2017 British XV Discussion

[Pkbaldy]

Hoods won 5 games in 2016

Giants won 4 games in 2016

So if less than 4 games for a priority, then neither would receive a start of first round

Rule is 4 games or less so Giants will Have pick1 and Hoods picks 2 and 18.
Agree with Hoods winning 5 looked at wrong weeks ladder and both Hoods and Giants won final games of Home and away.

Do not mind the proposed rule FWIW.

What, can't just give them the first pick for finishing 13th. How's that fair on LF, who's list is considerably worse.

[GoLions]

Hoods won 5 games in 2016

Giants won 4 games in 2016

So if less than 4 games for a priority, then neither would receive a start of first round

Rule is 4 games or less so Giants will Have pick1 and Hoods picks 2 and 18.
Agree with Hoods winning 5 looked at wrong weeks ladder and both Hoods and Giants won final games of Home and away.

Do not mind the proposed rule FWIW.

Zander suggested a change as less than 4 wins, which is what I assume we're all talking about

Even though I obviously benefit from it this year atm, I still think it should be something that comes into effect for next season

[Nige]

If the rule was changed and came into effect immediately, the Giants would be getting Pick 1 for 7 wins over 2 years which hardly seems right and fair on the three other teams with clearly worse off lists.

[Ringo]

Think the easiest way maybe to amend rule with teams finishing with 4 or less wins each season are given additional priority picks at end of round 1 in reverse ladder order rather than the differential we currently have.
So if passed priority picks would be:
Hoods pick 17
Badgers Pick 18
Rams Pick 19
Giants Pick 20
Breakers Pick 21

[Pkbaldy]

Think the easiest way maybe to amend rule with teams finishing with 4 or less wins each season are given additional priority picks at end of round 1 in reverse ladder order rather than the differential we currently have.
So if passed priority picks would be:
Hoods pick 17
Badgers Pick 18
Rams Pick 19
Giants Pick 20
Breakers Pick 21

You're using this as an example for next year correct??

Because if you're adjusting a rule for a season, that's flowered.

[nas]

Think the easiest way maybe to amend rule with teams finishing with 4 or less wins each season are given additional priority picks at end of round 1 in reverse ladder order rather than the differential we currently have.
So if passed priority picks would be:
Hoods pick 17
Badgers Pick 18
Rams Pick 19
Giants Pick 20
Breakers Pick 21

Agree

[Nige]

Think the easiest way maybe to amend rule with teams finishing with 4 or less wins each season are given additional priority picks at end of round 1 in reverse ladder order rather than the differential we currently have.
So if passed priority picks would be:
Hoods pick 17
Badgers Pick 18
Rams Pick 19
Giants Pick 20
Breakers Pick 21

You're using this as an example for next year correct??

Because if you're adjusting a rule for a season, that's flowered.

[Ringo]

Think the easiest way maybe to amend rule with teams finishing with 4 or less wins each season are given additional priority picks at end of round 1 in reverse ladder order rather than the differential we currently have.
So if passed priority picks would be:
Hoods pick 17
Badgers Pick 18
Rams Pick 19
Giants Pick 20
Breakers Pick 21

You're using this as an example for next year correct??

Because if you're adjusting a rule for a season, that's flowered.

It has been suggested as a rule change and decision has to be made whether to apply this year or not. Discussion taking place.

[Pkbaldy]

Think the easiest way maybe to amend rule with teams finishing with 4 or less wins each season are given additional priority picks at end of round 1 in reverse ladder order rather than the differential we currently have.
So if passed priority picks would be:
Hoods pick 17
Badgers Pick 18
Rams Pick 19
Giants Pick 20
Breakers Pick 21

You're using this as an example for next year correct??

Because if you're adjusting a rule for a season, that's flowered.

It has been suggested as a rule change and decision has to be made whether to apply this year or not. Discussion taking place.

Wouldn't most coaches just say "make it this year" for the fact they're gain 2 positions in the 1st round? Be like a bias vote....

[GoLions]

We have 16 teams in the comp. If you win 4 games, that's over 25%, shouldn't get you a priority imo. Needs to be less than 4 if we're changing the rule. So Breakers wouldn't get an end of first round this year.

And your new suggestion means nobody would EVER get a start of first round priority? Tbh you could just about scrap it then though, as if teams are constantly finishing at the bottom and only receiving end of first round picks, I don't see it helping them too much.

Personally I think this season is already done. Hoods probably deserve their current priority pick at the start of the first round, and even though I come from a bias pov, I'd imagine I'd keep mine as well. End of first round priorities remain the same as well.

Then the rule to be implemented for next year:

If you win less than 4 games for the first time, you receive an end of first round pick.

If you win less than 4 games in a season for consecutive years running, you receive a start of first round pick. If you were to finish let's say 13th in this year though (using the Giants as an example), debate as to whether the priority would come at pick 1, or straight after your first pick, pending other priorities. It would be extremely flawed if the Giants got a pick before the Hoods, Badgers, and Rams this year imo.

[Nige]

Think the easiest way maybe to amend rule with teams finishing with 4 or less wins each season are given additional priority picks at end of round 1 in reverse ladder order rather than the differential we currently have.
So if passed priority picks would be:
Hoods pick 17
Badgers Pick 18
Rams Pick 19
Giants Pick 20
Breakers Pick 21

You're using this as an example for next year correct??

Because if you're adjusting a rule for a season, that's flowered.

It has been suggested as a rule change and decision has to be made whether to apply this year or not. Discussion taking place.

You can't possibly bring it in this season without flowering over teams in need this season.

The Hoods, Badgers and Rams are objectively the 3 worst lists in the comp right now. There's a reason both the Hoods and Badgers only got two wins this season. I, by the grace of God, somehow got a 3rd win, but my list has to be the worst in the comp and if you think otherwise, you need to construct a reasonable argument as to why a team that, at one stage this year, had to field 2 OOP mids, isn't the worst.

If anything, I've got the biggest case for a priority pick of anyone (no disrespect to LF or Dave, they need one too), but I had the worst list this season and then got injuries on top and and lucked out to win more games than I should have.

Also, the suggestion above would cause a biased vote, because teams can basically disregard the results of this season so their position this year is better.

[Ringo]

Good and open debate and keep it coming.

The big issue as I see it is how to issue priority picks to deserving teams and where they should be.

One proposal as above at end of first round which probably does not help teams.
Giving Priority picks before start of draft is probably a little unfair as well.

So here is a compromise position to tear apart modify or tell me I am stupid.

Teams with less than 4 wins for the season will receive priority picks based on ladder positions following pick 6 in first round
Based on this years ladder priority picks will be allocated as follows
Pick 7 Hoods
Pick 8 Badgers
Pick 9 Rams
Pick 10 Giants.

Positioning of picks the issue.

[Rids]

I also don't think this rule should be looked at for this year. I am trying to be as fair as possible here as coach of the Giants and the obvious benefits it would become for us if it actually was to come in.

But the reality of the situation is Grope Lane's list is not in need of a priority pick imo. We are a lot more advanced than other teams who would benefit more from it. I also think many coaches have planned trades etc for picks already as per the current set of rules.

Any rule change that has been voted in should never come in for that season otherwise it hurts fairness for all clubs.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[Rusty00]

I also don't think this rule should be looked at for this year. I am trying to be as fair as possible here as coach of the Giants and the obvious benefits it would become for us if it actually was to come in.

But the reality of the situation is Grope Lane's list is not in need of a priority pick imo. We are a lot more advanced than other teams who would benefit more from it. I also think many coaches have planned trades etc for picks already as per the current set of rules.

Any rule change that has been voted in should never come in for that season otherwise it hurts fairness for all clubs.

Just my 2 cents worth.

I'm in agreeance with this. Whatever we decide has to be for next year moving forward.

[Ringo]

There seems to be enough concensus for changes not to be brought in this season. However please keep the discussion flowing so we can get a rule change drafted for next season.