2019/20 Suggested Rule Changes

[Ringo]

Thread for suggested Rule Changes for next season.

Decisions will be recorded in this OP.

Feel free to add any for discussion no matter how menial or stupid you may think.

Rule Changes

1. Do we introduce a mid season draft.
(a) Yes
(b) No
No Votes 13 -3

2. If  1 approved do we reduce list to 46.
(a) Yes
(b) No

Not
necessary due to rejection of MSD
3. If 1 is rejected do we increase lists to 48 with an additional rookie draft round?
(a) Yes
(b) No
Yes to increase team sizes Voting 9 - 7

4. If a player that has been previously been on your list re-enters the competition you have first option by
(a) Bidding for the player by matching other coaches bid with you next available pick.
(b) Using your last available rookie pick to retain with the option to return player to the pool.
(b) Using Rookie pick Votes 9 - 7

[Ringo]

First one for discussion from me.

Do we follow the AFL lead and have a mid season draft?

If introduced proposed rules around it would be they must replace a retired player or a player on the LTI list. Suggestions for length of time for LTI eg season only or say 10 weeks or more.

[SilverLion]

So a few things that I think are worth raising for next season. Warning: MASSIVE slabs of text follow :P.




Firstly, a couple of amendments to the following rules:

Priority Picks:

"3.4  Teams with less than 4 wins year 1 will have priority picks at end of Round 1 of National draft and if they also have less than 4 wins in year 2 then they will receive priority picks at start of National Draft. Tanking will not be tolerated and will result in forfeiture of Round 1 pick as well"

Needs to reworded to something to the effect of:

"3.4  Teams with less than 4 wins year 1 will have priority picks at end of Round 1 of National draft and if they also have less than 4 wins in year 2 then they will receive a priority pick immediately after their first national draft pick (prior to trading) instead of an end of first round pick. Tanking will not be tolerated and will result in forfeiture of Round 1 pick as well."

In addition, I'd like to put forward the suggestion that if a team wins a total of 6 games or less over 2 seasons they are also entitled to the first round priority pick instead of an end of first round pick. This would avoid situations such as the one we have seen with the Rams and Breakers this year. Furthermore I think we should scrap the ability of the admins to hand out priority picks that don't fit with these rules (if we implement my previous suggestion, I don't think there'd be a scenario where it would be required anyway).

I think the 6 game limit/less than 4 wins in each of 2 years should roll to each subsequent year as well. Just showing a couple of scenarios as an example (assuming the year previous to Year 1 the side won at least 7 games so nothings rolling over):

Year 1 - 4 wins, Year 2 - 2 Wins - Year 3 - 4 Wins - would result in no priority pick in the first year, a first round pick the second year, and a first round pick in the third year.

Year 1 - 1 win, Year 2 - 5 Wins, Year 3 - 3 Wins - would result in an end of first round pick in the first year, a first round pick in the second year, and an end of first round pick in the third year.

Year 1 - 0 Wins, Year 2 - 4 Wins, Year 3 - 3 Wins - would result in an end of first round pick in the first year, a first round pick in the second year, and an end of first round pick in the third year.





--






Rising Star:

"Rising Star Award will be presented to a Player under 21 years of age making his debut in the competition ,  Will be awarded to the player with the highest points average for season with a minimum of 5 games being played. A player who has has played 2 games or less in the previous season is eligible for this award providing the play a minimum of 5 games this year,"

Needs to be updated to something to the effect of (points in red I think we need further clarification/discussion on):

"- For a player to be eligible for a nomination for The Rising Star Award, a player must meet the criteria listed by the AFL for their Rising Star Award, which is currently as follows:

- To be eligible for the AFL Rising Star Award, each year's nominated players must be under the age of 21 at 1 January and have played no more than 10 AFL games to the start of that season.

- They must not have been suspended by the AFL or State League tribunals during the season (as with the Brownlow Medal, players found guilty of certain offences and fined or reprimanded by the Tribunal remain eligible to win the award)."

At the conclusion of the BXVs 15 round regular sseason, only the nominations of players who have played at least 5 games and have not been suspended since their nomination (as is the same for the AFL's eligibility <only suspensions up to BXVs Round 15 inclusive should count I think? if a player is suspended later than this and is ineligible for the AFL award it shouldn't impact ours as we will have already awarded it>) for their BXVs side are then listed to be voted for. The Rising Star Award is voted on by all 16 current BXVs Coaches (<insert voting format here>).

In the case where there is no new players eligible to receive a nomination in a round, <insert what we do for that here>.

In the case where there are multiple players tied for the most coaches' votes for the BXVs Rising Star, <insert what we do for that here>.





--





So one other thing I wanted to raise separate to the rule amendments is the scoring system we currently use and how it currently places a noticable disadvantage to true forwards. I bring this up as it is evident across the competition that the best forwards, understandably, are midfielders available as forwards. I'm not saying at all that this alone is a problem (all formats pretty much face this to some extent), as our scoring system is heavily weighted to benefit midfielders (and especially inside/contested midfielders), I just believe that as a result of this weighting it creates a gap between these mids available as forwards and true forwards that is larger than it should be, and one that is larger than the common counterpart formats.

I'll use the example of the top 10 average forwards across our comp compared to SC and DT (FWIW, I'm aware that most of them across all 3 formats probably won't be available as forwards next year - which in itself is part of the problem haha).

BXVs: Travis Boak - 207.1 Patrick Dangerfield - 195.4 Josh Dunkley - 194.4 Tim Kelly - 180.4 Rowan Marshall - 172.9 David Mundy - 166.2 James Worpel - 165.8 Jack Billings - 160.2 Michael Walters - 157.6 Robbie Gray - 156.9 Average = 175.69

SC: Josh Dunkley - 114.1 Patrick Dangerfield - 114.0 Travis Boak - 112.7 Rowan Marshall 112.3 Tim Kelly 102.9 Michael Walters - 100.8 Caleb Daniel - 99.9 Scott Lycett - 99.1 Jack Billings - 98.2 Isaac Heeney - 93.9 Average = 104.79

DT: Josh Dunkley - 110.6 Travis Boak - 110.6 Patrick Dangerfield - 106.6 Rowan Marshall - 101.5 Jack Billings - 101.4 Tim Kelly - 98.6 Tom Lynch (ADE) - 95.6 Caleb Daniel - 94.5 Dustin Martin - 93.8 James Worpel - 92.8 Average = 100.6

Now on their own the lists stack up reasonably consistently with each other, with the list being dominated by midfielders across all 3 formats, however its the disparity between the top 10s down to the "true" forwards is where I think its more obvious where the issues are. Taking the top 6 in the Coleman medal as an example (as these are some of the better "true" forwards of the comp:

BXVs: Jeremy Cameron - 129.6 Jack Darling - 110.3 Tom Hawkins - 109.8 Ben Brown - 108.1 Tom Lynch (RICH) - 93.4 Charlie Cameron - 99.5

SC: Jeremy Cameron - 93.0 Tom Hawkins - 86.2 Jack Darling - 80.8 Charlie Cameron - 77.8 Ben Brown - 76.9 Tom Lynch (RICH) - 66.1

DT: Jeremy Cameron - 87.5 Tom Hawkins - 71.1 Ben Brown - 69.8 Jack Darling - 69 Charlie Cameron - 66.1 Tom Lynch (RICH) - 58.9

It is clear that although the true forwards will pretty much always score less than midfielders (as is the nature of the majority of fantasy formats), the gap in our format is significantly more skewed than it should be. Isolating Jeremy Cameron as an example (who currently has a significantly higher average in both BXVs and DT than the others listed - likely due to a higher possession average); his average is 26% lower than the average of the top 10 in BXVs, compared to merely 11% in SC and 13% in DT. Using Jack Darling as another example, 37% lower in BXVs, 23% in SC and 31% DT. The difference, though less noticeable, still indicates that they are at a disadvantage more in BXVs than the counterpart formats.

Now I'm not saying to change anything drastic so these forwards are averaging as much as mids or anything, I just think the gap between them and the top forwards should be made to be at least a bit closer, in a similar fashion to other formats. One minor suggestion I thought of would be to increase the amount of points awarded from goals by a few points, for example an increase of a mere 2 points per goal would increase J Cameron's average by 6.35 points, Hawkins' by 4.9 points, Darling's by 5; and would only increase Dangerfield's by 2.1, Dunkley's by 0.9 and Boak's by 1 point.

TLDR; I think true forwards are disadvantaged too severely by our scoring format as it currently sits.





--





One last thing, will we be doing a mid-season draft and/or trade period next year? It was mentioned that we would re-assess it based on the AFL mid-year draft this year. :P


(Also sorry if I made any typos or maths errors haha, hopefully you guys get the gist of my post at least)

We've discussed this a bit since I posted it, think it's fair to say to ignore the additional suggestion for priority picks. Though I stand by the rest of my post.

A couple of other things that have been discussed as well:

- Make it mandatory to formally lodge teams in the team thread for finals. (Rather than just stating "As per UF" and the EVC and EMG order).

- Changes to the MVP - Could be made a manual count of a 3,2,1 system to the highest three scorers between both teams in every match, without weighting to the winning side. Would need a system for tiebreakers though.

And re: The mid-season draft, personally I don't mind the idea where we copy the AFL system to a degree and can get "loan" players for the remainder of the season if ours are on the LTI list.

[Ringo]

Note that 3.4 has already been amended following the discussion we had.  Just need to amend a little further to clarify prior to trading.  Thanks SL.

Thoughts on the MVP - Like the idea although will require some manual work for admin so keep comments coming.

Regarding mid season draft need to decide what happens at end of season whether they return to the pool of players or can stay on lists but must use a draft pick if you wish to retain.  Big question is what draft pick should be used. Eg this year we have Stack so what would be a fair pick to retain. Personally favour return to pool but open to the alternate.

Also each year we raise this is do we move positions with UF or set at start and keep.

Question for those that play UF in other comps do any use Category Scoring and if so provide feedback.  Can not get a lot from the site now due to comp being over but just wondering whether it worth looking at as an alternative.

[JBs-Hawks]

Regarding mid season draft need to decide what happens at end of season whether they return to the pool of players or can stay on lists but must use a draft pick if you wish to retain.  Big question is what draft pick should be used. Eg this year we have Stack so what would be a fair pick to retain. Personally favour return to pool but open to the alternate.

Bidding system - use next available pick after bid - like worlds for past players.

[nas]

Increase the teams lists by 1 to bring it to 48 total.

[GoLions]

Increase the teams lists by 1 to bring it to 48 total.

Or reduce by 1 to make the rookie draft somewhat decent

[nas]

Increase the teams lists by 1 to bring it to 48 total.

Or reduce by 1 to make the rookie draft somewhat decent

Either works

[Koop]

I think with the potential for a mid-season draft it should be fairly straightforward me thinks.

If we do proceed with a mid-season draft - Drop it to 46. - This allows for the Rookie Draft to potentially maintain it's relevance despite the MSD dillution.

If we don't - Raise it to 48. The SSP and MSD player should keep the value of the Rookie Draft intact.

[Nige]

I think with the potential for a mid-season draft it should be fairly straightforward me thinks.

If we do proceed with a mid-season draft - Drop it to 46. - This allows for the Rookie Draft to potentially maintain it's relevance despite the MSD dillution.

If we don't - Raise it to 48. The SSP and MSD player should keep the value of the Rookie Draft intact.

fwiw I’m against a MSD but if it does happen, what Coop has said here is valid.

[Ringo]

Keep the discussion coming but would like some thoughts on what to do with players picked in mid season draft at seasons end.

Another consideration for MSD if that is favoured do all unsigned players qualify for the draft.

[SilverLion]

*IF* we are going to implement changes such as the raising of the list to 48, the MSD, potential minor buffing of goals etc., shouldn't we vote on them ASAP? As some of these changes, if implemented, may impact on how we trade.

[fanTCfool]

Should have already been done. Players have been moved, can't adjust scoring now. Raising the list sizes and MSD probably have slim to no impact on trading though, so they should be fine.

[SilverLion]

Should have already been done. Players have been moved, can't adjust scoring now. Raising the list sizes and MSD probably have slim to no impact on trading though, so they should be fine.

Agreed, it should've already been done. I do think its a bit strange that we would have a discussion thread about rule changes opened the same day as the trade period though, didn't really give us a chance to discuss things properly or put it to a vote beforehand. And with rule changes obviously comes potential change to player value, so the timing of the opening of this thread definitely doesn't make sense to me.

Also, I did bring up the scoring adjustment a month ago and there was some discussion about it back then, so I do think it's worth having a vote on. How it would impact the 3 trades already posted I'm not quite sure though, but I did bring it up way before the trade period started tbf.

[fanTCfool]

Should have already been done. Players have been moved, can't adjust scoring now. Raising the list sizes and MSD probably have slim to no impact on trading though, so they should be fine.

Also, I did bring up the scoring adjustment a month ago and there was some discussion about it back then, so I do think it's worth having a vote on. How it would impact the 3 trades already posted I'm not quite sure though, but I did bring it up way before the trade period started tbf.

You did, and it's no fault of your own, but as soon as the trade period has begun, you can't go changing the scoring system. That makes pretty clear logical sense IMO.