WXV Rules Discussion 2018

[Purple 77]

So, Salary Cap!

To quote from the rulebook:

Cap

12. Before each season's final list lodgement, each club most be below the salary cap.

How to value each player:

Average of the 22 H&A games from the last 3 years (66 games max), multiplied by 2000 (just a magic number to look good)
Multiplied by a 'Premium factor', i.e. 1 + percentage of times that player has scored over 100
Multiplied by a 'Durability factor', i.e. 1 + games played/66 games
Multiplied by a "Age discount', i.e. 1 - [0.03 x the number of years born before 29 years of the current year (i.e. in 2017 ---> 1988, so a player born in 1985 will receive a 9% (3 x 0.03) discount)]

Players with less than 10 games over the previous 3 years are discounted to $100,000.

Minimum price is $100,000

The average salary for each team is then worked out.

The maximum salary cap is 105% of the average team salary, rounded up to the nearest $100,000. If the players on your list are worth more than the MAX cap in the season prior to the next list lodgement, you must trade or delist players to get under the MAX cap, also taking into account the total salary of your empty list spots.

The total salary of your empty list spots are calculated as being [(44 - current list size) x $100,000]. For list lodgement purposes, you cannot submit a list size of more than 44 players in total.

The minimum salary cap is 85% of the average team salary, rounded down to the nearest $100,000. If the players on your list are worth less than the MIN cap in the season prior to the next list lodgement, then you must ensure that your overall list changes (i.e. trades, delistings and the total salary of your empty list spots) will be equal to or greater than your initial end-of-season total salary.

I've calculated your team salary! Yay!

However, it comes with an asterisk, that they have only been calculated up until Round 19, so they WILL change over the last 4 games. I also haven't included the last 4 games of 2015 to make it a nice even 3 years, so yeah, it has been currently done over 62 games, rather than 66. If anything, caps will probably go up a little from here.

AVERAGE Team Salary:  $10,087,500
MAX Cap:  $10,600,000
MIN Cap:  $8,500,000

Team Caps

WXV Club	Cap	Over Cap
Beijing Thunder	$10,982,000	$382,000
Berlin Brewers	$10,476,000
Buenos Aires Armadillos	$9,070,000
Cairo Sands	$9,983,000
Cape Town Cobras	$9,418,000
Christchurch Saints	$10,025,000
Dublin Destroyers	$10,685,000	$85,000
London Royals	$9,399,000
Mexico City Suns	$9,144,000
Moscow Spetsnaz	$10,853,000	$253,000
New Delhi Tigers	$10,811,000	$211,000
New York Revolution	$9,882,000
Pacific Islanders	$11,036,000	$436,000
PNL Reindeers	$8,877,000
Rio de Janeiro Jaguars	$9,529,000
Seoul Magpies	$10,989,000	$389,000
Tokyo Samurai	$10,053,000
Toronto Wolves	$10,363,000

No one is under the minimum cap :)

Player Cap Top 20

Full Name	WXV Club	Salary
Patrick Dangerfield	Seoul Magpies	$942,000
Tom Mitchell	Pacific Islanders	$824,000
Lachie Neale	Beijing Thunder	$738,000
Dustin Martin	Dublin Destroyers	$693,000
Zach Merrett	PNL Reindeers	$691,000
Max Gawn	Berlin Brewers	$675,000
Luke Parker	Christchurch Saints	$668,000
Dayne Zorko	Beijing Thunder	$668,000
Adam Treloar	Moscow Spetsnaz	$651,000
Scott Pendlebury	Toronto Wolves	$644,000
Brodie Grundy	Beijing Thunder	$644,000
Callan Ward	Beijing Thunder	$638,000
Patrick Cripps	Rio de Janeiro Jaguars	$634,000
Josh P Kennedy	Berlin Brewers	$628,000
Jack Macrae	Toronto Wolves	$622,000
Joel Selwood	Dublin Destroyers	$621,000
Marcus Bontempelli	Pacific Islanders	$621,000
Mitch Duncan	Cape Town Cobras	$620,000
Bryce Gibbs	Christchurch Saints	$617,000
Steele Sidebottom	New Delhi Tigers	$601,000

I'm aware this will generate discussion about the cap, but my intention of this post is really for those that are curious at what their cap is, and what it means for how they might conduct their trade period.

So yeah, there you have it  :)

For a full breakdown of how the cap has been calculated, feel free to check my spreadsheet out:

WXV Salaries

(I've assumed all the 110 new players are less than 30 years old, I'll input their DOBs later)

[meow meow]

Nek Minnit every AFL player retires, meaning we'll each have 44 100k players on our lists, but the minimum cap will be more than double everyone's total since retried players salary remain in the cap for the next season. Everyone will get their first round pick stripped.

[Levi434]

Resting Bonus:
To get an adequate resting bonus currently a player would have to score 150 to yield a measly 15 points. Players capable of scoring 150 are few and far between and usually are some of your best players. Often the player you play the week you rest someone will lose you the same amount of points if not more than what you would gain next week. Resting needs to be more worth it I recon.

I propose that resting be changed from a 10% bonus to a 20% bonus.

[RaisyDaisy]

Resting Bonus:
To get an adequate resting bonus currently a play would have to score 150 to yield a measly 15 points. Players capable of scoring 150 are few and far between and usually are some of your best players. Often the player you play the week you rest someone will lose you the same amount of points if not more than what you would gain next week. Resting needs to be more worth it I recon.

I propose that resting be changed from a 10% bonus to a 20% bonus.

I like it.

You're right - 10% isn't really much considering the types of players who are actually viable options to rest

Do you think similar to flood attack that resting needs to be limited to 5 times or something similar, if it was to now net 20%?

[meow meow]

We need to get rid of the rookie draft, and rookies altogether. If they don't need to be upgraded then there's absolutely no difference between them and a senior listed player. Keep the main draft as is, then lists completed with the PSD - which will still be first crack at AFL listed rookies.

[meow meow]

I think the cap needs a tweak. Should be based on the total value of players actually playing that year, not the year before. There's lots of cap cheats who are actually more than 5% over the max.

Also SUPER FLOOD! Using 2 of the 5 in one hit. Make it possible to play a D8 if people want to use 4 at once.

So how do you plan to value all the guys who will play next year who didnt play this year?

Rookies will be 100k, all the other players already have a cap value assigned to them so nothing will change there. It'll just eliminate the Sam Mitchell's and the like who were included in this years cap total/average.

[Torpedo10]

Resting Bonus:
To get an adequate resting bonus currently a player would have to score 150 to yield a measly 15 points. Players capable of scoring 150 are few and far between and usually are some of your best players. Often the player you play the week you rest someone will lose you the same amount of points if not more than what you would gain next week. Resting needs to be more worth it I recon.

I propose that resting be changed from a 10% bonus to a 20% bonus.

Full support of this, really opens up the opportunity of resting a premium to get the full benefits and thus, can be used more strategically.

[Holz]

I think the cap needs a tweak. Should be based on the total value of players actually playing that year, not the year before. There's lots of cap cheats who are actually more than 5% over the max.

Also SUPER FLOOD! Using 2 of the 5 in one hit. Make it possible to play a D8 if people want to use 4 at once.

So how do you plan to value all the guys who will play next year who didnt play this year?

Rookies will be 100k, all the other players already have a cap value assigned to them so nothing will change there. It'll just eliminate the Sam Mitchell's and the like who were included in this years cap total/average.

The rookies counting as 100k compensates the retiring.

Tim Kelly is valued as nothing in the cap that balances out mitchell

[DazBurg]

We need to get rid of the rookie draft, and rookies altogether. If they don't need to be upgraded then there's absolutely no difference between them and a senior listed player. Keep the main draft as is, then lists completed with the PSD - which will still be first crack at AFL listed rookies.

Then we can make teams who do not have enough players on their lists and get free picks allocated done after PSD and rookies etc when it is actually the last of the last

[Purple 77]

That's an interesting thought actually. The 'top-up' picks to be allocated from players available after the natural order of the rookie draft.

[Holz]

Resting Bonus:
To get an adequate resting bonus currently a player would have to score 150 to yield a measly 15 points. Players capable of scoring 150 are few and far between and usually are some of your best players. Often the player you play the week you rest someone will lose you the same amount of points if not more than what you would gain next week. Resting needs to be more worth it I recon.

I propose that resting be changed from a 10% bonus to a 20% bonus.

Full support of this, really opens up the opportunity of resting a premium to get the full benefits and thus, can be used more strategically.

I like it at the moment its probably not worth it gaining 8-9 points

[DazBurg]

That's an interesting thought actually. The 'top-up' picks to be allocated from players available after the natural order of the rookie draft.

Reckon this should be implemented

[Toga]

Let's leave drafting as is. I love the current format.

[Adamant]

And Rolling Lockout loopholing should be allowed. Maybe not partial lockout loopholing, but I think there is merit in Rolling Lockout loopholing, as because as we saw earlier in the year, you might innocently have to do it just to name your preferred team.

For reference:

I named the following team in WXV Rd 12 (AFL Rd 12 + AFL Round 13 scores from Carlton, Hawthorn, West Coast, Western Bulldogs, Port Adelaide + Gold Coast).

D: Thompson, Witherden, ________, ________ (Robertson E3)
M: Pendlebury, Kelly, Blakely, ________ (Hopper E1)
U: ________, ________
R: Bellchambers
F: Hogan, Boak, Mundy, Apeness (Melksham E2)

@Purple77, a question regarding non-loopholing. I intend to name Macrae at M4, Naitanui at U1 and Redden at U2 next week, however if E1 Hopper scores 120+ this weekend and any of those aforementioned players are unavailable for selection next week, would I be forced to name an inferior player to avoid getting his score as it would be seen as loopholing (when in reality he would have been the next player selected anyway)?

Conversely, if Hopper scores 37 this weekend and one of Macrae/Naitanui/Redden are unavailable for selection, but Dion Prestia becomes available for selection next week (a player that I would have selected ahead of Hopper if fit), would I be prevented from naming him as it would be seen as avoiding Hopper's score?

This is why I was absolutely baffled to see loopholing scrapped. Seems like far too much grey area to me!

I also believe partial lockout loopholing should be allowed as the situation above applies to it too. I really don't see any downside to it - people might argue it's an unfair advantage if you have three players playing on Thursday night and your opponent has none, but that would be forgetting that it can also work the opposite way. How many times in SC or DT have you taken a VC loophole score only for the player you were originally going to captain outscore them anyway (losing you points)? I'd argue that the overall difference is negligible. It adds an element of coaching skill which can make Thursday night games a bit more entertaining.

[Holz]

I also believe partial lockout loopholing should be allowed as the situation above applies to it too. I really don't see any downside to it - people might argue it's an unfair advantage if you have three players playing on Thursday night and your opponent has none, but that would be forgetting that it can also work the opposite way. How many times in SC or DT have you taken a VC loophole score only for the player you were originally going to captain outscore them anyway (losing you points)? I'd argue that the overall difference is negligible. It adds an element of coaching skill which can make Thursday night games a bit more entertaining.

to answer that question.

Id say it works out positive or neutral for me in about 8/10 times.

the reason for emergency and VC is to avoid an unlucky injury or late out, not to take a second bite of the cherry.