2016 WXV Awards and 2016 Rules Discussion

[DazBurg]

Meow would need to publish his idea in full, because I can't remember it

Either way, the solution needs to be easy to implement and easy for Admin to maintain

Whether it's a cap or salary, I couldn't really care but I do think the value assigned to every player needs to be based off their previous 12 months scoring, with a blanket formula introduced to factor in games missed through injuries. I think this is much better and a lot more accurate in terms of reflecting every players current worth, as opposed to 2-3 years prior when players could have been elite and now dropped down, or vice versa being a junior and now breaking out

Example/Suggestion

Let's assume there are 22 games per season

For all players who play 75% of games (spuds excluded as per meow suggestion) or more, their average/overall points scored for that year are what their cap value is based on

For all players who play under 75%, their previous years points scored are used, and discounted at say 10%

I'm sure Meow can add more

My point is purely around the fact that using the previous seasons scoring to value each player (like we've always done) in terms of cap is much better than using 3 years. Don't see the point in going from salary to cap, but whatever

i get the point but where does it stop?
does spud form count as this year or last year?

(i.e)
new example
Marley willaims last year averaged 85.7 (only time over 70 in his career so doing the 12 month makes him worth a whole lot more)


so far he has played 9 games at an underwhelming averaged of 55.2 for a total of 497 counted towards cap

with the proposed is he actually 85.7 - 10% = 77.13 X 22 = 1696.86

is this the point?

[RaisyDaisy]

Like I said, would be best to wait from Meow because I can't recall everything in his suggestion

75% was just an example - perhaps it would be a lot less than that, so only focusing on the players who miss massive chunks of the year

[GoLions]

In all seriousness, what is the benefit of the cap apart from making WXVs different from every other comp?

[RaisyDaisy]

In all seriousness, what is the benefit of the cap apart from making WXVs different from every other comp?

I assume just like real AFL, for equality?

Teams like Mexico for example, with so many big scorers would need to make changes, which theoretically is supposed to (no guarantee) bring their overall scoring down, making it fairer for other teams/comp?

It's kind of a moot point though when you ca just delist spuds to get under the cap

[Levi434]

How about we list out all 800+ players and each coach has to give a value for them. Would take a lot of time but would save a lot. :P

[GoLions]

In all seriousness, what is the benefit of the cap apart from making WXVs different from every other comp?

I assume just like real AFL, for equality?

Teams like Mexico for example, with so many big scorers would need to make changes, which theoretically is supposed to (no guarantee) bring their overall scoring down, making it fairer for other teams?

But the other comps don't need a cap for equality. IMO if you trade and/or draft well, then you deserve to have a good team. So to me the cap is there so that good coaches can't get too good, and bad coaches can't get too bad? If a coach is doing a terrible job though, should they still be coaching? I'd imagine we should be backing in our coaches to be able to do a half-decent job (thus eliminating the need for a minimum cap), and then also meaning that we can trust coaches enough not to give up all their good players to the top teams as well.

I dunno, I just feel like Euros and British are really even without a cap, AXVs isn't (but I think that was more due to some coaches as opposed to a lack of cap), and Americas is pretty good too (particularly DT).

But I guess if everyone wants to mirror the AFL then that's fair enough :P

[upthemaidens]

In all seriousness, what is the benefit of the cap apart from making WXVs different from every other comp?

Why do you want the Cap removed so badly?  It's there to stop clubs getting too overpowered, otherwise it's a snowball effect.
    All that the top teams will do is lock down their premiums and just keep adding to them.

It's been shown that under the current rules a club can move up the ladder.
    The comp. is healthy as it stands, you should trust that the admins know what they're doing..

..If anything the Cap should be tighter so it forces the big clubs to trade out premiums for depth, but doubt that will happen.

[GoLions]

In all seriousness, what is the benefit of the cap apart from making WXVs different from every other comp?

Why do you want the Cap removed so badly?  It's there to stop clubs getting too overpowered, otherwise it's a snowball effect.
    All that the top teams will do is lock down their premiums and just keep adding to them.

It's been shown that under the current rules a club can move up the ladder.
    The comp. is healthy as it stands, you should trust that the admins know what they're doing..

..If anything the Cap should be tighter so it forces the big clubs to trade out premiums for depth, but doubt that will happen.

Tbh I don't really care if it's there or not, I just don't really get why there's so much talk about it.

If the cap was tighter then the top teams wouldn't be able to trade their premiums for depth, as that would cost them more with the current cap rules :P

Also, you say to trust the admins, but does that mean you don't trust the coaches? ;)

[JBs-Hawks]

Meow would need to publish his idea in full, because I can't remember it

Either way, the solution needs to be easy to implement and easy for Admin to maintain

Whether it's a cap or salary, I couldn't really care but I do think the value assigned to every player needs to be based off their previous 12 months scoring, with a blanket formula introduced to factor in games missed through injuries. I think this is much better and a lot more accurate in terms of reflecting every players current worth, as opposed to 2-3 years prior when players could have been elite and now dropped down, or vice versa being a junior and now breaking out

Example/Suggestion

Let's assume there are 22 games per season

For all players who play 75% of games (spuds excluded as per meow suggestion) or more, their average/overall points scored for that year are what their cap value is based on

For all players who play under 75%, their previous years points scored are used, and discounted at say 10%

I'm sure Meow can add more

My point is purely around the fact that using the previous seasons scoring to value each player (like we've always done) in terms of cap is much better than using 3 years. Don't see the point in going from salary to cap, but whatever

i get the point but where does it stop?
does spud form count as this year or last year?

(i.e)
new example
Marley willaims last year averaged 85.7 (only time over 70 in his career so doing the 12 month makes him worth a whole lot more)


so far he has played 9 games at an underwhelming averaged of 55.2 for a total of 497 counted towards cap

with the proposed is he actually 85.7 - 10% = 77.13 X 22 = 1696.86

is this the point?

Change is not always the enemy!

[meow meow]

Yes Daz, Marley will cost 90% of his 2015 season, but the points cap is higher to factor things like that in, so don't stress!

I still prefer Oz's method if there's not going to be any discounts for spuds under the 90/100 system.

[GoLions]

In all seriousness, what is the benefit of the cap apart from making WXVs different from every other comp?

Why do you want the Cap removed so badly?  It's there to stop clubs getting too overpowered, otherwise it's a snowball effect.
    All that the top teams will do is lock down their premiums and just keep adding to them.

It's been shown that under the current rules a club can move up the ladder.
    The comp. is healthy as it stands, you should trust that the admins know what they're doing..

..If anything the Cap should be tighter so it forces the big clubs to trade out premiums for depth, but doubt that will happen.

:o

[meow meow]

But... with tagging, I don't like it being tied to tackles either.

It should be just:

- You select a player as a tagger, and choose a player to tag. That player loses 50% of its score, and the tagged player loses 40%.

So Brad Ebert is a tagger for Mexico City and scores 90 minus 50% = 45. He tags Rory Slaone who scores 120 minus 40% = 72. Ebert's tag is only JUST effective.

It is a tactic that can easily back fire, but if it works can have a huge impact.

I want this brought in because it will eliminate the effectiveness of having 6 gun mids. Only the greediest clubs have that many.

[meow meow]

^ wasn't an option :(

Nor was my compo application. Tyrants running this competition.

The 25% discount makes a mockery of any cap. Don't do it!

Need a ruck? Trade one in or cop the full OOP.

[iZander]

Nor was my compo application. Tyrants running this competition.

The 25% discount makes a mockery of any cap. Don't do it!

Need a ruck? Trade one in or cop the full OOP.

^ especially the compo

[Holz]

But... with tagging, I don't like it being tied to tackles either.

It should be just:

- You select a player as a tagger, and choose a player to tag. That player loses 50% of its score, and the tagged player loses 40%.

So Brad Ebert is a tagger for Mexico City and scores 90 minus 50% = 45. He tags Rory Slaone who scores 120 minus 40% = 72. Ebert's tag is only JUST effective.

It is a tactic that can easily back fire, but if it works can have a huge impact.

I want this brought in because it will eliminate the effectiveness of having 6 gun mids. Only the greediest clubs have that many.

ahh so greedy clubs like NDT?

as you said on the rucks, if you want premo mids draft them or pick them up when they are young. look at the neale pick up, he was gotten for free. PLus teams with high draft picks should draft these young gun mids and keep them.

Wines Bont etc...