendan Goddard for Marcus Bontempelli + 1st rounder what do you think would happen. Im assuming Mexico is offering like 4 times the perceived cap value so it should be a walk in the park.

[meow meow]

100% behind Oz on this one now. Bring it in Purps, don't even ask :P

[meow meow]

If Mexico walked up to Pacific and said ill give you Brent Harvey, Nick Reiwoldt, Heath Shaw and Brendan Goddard for Marcus Bontempelli + 1st rounder what do you think would happen. Im assuming Mexico is offering like 4 times the perceived cap value so it should be a walk in the park.

Cap and trade voting are 2 different things m8.

[Holz]

If Mexico walked up to Pacific and said ill give you Brent Harvey, Nick Reiwoldt, Heath Shaw and Brendan Goddard for Marcus Bontempelli + 1st rounder what do you think would happen. Im assuming Mexico is offering like 4 times the perceived cap value so it should be a walk in the park.

Cap and trade voting are 2 different things m8.

trading reflects the best value of a players worth . So shouldn't the cap try to reflect a players true value?

my whole point is who honestly has the better list?

Mexico or Pacific.

[ossie85]

Is the prem the % of times they go 100+?

Yup

how does it make it equal?

Bontempelli has an average of 97.1 but despite this he is basically the most valuable player in the comp. He is essentially worth the same as Nick Dal Santo.

Pacific has an amazing list and far better then Mexico. If you let the current system play out Mexico will retire and they will guranteed fall down the ladder. Teams will not give up their stars all it does it take away their bench so Rio who is also old, has been hit with injuries why shouldnt they have a 75 fwd or 75 def who is old sitting in the reserves.

I actually think the older cap reflects the system far more as taking away the youth potential is the biggest flaw. Having a premium factor for performance and durability rewards the past not the future.

Under the AFL system you have guys like Tom Boyd on $1 million because of what they will do, not what they have done.

If Mexico walked up to Pacific and said ill give you Brent Harvey, Nick Reiwoldt, Heath Shaw and Brendan Goddard for Marcus Bontempelli + 1st rounder what do you think would happen. Im assuming Mexico is offering like 4 times the perceived cap value so it should be a walk in the park.

Well, lol, Tom Boyd was a bad example :P

But that's the thing though isn't it Holz? As Pacific get better, it will get harder and harder for them to stay under the cap. While Mexico City will find it easier....But you seem to be suggesting that Pacific should be punished for having a young list now. That guarantees that golden oldies will forever be valued more, and that young lists will be worth nothing.

Bomtempelli is worth $507k on my new system, I think that's fair for what he is worth right now. Next year, if he tracks the same as this year, he'll be pushing $700k. Pacific aren't a great team yet. I don't want to punish teams for having potential. Caps shouldn't discourage going for the long term.

If Mexico walked up to Pacific and said ill give you Brent Harvey, Nick Reiwoldt, Heath Shaw and Brendan Goddard for Marcus Bontempelli + 1st rounder what do you think would happen. Im assuming Mexico is offering like 4 times the perceived cap value so it should be a walk in the park.

Cap and trade voting are 2 different things m8.

trading reflects the best value of a players worth . So shouldn't the cap try to reflect a players true value?

my whole point is who honestly has the better list?

Mexico or Pacific.

Mexico City are in the Prelims, Pacific didn't make the finals. Who has the better list right now? Mexico City.

[meow meow]

Trade would fail. Bont has 12 premo seasons left vs 1 + 1 + 3 + 2 = 7 premo seasons. Nothing to do with the points cap.

[RaisyDaisy]

I prefer the cap as is

If anything, just come up with a simple way so that injured players like Fyfe and Beams this year, Libba last year etc have points allocated them

If they miss the year, then just get their previous years average and multiply by 17 rounds

We are playing for the now and the future - I couldn't care less what their past 3 years did their value, just use their past year

[Holz]

Trade would fail. Bont has 12 premo seasons left vs 1 + 1 + 3 + 2 = 7 premo seasons. Nothing to do with the points cap.

agreed this was exactly the point. the cap is fundamentally flawed if a deal that wouldnt even go close to passing has the losing team with a cap points over 4 times the winning team.

[meow meow]

Trade would fail. Bont has 12 premo seasons left vs 1 + 1 + 3 + 2 = 7 premo seasons. Nothing to do with the points cap.

agreed this was exactly the point. the cap is fundamentally flawed if a deal that wouldnt even go close to passing has the losing team with a cap points over 4 times the winning team.

Bullshower.

The cap is for one season. Those 4 players will score 4 times more than Bont for that one season. They cost 4 times more for that one season.

SIMPLE

[ossie85]

I prefer the cap as is

If anything, just come up with a simple way so that injured players like Fyfe and Beams this year, Libba last year etc have points allocated them

If they miss the year, then just get their previous years average and multiply by 17 rounds

We are playing for the now and the future - I couldn't care less what their past 3 years did their value, just use their past year

It seems like you do though RD? 3 years is a fairly short time, and you want Fyfe and Beams to be priced on past history, but not others? This system has Fyfe #5, and Beams #19, in most expensive players in the comp. They wouldn't be in the top 200 in the current system.

Tom Lonergan would be given a far greater value than he deserves, because the current system assumes that 2 Tom Lonergans = 1 Scott Pendlebury. Which isn't true.

[meow meow]

I prefer the cap as is

You prefer Jeff Garlett to cost half as much as Dangerfield instead of him costing about 300K vs Danger's 800K? HOW? WHY?