WXV Rules Discussion 2017

[RaisyDaisy]

Fwiw the draft picks counting as 100k shouldn't be an option. I could have 6 draft picks and 0 vacancies on my list. So let's say I'm allowed to go 500k under the cap (which would be 100k over if draft picks were 100k), then trade period ends and I'm still in the same position. Doesn't really work. Should only be list vacancies that count as 100k.

That's what I meant sorry

100k per pick, but the only 100k picks that count are the ones that you will have on your list, so basically all of your players plus X amount of picks that gets you 40 seniors and 5 rookies

[MajorLazer]

Ok I've stayed pretty quiet regarding anything of any sort of actual importance to this comp, but here's my two cents on voting for allowing teams to dip under the minimum.

Also let me premise this by saying I may have misinterpreted things here and there so more than happy for someone to explain it more clearly to me.

How I see it is that because the trade period is before the draft and teams are going to have to delist players to comply with the maximum cap, there will/should always be a way to get back over the cap. Being under the minimum is obviously a bad thing for the evenness of the competition, but I think that the fact that if you are under the min cap and have to draft some afl list cloggers, it is a decent 'waste' of draft picks and is a decent current punishment.

If a team is still under the min cap after the draft, well then that's when punishments should be severe. This is where I probably didn't think it through as much as I should've as we hadn't discussed punishments at all. I definitely think draft pick(s) should be taken away. Premiership points could as well be stripped, but I would also look towards at least a formal warning against the coach, and potentially being replaced as coach. May seem harsh, but it's a pretty simple task to at least make the team somewhat competitive.

That's enough serious stuff from me for a while. Pls give me all your good players.

PS. Also in favour of list vacancies being 100k

[RaisyDaisy]

Would have been easier for you to just quote my previous post :P

Good minds think alike ;)

[MajorLazer]

Would have been easier for you to just quote my previous post :P

Good minds think alike ;)

Yeah I like seeming somewhat serious every now and then and had started getting my ramble on.

Bad luck thinking like me. ;)

[Ricochet]

Has Purps not asked for at least 50 on multiple occasions?

Feel free to make a comment that add value in regards to comments of the given examples.

Your examples showed nothing new,  the random examples barely changed,  and you kept showing the extreme cases

Most players dont change thats the point only the extreme cases show changes its called a tinker.

I went athabetical and captured most of the As

Name some players you want.

Sounds like you just dont like the rule as it correctly takes away your advantage from the flawed system. If yiu were unbias the rule makes sense.

Here's 45



1) Marc Murphy
2) Steele Sidebottom
3) Stefan Martin
4) Robbie Gray
5) Jeremy Howe
6) Jake Lloyd
7) Matt Crouch
8 ) Jack Ziebell
9) Daniel Rich
10) Sebastian Ross
11) Jeremy Cameron
12) Bachar Houli
13) Hamish Hartlett
14) Jack Martin
15) Jack Darling
16) Aaron Mullett
17) Nick Vlastuin
18) Travis Cloke
19) Phil Davis
20) Nathan Krakouer
21) Adam Oxley
22) Nick Robertson
23) Darcy Tucker
24) Ed Langdon
25) Nakia Cockatoo
26) Riley Knight
27) Liam Sumner
28) Paddy McCartin
29) Harley Balic
30) Brayden Sier
31) Jake Barrett
32) Nick O'Kearney
33) Brandon Jack
34) Archie Smith
35) Simon White
36) Harry Morrison
37) Brady Grey
38) Blake Grewar
39) Mitchell Hinge
40) Sam Simpson
R1) Jordan Foote
R2) Dallas Willsmore
R3) Jordan Dawson
R4) Cameron Loersch
R5) Sam Murray

[JBs-Hawks]

Has Purps not asked for at least 50 on multiple occasions?

Feel free to make a comment that add value in regards to comments of the given examples.

Your examples showed nothing new,  the random examples barely changed,  and you kept showing the extreme cases

Most players dont change thats the point only the extreme cases show changes its called a tinker.

I went athabetical and captured most of the As

Name some players you want.

Sounds like you just dont like the rule as it correctly takes away your advantage from the flawed system. If yiu were unbias the rule makes sense.

Here's 45



1) Marc Murphy
2) Steele Sidebottom
3) Stefan Martin
4) Robbie Gray
5) Jeremy Howe
6) Jake Lloyd
7) Matt Crouch
8 ) Jack Ziebell
9) Daniel Rich
10) Sebastian Ross
11) Jeremy Cameron
12) Bachar Houli
13) Hamish Hartlett
14) Jack Martin
15) Jack Darling
16) Aaron Mullett
17) Nick Vlastuin
18) Travis Cloke
19) Phil Davis
20) Nathan Krakouer
21) Adam Oxley
22) Nick Robertson
23) Darcy Tucker
24) Ed Langdon
25) Nakia Cockatoo
26) Riley Knight
27) Liam Sumner
28) Paddy McCartin
29) Harley Balic
30) Brayden Sier
31) Jake Barrett
32) Nick O'Kearney
33) Brandon Jack
34) Archie Smith
35) Simon White
36) Harry Morrison
37) Brady Grey
38) Blake Grewar
39) Mitchell Hinge
40) Sam Simpson
R1) Jordan Foote
R2) Dallas Willsmore
R3) Jordan Dawson
R4) Cameron Loersch
R5) Sam Murray

+ Brad

[Jay]

How are teams meant to get above the cap if they end up below it and end of trade period and there's no big salaries in drafts?

Do we then need to have penalties for being below cap like a loss of say 2nd round pick

I'm pretty disappointed that the rule changed. I feel like we should be encouraging teams to remain above the cap at all times and now we're excusing them dipping below. It's a bit fraught with danger, but the people have spoken apparently.

13. Utilities
A) Continue being allowed to name whomever you like, regardless of their position
B) Limit the utilities to one midfielder, where the second spot has to be a player from another position (DPP mids are allowed), whilst also extending the bench to 4 players

This would decrease the value of M5-M7 players, would there be any compensation for clubs who paid a pretty penny for starting mids Last season?
  It's a utility, the player plays any position.  Mids just happen to be the most abundant because that's where the points are and they're more available.

You're not gonna get compensated for having mid depth, don't be ridiculous.

I think not being able to play two midfielders at the utility is more ridiculous.

[GoLions]

How are teams meant to get above the cap if they end up below it and end of trade period and there's no big salaries in drafts?

Do we then need to have penalties for being below cap like a loss of say 2nd round pick

I'm pretty disappointed that the rule changed. I feel like we should be encouraging teams to remain above the cap at all times and now we're excusing them dipping below. It's a bit fraught with danger, but the people have spoken apparently.

13. Utilities
A) Continue being allowed to name whomever you like, regardless of their position
B) Limit the utilities to one midfielder, where the second spot has to be a player from another position (DPP mids are allowed), whilst also extending the bench to 4 players

This would decrease the value of M5-M7 players, would there be any compensation for clubs who paid a pretty penny for starting mids Last season?
  It's a utility, the player plays any position.  Mids just happen to be the most abundant because that's where the points are and they're more available.

You're not gonna get compensated for having mid depth, don't be ridiculous.

I think not being able to play two midfielders at the utility is more ridiculous.

I know it sounds crazy, but if it gets voted in then you could always, ya know, trade a mid mayhaps.

[Jroo]

From what I gathered I took going under the min cap as you're allowed to trade to get under it as long as you get over it by the end of the draft, so since that's been voted in perhaps we'll have to vote on punishments if that's not the case

Also I was a fan of removing HGA during the H&A season, it's allocated randomly so surely we should just be judging games on who actually scored the most. Finals I'm happy for it to stay since you deserve an advantage for finishing higher on the ladder

[GoLions]

From what I gathered I took going under the min cap as you're allowed to trade to get under it as long as you get over it by the end of the draft, so since that's been voted in perhaps we'll have to vote on punishments if that's not the case

Also I was a fan of removing HGA during the H&A season, it's allocated randomly so surely we should just be judging games on who actually scored the most. Finals I'm happy for it to stay since you deserve an advantage for finishing higher on the ladder

As a (currently) lower team, i like that if i have HGA, i have a much better chance at knocking over one of the top teams, like NDT or Seoul. And a pie team like Dublin might be able to beat me if they have HGA. And if I'm playing someone like NDT or Seoul and they have HGA, then i can always tank give it my best shot.

[Toga]

I like HGA - definitely adds a lot to the 'realness' of the game.

As for the dipping below minimum cap rule, I personally didn't see too much of an issue because I thought it would have the same effect as it currently does (e.g. preventing complete uncompetitiveness) but would provide teams struggling at the minimum a bit more flexibility in the timing of their trades. Didn't realise this was contentious!

[Ricochet]

Has Purps not asked for at least 50 on multiple occasions?

Feel free to make a comment that add value in regards to comments of the given examples.

Your examples showed nothing new,  the random examples barely changed,  and you kept showing the extreme cases

Most players dont change thats the point only the extreme cases show changes its called a tinker.

I went athabetical and captured most of the As

Name some players you want.

Sounds like you just dont like the rule as it correctly takes away your advantage from the flawed system. If yiu were unbias the rule makes sense.

Here's 45



1) Marc Murphy
2) Steele Sidebottom
3) Stefan Martin
4) Robbie Gray
5) Jeremy Howe
6) Jake Lloyd
7) Matt Crouch
8 ) Jack Ziebell
9) Daniel Rich
10) Sebastian Ross
11) Jeremy Cameron
12) Bachar Houli
13) Hamish Hartlett
14) Jack Martin
15) Jack Darling
16) Aaron Mullett
17) Nick Vlastuin
18) Travis Cloke
19) Phil Davis
20) Nathan Krakouer
21) Adam Oxley
22) Nick Robertson
23) Darcy Tucker
24) Ed Langdon
25) Nakia Cockatoo
26) Riley Knight
27) Liam Sumner
28) Paddy McCartin
29) Harley Balic
30) Brayden Sier
31) Jake Barrett
32) Nick O'Kearney
33) Brandon Jack
34) Archie Smith
35) Simon White
36) Harry Morrison
37) Brady Grey
38) Blake Grewar
39) Mitchell Hinge
40) Sam Simpson
R1) Jordan Foote
R2) Dallas Willsmore
R3) Jordan Dawson
R4) Cameron Loersch
R5) Sam Murray

+ Brad

$1

don't need a special formula to work out his value




But seriously holz, do those 40odd. I think your idea has merit but needa see it.

[Levi434]

We should flat out STOP trade discussion and threads about trades until AFTER the finals. I know I've discussed trades already but still.

Trade discussion thread should open the day after the GF. Trade confirmation thread should open a week after the GF.

Give the teams in finals some respect and some time to shine. Trade period takes up like 4 months. The least we could do is allow the teams in the GRAND FINAL to have some time to shine. Don't they deserve it?

Avoid the inevitable 1-month lull that we will have when trades die down. As we sit right now, trades have been happening for over a month. I'd say about 20 trades are already locked in. If this was a real comp we'd all be getting huge fines right now.

We simply don't need to have all this going on right now. Trading will be all of our primary focus for the next 4 months after finals finish. I see no harm in waiting a few weeks whilst finals and other things take centre stage.

[Jay]

We should flat out STOP trade discussion and threads about trades until AFTER the finals. I know I've discussed trades already but still.

Trade discussion thread should open the day after the GF. Trade confirmation thread should open a week after the GF.

Give the teams in finals some respect and some time to shine. Trade period takes up like 4 months. The least we could do is allow the teams in the GRAND FINAL to have some time to shine. Don't they deserve it?

Avoid the inevitable 1-month lull that we will have when trades die down. As we sit right now, trades have been happening for over a month. I'd say about 20 trades are already locked in. If this was a real comp we'd all be getting huge fines right now.

We simply don't need to have all this going on right now. Trading will be all of our primary focus for the next 4 months after finals finish. I see no harm in waiting a few weeks whilst finals and other things take centre stage.

There's a good idea! :)

[GoLions]

We should flat out STOP trade discussion and threads about trades until AFTER the finals. I know I've discussed trades already but still.

Trade discussion thread should open the day after the GF. Trade confirmation thread should open a week after the GF.

Give the teams in finals some respect and some time to shine. Trade period takes up like 4 months. The least we could do is allow the teams in the GRAND FINAL to have some time to shine. Don't they deserve it?

Avoid the inevitable 1-month lull that we will have when trades die down. As we sit right now, trades have been happening for over a month. I'd say about 20 trades are already locked in. If this was a real comp we'd all be getting huge fines right now.

We simply don't need to have all this going on right now. Trading will be all of our primary focus for the next 4 months after finals finish. I see no harm in waiting a few weeks whilst finals and other things take centre stage.

There's a good idea! :)

There's only so much that people are gonna say in each finals week thread. A 'ban' on trade talks would just mean even more discussion in a thread like this, not extra discussion and banter in the finals threads. So if aiming to have finals games as the only focus, rules discussion would need to be postponed until after the GF. And then trade confirmations would likely need to be postponed further until rules are all sorted, which would take ages if starting after finals. And it would suck :P

Also, people would likely just discuss trades privately anyway.

I'd also like to think that the teams not in finals being able to focus on trade talks early helps in evening the comp, as the top teams are focusing more on finals and may miss out on some juicy deals :p