WXV Rule Discussion 2021

[Holz]

Writing these up as they happen.

1. teams should only be able to take their supplement picks ie if lists are 41 they get their 42nd 43rd player after everyone has 41 on their list. Teams lose picks they do not use, this means they should trade their value before the draft and that teams arent getting better players with supplement picks then actual real list spots.

alternatively we draft to 41 and then have players left over.


2. live trading untill the PSD where list lodgement and desliting does not occur till after the nat. We have live trading of pick and players during the national draft then a break and PSD later. this means teams can actually do moves during the draft and not limited to players. it also makes the PSD more relevant.

[Holz]

3. remove flood and attack

[upthemaidens]

-If a rule has been voted on, it can't be voted on again the following year.
   Stops voting on the same thing every season.

-The number of clubs involved in a single trade should be capped. Maybe 4 or 5 max.
   With majority of clubs involved in a one multi trade, it basically can never be blocked.

[Purple 77]

Hey all :D

The majority has revealed itself with a resounding 'yes' (about 70%) for rule discussion, so lets get stuck into it  :o

ANYONE can nominate a rule change, and it will be voted on. However, be sure there is adequate explanation to validate your proposed change.

Every now and then throughout the year, someone has brought up something they'd like Worlds to do differently. Now is the time to bring that up, and it WILL be voted on. We only have 3 weeks of the year to discuss rules and change them, so use this time wisely. Once the rules have been voted on, THAT IS IT for the next 12 months! (except for the review on the trade voting process that is held after the trade period).

We need all rule changes approved/rejected by Monday the 23rd of August, which probably means I'll leave the final PM no later than August 21st.

As always...

THERE WILL BE A SALARY CAP! It is the only thing that I will enforce, even if against the majority. The only thing I'll entertain is what kind of cap system we implement.  It will not go away whilst I'm admin, so suggestions to get rid of it entirely are fruitless.

So with the above in mind, I'll leave the floor open for rule suggestions :)

[RaisyDaisy]

I'm just gonna put this one out there, just because, why not?

We have no control over how many points are scored vs us, so I'm tabling the idea that we scrap % and Points Against from the ladder

Ladder to be sorted by Premiership Points, and then Points For/Scored to sort the order

In the very rare instance that we have 2+ teams on the same Premiership Points and exact same Points For/Scored, we'd need to come up with something to decide who sits above who, but that would only really need to be factored if it happened at the very last round of the season, which you would think the chances of happening are extremely low (Perhaps the team that won their matchup during the season gets the nod)

[Holz]

I'm just gonna put this one out there, just because, why not?

We have no control over how many points are scored vs us, so I'm tabling the idea that we scrap % and Points Against from the ladder

Ladder to be sorted by Premiership Points, and then Points For/Scored to sort the order

In the very rare instance that we have 2+ teams on the same Premiership Points and exact same Points For/Scored, we'd need to come up with something to decide who sits above who, but that would only really need to be factored if it happened at the very last round of the season, which you would think the chances of happening are extremely low (Perhaps the team that won their matchup during the season gets the nod)

Agree the opposition score already counts for the win and loss

you don't need it doubled up with %.

[Nige]

I hate that idea because generally only x amount of teams really compete through their ability to score more points and therefore get more wins than losses. As a middle table/bottom half team, half the fun for me is my team causing chaos through my team's ability to impact others depending on how tight the win or loss is. Not to mention that the % battles that happen often enough make things interesting.

This isn't me getting personal, but I find it hard to believe this isn't at least partially some sour grapes on New York missing the 8 on % and comfortably having the worst of any team outside the bottom 4 (and even Church's is better).

And of course Holz agrees, he runs Euros which doesn't do % and he's only ever been about building a scoring machine.

We had so many years of WXVs being great for so many reasons, including the impact % has had on teams throughout its rich history, I don't get why we'd throw that away. If it ain't broke...

[Ringo]

I'm just gonna put this one out there, just because, why not?

We have no control over how many points are scored vs us, so I'm tabling the idea that we scrap % and Points Against from the ladder

Ladder to be sorted by Premiership Points, and then Points For/Scored to sort the order

In the very rare instance that we have 2+ teams on the same Premiership Points and exact same Points For/Scored, we'd need to come up with something to decide who sits above who, but that would only really need to be factored if it happened at the very last round of the season, which you would think the chances of happening are extremely low (Perhaps the team that won their matchup during the season gets the nod)

Agree the opposition score already counts for the win and loss

you don't need it doubled up with %.

Looking at this years table the only effect would be the Armadillos woulds have replaced Wolves in the 8 and positions 11 to 14 would have changed effecting draft order,  Also no team scored the exact same number of points.

That being said do we need to change what has been in place since comp started and used by the AFL deciding positions on the ladder,

[Holz]

I'm just gonna put this one out there, just because, why not?

We have no control over how many points are scored vs us, so I'm tabling the idea that we scrap % and Points Against from the ladder

Ladder to be sorted by Premiership Points, and then Points For/Scored to sort the order

In the very rare instance that we have 2+ teams on the same Premiership Points and exact same Points For/Scored, we'd need to come up with something to decide who sits above who, but that would only really need to be factored if it happened at the very last round of the season, which you would think the chances of happening are extremely low (Perhaps the team that won their matchup during the season gets the nod)

Agree the opposition score already counts for the win and loss

you don't need it doubled up with %.

Looking at this years table the only effect would be the Armadillos woulds have replaced Wolves in the 8 and positions 11 to 14 would have changed effecting draft order,  Also no team scored the exact same number of points.

That being said do we need to change what has been in place since comp started and used by the AFL deciding positions on the ladder,

The difference in this and the AFL is in the AFL you can physically stop the opposition scoring.

We cant in this comp but that's part of the game, however that's already taken into account in the win and losses.

A good case is Dublin, Say i had a super easy draw and because of that I picked up 1 more win. Im now tied with a team like PNL who scored way more then i did. The soft draw got me 11 wins and it could also get me a % boost. PNL should be the ranked higher as they were the signficantly better team, i already would have got my luck in the weak draw.

[Koop]

I'd like future pick trading discussed.

I think allowing future 1st's to be traded, given the inherently volatile nature of fantasy football scoring, and with changing coaches from time to time would be irresponsible. However, I'd like to float the idea of future 2nd rounders onwards from the next year being available to use.

We obviously don't want another meow situation, but a couple of extra picks provides greater flexibility for coaches to do deals imo.

[Koop]

... But you can't control how much points you score either? You draft a list based on probability of players scoring highly. You don't control how much they score,  just the probability of them scoring highly.

It's all luck. And how much your opposition scores is just amplifying that luck.

Makes for a boring game if you ask me.

No different to copping a loss with a better list every single week either. Otherwise we could just say whoever scores the most points wins the premiership, regardless if they win or not.

Apologies for bluntness, but I kinda feel strongly about that. Control is an illusion. Everything in this game is luck.

I still echo slurpa's sentiments from 2 years ago on the topic of percentage, it's all part of the fun and the storyline, not about the points  I'd be very against a change.

[Pkbaldy]

I'd like future pick trading discussed.

I think allowing future 1st's to be traded, given the inherently volatile nature of fantasy football scoring, and with changing coaches from time to time would be irresponsible. However, I'd like to float the idea of future 2nd rounders onwards from the next year being available to use.

We obviously don't want another meow situation, but a couple of extra picks provides greater flexibility for coaches to do deals imo.

I'm all for this.

[Nige]

... But you can't control how much points you score either? You draft a list based on probability of players scoring highly. You don't control how much they score,  just the probability of them scoring highly.

It's all luck. And how much your opposition scores is just amplifying that luck.

Makes for a boring game if you ask me.

quote author=Purple 77 link=topic=113439.msg1997665#msg1997665 date=1566463758]
No different to copping a loss with a better list every single week either. Otherwise we could just say whoever scores the most points wins the premiership, regardless if they win or not.

Apologies for bluntness, but I kinda feel strongly about that. Control is an illusion. Everything in this game is luck.

I still echo slurpa's sentiments from 2 years ago on the topic of percentage, it's all part of the fun and the storyline, not about the points  I'd be very against a change.
[/quote]
Remembered this comment after I posted my reply earlier but couldn't remember exactly when/where it came to find it.

[Holz]

I'd like future pick trading discussed.

I think allowing future 1st's to be traded, given the inherently volatile nature of fantasy football scoring, and with changing coaches from time to time would be irresponsible. However, I'd like to float the idea of future 2nd rounders onwards from the next year being available to use.

We obviously don't want another meow situation, but a couple of extra picks provides greater flexibility for coaches to do deals imo.

I'm all for this.

building off the point of the fun and the storyline.

Having another teams pick adds another layer of it. Like if someone had Moscow 1st rounder this year it would have been a great story line.

[RaisyDaisy]

This isn't me getting personal, but I find it hard to believe this isn't at least partially some sour grapes on New York missing the 8 on % and comfortably having the worst of any team outside the bottom 4 (and even Church's is better).

Can categorically say, hand on heart that it didn't even enter my mind because of that

Do you really think I think I would have made a difference if I made the 8?

You're right on the 2nd part of what you said though - I had close to the worst % simply because I had teams putting up huge scores vs me, and had close to the most points scored against - nothing I can control, hence the suggestion

I'm not fussed if it passes or doesn't - was nothing more than a suggestion