WXV Rules Discussion 2017

[GoLions]

Teams that are below the cap probably don't care about premiership points too much as they are rebuilding / tanking. A 2nd round pick the following year would be a strong enough deterrent to make sure they stay above

Toronto went from 2nd last to almost making a prelim. Teams can turn it around in the space of a year, regardless of their position on the ladder. A loss of 4 points if they slipped under last off-season would have seen them miss the 8 this year.

2nd round pick for the following year would mean absolutely nothing tbqh.

Yeah I agree. The same case can almost be made for Cairo, we basically turned it around in the space of a year as well. Yeah sure, we ended up like 13th, but we were top 8 for a bulk of the year when basically everyone had written us off for 2017. Just had one of the worst 6 week runs I've seen in any comp haha.

Competent coaching can easily fix any list, which is genuinely why I think termination (as harsh as it sounds) isn't a terrible idea. I mean, it's pretty clear what you have to do, and if you end up not hitting the brief, that's your own fault and only doing detriment to your own team (as well just creating an easy-beat team in the process).

I think termination is a tad harsh, but perhaps it counts for like 2 warnings or something.

You're right, you can go from last to finals in one year, but Cairo had pick 1 and 2 last year so something tells me they had to build a team up for more than 1 year before doing that.

Do Cairo really count as a team though

[Nige]

Teams that are below the cap probably don't care about premiership points too much as they are rebuilding / tanking. A 2nd round pick the following year would be a strong enough deterrent to make sure they stay above

Toronto went from 2nd last to almost making a prelim. Teams can turn it around in the space of a year, regardless of their position on the ladder. A loss of 4 points if they slipped under last off-season would have seen them miss the 8 this year.

2nd round pick for the following year would mean absolutely nothing tbqh.

Yeah I agree. The same case can almost be made for Cairo, we basically turned it around in the space of a year as well. Yeah sure, we ended up like 13th, but we were top 8 for a bulk of the year when basically everyone had written us off for 2017. Just had one of the worst 6 week runs I've seen in any comp haha.

Competent coaching can easily fix any list, which is genuinely why I think termination (as harsh as it sounds) isn't a terrible idea. I mean, it's pretty clear what you have to do, and if you end up not hitting the brief, that's your own fault and only doing detriment to your own team (as well just creating an easy-beat team in the process).

I think termination is a tad harsh, but perhaps it counts for like 2 warnings or something.

That works too I guess. The only warnings handed out all year were in the final week where Zander had a senior moment and Boomz was AWOL, so I guess it's a big enough penalty that one more mistake could be costly.

Disappointed that 13 didn't change tbh.

It would have added an appropriate amount of spice to this wonderful comp.

Wouldn't be nice if you copped a few injuries and then had to flood/attack plus have a def/fwd as a Utility, meaning you have a perfectly healthy mid as an emergency simply because you couldn't start two mids on the Interchange

Eh, that's where I think it would actually make it interesting.

A lot of teams like to have 6 or 7 strong mids to beef up their interchange and have a solid mid emg, almost making it 4-6-1-4.

Personally, I've always been in favour of having a well rounded/balanced list. I just reckon some teams like to just load up in the mids therefore compromising their depth in defs/rucks/fwds and allow the mid firepower to compensate.

Also, I don't see it as 'rewarding' a lack of mid depth at all. I just think it adds a bit more strategy as such to list management, ensuring you can adapt and build a good list is all part of the comp and the challenging of coaching a team in this game.

Good Defenders and forwards are already hard enough to get and cost a lot - this will make it even harder :P

Added the key word.

Forcing a team to potentially play a Nick Smith type (first name that came to mind as we have him, plays every weeks, but only scores okay) in a way would help to further level the comp, and it would makes have to try and make sure they had decent D/F5-6 types.

It's only really a negative for those that want to wave their dick with big scores every week and show off how good their mids actually are.

Do Cairo really count as a team though

Thanks for finishing below us and handing us our first African Cup.  :)

[GoLions]

All this talk about what the penalty should be for a team that ends under the cap

There has to be close to zero percent of a chance it actually happens

Agreed. This is why I don't think a significantly harsh penalty (like loss of 1st rounder) should be an issue.

If you competently manage your list, like I think everyone in WXV can, then this is a non-issue.

If there's no penalty then why have a min cap? If we assume everyone can manage their list competently enough, then...

#scrapthecap

[GoLions]

Do Cairo really count as a team though

Thanks for finishing below us and handing us our first African Cup.  :)

Inside job 8)

[Nige]

Do Cairo really count as a team though

Thanks for finishing below us and handing us our first African Cup.  :)

Inside job 8)

It's the only reason we Polo agreed to let you leave.

[Ringo]

I voted for teams to be able to go below the minimum cap, as long as they finish above the min cap at the end of the trade period. In the past we had quite a few trades we couldn't do because it would bring us below the cap, or we were already below and every trade had to be an increase in cap value. So we know its a pain in the ass.

But also know how important the min cap is.

Everyone knows its to stop teams trading into a position that's uncompetitive, so i'm not sure the penalty (for not finishing the trade period above the min cap) should make them more uncompetitive the next season. In fact it'd almost be a positive so they'd have more chance of a higher draft pick. 

I know that if I was in that position of rebuild again then the things i'd value most would be high draft picks, for the youth you can pick up and their trade value. So maybe a future first rounder is the right penalty? Won't impact them on the upcoming season, but is a pretty big penalty that would definitely be a deterrent

This is by far the best punishment suggested so far, cant go taking first rounders from a team on the bottom. Still dont like it in practice because theyll probably still be struggling the next year as well. Why not just make it they lose the coaching position? Clearly you dont want people to go under the cap, but you cant go taking away first rounders and stuff.

Personally taking premiership points would really stop Dillos going under, because damn that would hurt us  ::)

Really like this idea as it will still enable the team to build and get competitive. So basically if a club remains under cap for 2018 then they lose their first round pick in 2019 even if a priority.
Question then if a team chooses to keep a delisted player on list to avoid going under minimum cap should we be looking at that as well or is that the loophole that will be available to avoid.

[GoLions]

I voted for teams to be able to go below the minimum cap, as long as they finish above the min cap at the end of the trade period. In the past we had quite a few trades we couldn't do because it would bring us below the cap, or we were already below and every trade had to be an increase in cap value. So we know its a pain in the ass.

But also know how important the min cap is.

Everyone knows its to stop teams trading into a position that's uncompetitive, so i'm not sure the penalty (for not finishing the trade period above the min cap) should make them more uncompetitive the next season. In fact it'd almost be a positive so they'd have more chance of a higher draft pick. 

I know that if I was in that position of rebuild again then the things i'd value most would be high draft picks, for the youth you can pick up and their trade value. So maybe a future first rounder is the right penalty? Won't impact them on the upcoming season, but is a pretty big penalty that would definitely be a deterrent

This is by far the best punishment suggested so far, cant go taking first rounders from a team on the bottom. Still dont like it in practice because theyll probably still be struggling the next year as well. Why not just make it they lose the coaching position? Clearly you dont want people to go under the cap, but you cant go taking away first rounders and stuff.

Personally taking premiership points would really stop Dillos going under, because damn that would hurt us  ::)

Really like this idea as it will still enable the team to build and get competitive. So basically if a club remains under cap for 2018 then they lose their first round pick in 2019 even if a priority.
Question then if a team chooses to keep a delisted player on list to avoid going under minimum cap should we be looking at that as well or is that the loophole that will be available to avoid.

That'd be dodgy af and I'd hope Purps doesn't allow anyone to do that haha

[GoLions]

I voted for teams to be able to go below the minimum cap, as long as they finish above the min cap at the end of the trade period. In the past we had quite a few trades we couldn't do because it would bring us below the cap, or we were already below and every trade had to be an increase in cap value. So we know its a pain in the ass.

But also know how important the min cap is.

Everyone knows its to stop teams trading into a position that's uncompetitive, so i'm not sure the penalty (for not finishing the trade period above the min cap) should make them more uncompetitive the next season. In fact it'd almost be a positive so they'd have more chance of a higher draft pick. 

I know that if I was in that position of rebuild again then the things i'd value most would be high draft picks, for the youth you can pick up and their trade value. So maybe a future first rounder is the right penalty? Won't impact them on the upcoming season, but is a pretty big penalty that would definitely be a deterrent

This is by far the best punishment suggested so far, cant go taking first rounders from a team on the bottom. Still dont like it in practice because theyll probably still be struggling the next year as well. Why not just make it they lose the coaching position? Clearly you dont want people to go under the cap, but you cant go taking away first rounders and stuff.

Personally taking premiership points would really stop Dillos going under, because damn that would hurt us  ::)

Really like this idea as it will still enable the team to build and get competitive. So basically if a club remains under cap for 2018 then they lose their first round pick in 2019 even if a priority.
Question then if a team chooses to keep a delisted player on list to avoid going under minimum cap should we be looking at that as well or is that the loophole that will be available to avoid.

That'd be dodgy af and I'd hope Purps doesn't allow anyone to do that haha

Loss of premiership points and future first round pick if you do ;)

[Nige]

I voted for teams to be able to go below the minimum cap, as long as they finish above the min cap at the end of the trade period. In the past we had quite a few trades we couldn't do because it would bring us below the cap, or we were already below and every trade had to be an increase in cap value. So we know its a pain in the ass.

But also know how important the min cap is.

Everyone knows its to stop teams trading into a position that's uncompetitive, so i'm not sure the penalty (for not finishing the trade period above the min cap) should make them more uncompetitive the next season. In fact it'd almost be a positive so they'd have more chance of a higher draft pick. 

I know that if I was in that position of rebuild again then the things i'd value most would be high draft picks, for the youth you can pick up and their trade value. So maybe a future first rounder is the right penalty? Won't impact them on the upcoming season, but is a pretty big penalty that would definitely be a deterrent

This is by far the best punishment suggested so far, cant go taking first rounders from a team on the bottom. Still dont like it in practice because theyll probably still be struggling the next year as well. Why not just make it they lose the coaching position? Clearly you dont want people to go under the cap, but you cant go taking away first rounders and stuff.

Personally taking premiership points would really stop Dillos going under, because damn that would hurt us  ::)

Really like this idea as it will still enable the team to build and get competitive. So basically if a club remains under cap for 2018 then they lose their first round pick in 2019 even if a priority.
Question then if a team chooses to keep a delisted player on list to avoid going under minimum cap should we be looking at that as well or is that the loophole that will be available to avoid.

That'd be dodgy af and I'd hope Purps doesn't allow anyone to do that haha

Now that's termination worthy!

[meow meow]

Something to do with empty list spots (filled by picks) being worth 100k has not yet been considered. What happens when Lester scores so much that having him and 39 empty list spaces still puts me over the cap?

[RaisyDaisy]

Toronto and Cairo improved with the help of early picks

New York, in our first season was the most impressive turn around :P

NDT quickly improved too. Just shows that if you know what you're doing and aren't afraid to get involved and make big changes you can turn things around quickly

I think the whole youth rebuild approach is majority flawed and teams going down that route will never be competitive

[meow meow]

We'll show you RD!

[meow meow]

Seoul are going alright. They took lots of picks to the draft when others were almost desperate to get rid of them and look who is laughing now. Pacific got their two stars how? From the draft. Even the trade wizard Holz drafts well and turns late picks into extras to add on and bring in the gurus. NY sold their future for minimal success.

[GoLions]

NY sold their future for minimal success.

SPS and Berry for Stringer, ew

[Adamant]

Toronto and Cairo improved with the help of early picks

False. We traded my first round pick last year for Darcy Parish, who was on traded in the deal for Pendlebury, which actually ended up losing us more points than we gained. The only priority pick we received was at the start of the second round (22 iirc), which we used to turn Sheed into Hanley, again another loss in points.

All of our improvement came through trading alone, as well as a few guns getting back to their best.