WXV Rules Discussion 2017

[Hellopplz]

12. WXV scores

Am I the only one who is bothered by a team playing poorly and scoring 120 points? I want the multiplier changed. I also want the draw to be in play. If it's 1302 vs 1301 that's 130 vs 130 in WXV and should be a draw!

Do you not remember the 2012 Preliminary Final between the Swedish Metal and the Spanish Stallions?

Do not ruin the competition.  :P

Such a shame that is the wrong competition :P.

[Holz]

ok on feed back from the coaches my age discount will be changed from 28 to 30.

even though 28 was taken not only because players decline at that age (in my opinion and research) but becasue they are very unlikely to improve.

Its an important improvement and its better to get the rule through rather then not.

for players 30 or over they get a 3% discount.

This is honesly a little too late in their careers and probably too small a discount as its really 1.5% declining and 1.5 other player increasing but needs to get passed.

The way it would work is if lids averaged 75 for this year. Ossie Formual has him at a 89 average, My formula has him at a 96 average. But with the 6% discount he goes down to 90 so thats basically ossies average anyway.

[RaisyDaisy]

I'm going to suggest something which might be a bit contentious, but I cannot stress enough that this has nothing to do with each individual and their character - there is nothing personal or malice, it is purely based on...

12. Participation

What makes WXV the best XV is it's people. There's no doubt this is the most attractive and active XV because of the people involved. There is constant discussion all year around and because of most of the coaches commitment we have an excellent and very even comp

I do think however, some changes in personal are required to ensure that WXV continues to prosper moving forward and I'd like to see more participation from more coaches

As I understand it, we currently have a process on how we vote new coaches into WXV, but what about the opposite? It won't take a genius to figure out the sort of teams I am referring to, but we have several coaches/teams who are barely ever around and hardly ever contribute to discussions, whether they be general banter or about important things like rule changes and reviews

We have so much going on here, and it's the same majority who all contribute to make this such a great comp but it's the minority who don't bring much, if anything at all that I think needs to change

Naming your team every week, and nothing more is not enough to maintain a coaches position in WXV, especially when we have several people on FF who are chomping at the bit to get a coaching gig here

Furthermore, if you cannot make yourself available regularly, especially during the trade period than again you are hindering the competition and not participating enough. I get it, we all have lives and are busy, and that's completely fine but if you don't have the time to engage in regular trade talks, weekly round discussions etc then I really don't think I am being out of line by suggesting you shouldn't be a coach anymore

It can't be a surprise to see that teams with active coaches are improving every year, while teams with inactive coaches continue to struggle and get nowhere.

So what is the actual rule I am suggesting? If we as coaches vote on who will enter WXV, then we should also have a yearly review and cast a vote if we think there is a coach who should no longer be in WXV

It's not like I'm asking for a lot. In order to continue making WXV the number 1 XV we need to continue to have coaches who give 100% and make themselves available regularly. You don't need to spend hours a day here, heck you don't need to be here every day but you do need to be here often enough to engage and respond during trade period, and even more importantly just regularly engage in discussion and simply participate :)

[meow meow]

I'm pretty active and I don't see much improvement happening. 11th then 11th with a team full of geriatrics. Maybe I should be fired.

[Purple 77]

Whilst be no meaning to distract from RD's interesting thoughts (will withhold opinion for now though)...

Just to give everyone an idea of the changes Holz' is proposing:

(have updated prices to include AFL Round 20)

Players affected

Player	Age (Today)	Old Price	Discounted Price
M Priddis	32	$670,000	$630,000
H Shaw	31	$595,000	$577,000
S Mitchell	34	$588,000	$517,000
D Mundy	32	$587,000	$552,000
G Ablett	33	$571,000	$520,000
B Goddard	32	$563,000	$529,000
L Montagna	33	$558,000	$508,000
S Mumford	31	$559,000	$543,000
K Simpson	33	$548,000	$498,000
J Lewis	31	$543,000	$527,000
M Boyd	34	$488,000	$429,000
N Riewoldt	34	$483,000	$425,000
S Burgoyne	34	$475,000	$418,000
A Sandilands	34	$474,000	$417,000
B Vince	31	$469,000	$455,000
L Hodge	33	$451,000	$410,000
L Picken	31	$438,000	$425,000
J McVeigh	32	$442,000	$416,000
S Thompson	34	$415,000	$365,000
R Griffen	31	$390,000	$378,000
J Gibson	33	$387,000	$353,000
J Waite	34	$385,000	$339,000
B Stanton	31	$381,000	$369,000
M Rischitelli	31	$370,000	$359,000
S Johnson	34	$363,000	$319,000
D Wells	32	$354,000	$333,000
H Taylor	31	$361,000	$350,000
R Murphy	35	$355,000	$302,000
H Grundy	31	$352,000	$341,000
D Petrie	34	$348,000	$306,000
J Watson	32	$328,000	$308,000
I Maric	31	$331,000	$321,000
Dany Pearce	31	$327,000	$317,000
A Mackie	33	$329,000	$300,000
M Johnson	32	$307,000	$289,000
SD Thompson	31	$291,000	$283,000
S Dempster	33	$268,000	$243,000
T Lonergan	33	$239,000	$218,000
S Butler	31	$219,000	$213,000
D Morris	34	$210,000	$185,000
Ja Kelly	33	$205,000	$187,000
J Griffin	31	$187,000	$181,000
J Patfull	32	$163,000	$153,000
T Mzungu	31	$142,000	$138,000
Z Dawson	31	$125,000	$121,000

Team Cap effects

Team	Current	Age Discounted
Beijing Thunder	$11,026,000	11,015,000
Berlin Brewers	$11,177,000	11,009,000
Buenos Aires Armadillos	$9,365,000	9,359,000
Cairo Sands	$9,763,000	9,722,000
Cape Town Cobras	$9,978,000	9,962,000
Christchurch Saints	$11,108,000	10,701,000
Dublin Destroyers	$11,188,000	11,188,000
London Royals	$10,102,000	10,091,000
Mexico City Suns	$10,905,000	10,733,000
Moscow Spetsnaz	$10,416,000	10,416,000
New Delhi Tigers	$11,309,000	11,309,000
New York Revolution	$11,147,000	11,062,000
Pacific Islanders	$11,831,000	11,820,000
PNL Reindeers	$9,842,000	9,761,000
Rio de Janeiro Jaguars	$11,445,000	11,243,000
Seoul Magpies	$10,591,000	10,583,000
Tokyo Samurai	$9,860,000	9,860,000
Toronto Wolves	$10,453,000	10,440,000
AVERAGE	$10,639,222	$10,570,778
AVERAGE + 5%	$11,171,183	$11,099,317
AVERAGE - 15%	$9,043,339	$8,985,161

[Purple 77]

Oh, was that supposed to be players that were also 30 years old, or just older than that?

[Ringo]

 Has some merit RD but not all coaches are the "bantering" type. Some coaches really enjoy it but others just sit back may be as a result of having teams across the various competitions.

Additional task for Purps but maybe at at the end of each season he does a review on all coaches and publishes it. Similar to Football Department reviews clubs undertake.

Like what you are trying to achieve though but Worlds will always be the premier competition as it was the first one established.

[meow meow]

Looks pretty irrelevant.

[GoLions]

Looks pretty irrelevant.

Yeah if that's the only thing that changes in the cap, there's not much point. Just drags the average cap down, and hence the max and min, so the impact of the older guys on your cap doesn't really change. If there was also an inflation type rule for the younger kids then it'd become relevant, but I don't think I'd support that (but happy for Holz to suggest something there :P).

[Nige]

Looks pretty irrelevant.

Yeah if that's the only thing that changes in the cap, there's not much point. Just drags the average cap down, and hence the max and min, so the impact of the older guys on your cap doesn't really change. If there was also an inflation type rule for the younger kids then it'd become relevant, but I don't think I'd support that (but happy for Holz to suggest something there :P).

I'd think that it would basically be changing for the sake of changing if it's that insignificant.

[Holz]

Looks pretty irrelevant.

Yeah if that's the only thing that changes in the cap, there's not much point. Just drags the average cap down, and hence the max and min, so the impact of the older guys on your cap doesn't really change. If there was also an inflation type rule for the younger kids then it'd become relevant, but I don't think I'd support that (but happy for Holz to suggest something there :P).

its not the only change.

its the secondary change.

Mr cap changes was.

1. Players averages should be allocated the following way.

18+ games: 100% of the current season is their average
11-17 games: 50% of the current average 30% of last years and 20% of the year before
6-10 games: 35% of the current average 40% of last years and 25% of the year before
5 or under: 20% of the current average 50% of last years and 30% of the year before.
0 games: 60% of last year and 40% of the year before.

At the moment i believe it is 50% 25% 25% regardless of how many games played. Thats why Kelly is priced at 95 even though he averaged 111 and Heath Shaw is priced at 97 even though he only averages 85.


2. I wanted a 3% from 28 years or older, but people werent happy with it. To make it clear. If you discount players 28 or over you are also slightly inflating players 27 or under let me explain this clearly.

If the players 28 or over become slightly cheaper then the cap will fall, which means younger players becomes slightly more expensive. I wanted it 28 years as thats when players dont change or decrease in average typically. Players 27 or under likely improve and the 3% per year over 28 makes this happen.





Yes its a small change but when implemented with the 1st rule then it makes the cap much more effective in valuing players.

I think it very clear how the major cap change affect declining players and players who have broken out. But another big one is injured players.

Say Deledio only average 65 because he is coming back from injury. I believe the cap as it stands is (50% x 65) + (25% 95) + (25% x 112) that prices him at a 84 average.

My rule would say hang on, Deledio played less then 5 games this year, its a porr indicator of his scoring potential.

so its (20% x 65) + (50% x 95) + (30% x 112) = 94 average.

Then it goes well Deledio is 31 next year. So thats 3 years 28 or over. So that brings his base average down to 86. If people dont like the 28 years old rule then it a 91 average.

Ossies Premium rule and injury rule would still be in place, So Lids will move up with the premium rule (WHICH IS WHY THE 28 YEARS OLD THING IS IMPORTANT) and he will move down a little bit as injury prone.


its not irrelevant if its 28 years old, and regarldess if its 28 or 30 its a small imrpvoement. Why not have a small improvement. if we where starting the cap from scratch we would be going with my rule. Considering it takes very little time to change it and its clearly be proven to be better in every example i have done then there is no reason it should fail.

I have not see one example where the original cap is better.

[Holz]

Oh, was that supposed to be players that were also 30 years old, or just older than that?

its supposed to be players who are 30 at some point next year get a discount.

I really want it at 28 for the reasons i just posted. Even though it makes sense to be 28 if people dont read my reasoning and just vote on it without thinking then i can see the vote failing so maybe we vote on 28 and 30.

28 is logical and makes the cap do what is supposed to do. But i know people wont read my posts in detail so it will probably fail for no reason.

[Nige]

Got a number of trade targets 28 or older Holz?

[GoLions]

I dunno about everyone else, but with regards to trade talks, I couldn't give 2 showers about a player's cap worth unless the deal is going to put me under the cap. If the older guys get reduced, and therefore the average team cap goes down, and the minimum cap also goes down because of that, then it seems to make no difference to me.

Would your suggestions be two separate changes, or come in a package deal?

[meow meow]

Trade me ye old coonts, I'll fit them in regardless of the cap.