WXV Rule Discussion 2024

[Purple 77]

I want to increase the Flood/Attack modifiers.

I think this year the modifiers were a great first step and entry level example of being able to influence your teams score beyond just listing your top XV best (position dependent) players.

I call it a success in that respect.

However, in most cases, the net outcome of bonuses/reductions is less than say 20 SC points, with most landing in that 1-10 point range.

The recent inundation of Floods in Finals in particular show that it is still primarily used as a mechanism to either cover for a lack of forwards, or in most cases, play a superior player at D5 over an inferior F4.

To me, the solution is simple. Increase the % modifiers, thus making it a more active consideration when looking for an advantage in naming teams, whilst amplifying the risk of it not paying off.

I propose the % increase per player rises from 9% to 15%, whilst the % decrease rises from 15% to 25%

These adjustments are still equivalent in a world where every player scores identically (i.e. 5 x 15% = 3 x 25% = 75%), but will amplify the points impact of getting it 'right' and conversely 'wrong', thus making it more strategic.
 

[Purple 77]

So far in 2024, 31 Floods were used as opposed to 9 Attacks.

Clearly, there are more good defenders than there are forwards, and this has been the cases for a few years now.

I'm not wedded to this, but I want to gauge people's interest in incentivizing more 'Attacks'.


I find it best to keep it simple.

Add an additional 3% to each forward, resulting in 5 x 3% bonuses, and no extra penalty to defenders.

Remember, currently for every Attack there has been 3 Floods. If your D5 is say 10ppg better than your F4 (assumption), and the average score of your 5 forwards is (conservatively) 67... 3% extra per player results in 10 points overall.

I don't think it advantages Attacks, just levels the playing field.

[Purple 77]

3: Draft Lottery amongst the bottom x teams
Simple (once we work on finer details). Work on some %s for each spot, and then draw the top x draft picks each year. This would obviously come into effect from the 2025 Draft onwards.

I don't think this combats tanking, which is what I think your intent is.

There is still incentive to finish as low as possible for a greater chance at a pick, and 'tankers' won't be perturbed by the (reducing) possibility of not getting a better pick the lower you finish.

I also don't think teams should be punished based on a perception of tanking by other coaches. Yes, I'm interested in this because I finished 2nd last this year, but I'd frankly be livid if I, or say Beijing, who rightly should have Picks 1 and 2 this year, ended up with later picks, because this rule is targeted at perceived offenders.

[Purple 77]

Delay voting on Round 0 shenanigans
Until we see what the fixture is. I guess we could vote on "what happens if it's the same as 2024" now, but delaying it probably isn't going to hurt

I'm not putting this up for a vote, I'm just gonna do this.

[Purple 77]

Training Mid-season

I think train-on players were a resounding success this year, and JB had a suggestion that drew my attention a couple months ago.

I position this suggestion as non-compatible with RDs, and would be void if his proposal was accepted.


Mid-season Training Program

We have a provision of 2 train-on players over the Summer, which we keep, and they are maintained throughout the entire year.

I propose that, commencing from the week leading up to WXV Round 1, we have the ability to start mid-season training programs.

What the program looks like:
- You nominate your player and the position they are training in
- A mid-season training program occurs over 6 consecutive WXV Reserve matches
          - If an AFL player is injured, the program is paused, and resumed when they return from injury
          - They must play 6 WXV Reserve matches in-a-row to complete the Program
- During this time, if the player plays a WXV senior game, the program is voided
          - If faced with playing a donut in the seniors, you must play this player
          - If faced with playing 1 OOP player during the Program, you do not have to play this player
          - If faced with playing 2 OOP players during the Program in one round, and the player would alleviate one, you MUST play this player
          - Coaches I deem to be abusing the Program that unreasonably lowers the scoring of their starting XV  (defined at my discretion on a case-by-case basis) will have the Program cancelled permanently (all future seasons), as well as their off-season train-on program, and lose all train-on positions they currently have.
- You can have no more than 1 player in a mid-season training program at any one time
- You can run as many programs as you like during a year, but only 1 active program at any one time
- For rucks, and any other criteria that may be introduced in future determining eligibility to train in a position, statistics will be sourced from the prior season until that player has played 6 games in the current season, at which point the current season statistics will be used

[Purple 77]

The following suggestions need further detail before they can go to a vote

4: Actual punishment (not just warnings) for other obvious offences
These need to be fleshed out before they hit a vote, but they include things like:
- not naming a team on a given week, and
- not naming train-on players in December.

3: Draft Lottery amongst the bottom x teams
Simple (once we work on finer details). Work on some %s for each spot, and then draw the top x draft picks each year. This would obviously come into effect from the 2025 Draft onwards.

How could this realistically be enforced?

Active Discord Presence

Given that banter and activity has always been the cornerstone of this competition, and a key reason why it is still alive, I'd like to propose a rule that makes a FF Discord presence mandatory.

This allows for

1) Greater communication from the administrator to the coaches
2) Frequent discussion and activity between coaches
3) The ability to still run the competition in the event of another FF downtime episode

[Purple 77]

Alrighty.

I've come to a slow realisation that there is a flaw in the salary cap.

Currently, the salary cap is determined by calculating the average cap per player, and multiplying that by the average list size to generate an average salary per team.

The average list size is calculated by taking a total count of all players, and dividing that by 18. In this year, that comes to 44.89.

However, in recent years, I've needed to pre-empt list sizes and advise what the number will be on list lodgment. Teams have thus prepared their list lodgements for 43 players, but are governed by a salary cap which assumes (in this years case) 44.89 players.

I've also observed the max cap is not having the desired amount of pressure on the top teams, in proportion to the lower teams.

I thus propose the calculation re-aligns to the assumption of 43 players as per list lodgement. The impact of this is as follows (based on Round 20 calculation of salary cap)

Before
   
AVERAGE PER PLAYER    225,043.32
PLAYERS   808
AVERAGE LIST SIZE   44.88888889
AVERAGE SALARY    $10,160,278
MAX    $10,700,000
MIN    $8,800,000

After
   
AVERAGE PER PLAYER    225,043.32
AVERAGE LIST SIZE   43
AVERAGE SALARY    $9,735,196
MAX    $10,300,000
MIN    $8,500,000


Resultant positions (inflated draft pick cap values not included)

WXV Club	Cap	Over Cap
Beijing Pandas	$8,662,000
Berlin Brewers	$8,721,000
Buenos Aires Armadillos	$10,595,000	$295,000
Cairo Sands	$9,228,000
Cape Town Cobras	$10,338,000	$38,000
Christchurch Saints	$9,071,000
Dublin Destroyers	$9,271,000
London Royals	$9,410,000
Mexico City Suns	$10,955,000	$655,000
New Delhi Tigers	$11,061,000	$761,000
New York Revolution	$10,083,000
Pacific Islanders	$10,515,000	$215,000
PNL Reindeers	$8,993,000
Rio de Janeiro Jaguars	$10,179,000
Rome Gladiators	$11,090,000	$790,000
Seoul Magpies	$10,480,000	$180,000
Tokyo Samurai	$10,033,000
Toronto Wolves	$10,581,000	$281,000

[Purple 77]

10 votes in.

A resounding result for :

3. Change WXV sub rule back to what it was
(i.e. AFL Starting Sub = WXV DNP, and any AFL player who doesn't participate in the second half = WXV DNP)
A) Yes 10
B) No - keep as is 0

[Purple 77]

12 votes in.

2. Week 2 of Rep Round to feature players 22 and under
(rucks to be 25 or younger, or increasing with age until both teams have eligible rucks)
A) Yes 10
B) No - keep as is 2

[Purple 77]

15 votes in

1. Ability to Update 2 Train-On Players during Rep-Rounds
A) Yes 10
B) No - keep as is 5

6. World Idol winner to receive 1 additional Home Game of their choosing
A) Yes 3
B) No - keep as is 12

7. Increase Flood/Attack Modifiers from +9%/-15% to +15%/-25%
A) Yes 10
B) No - keep as is 5

9. Introduce Mid-Season Training Programs
(void if rule #1 is successful)

[Purple 77]

17 votes in (Toronto remaining)


8. Increase Attack Bonus by an additional 3% per player
(would apply to whatever result is determined in rule #7)
A) Yes 6
B) No - keep as is 11

[Purple 77]

Given forum died, I'm giving everyone 24 more hours to suggest rules.

As it stands, no more rules are going up for a vote.

[Purple 77]

Alrighty.

I've come to a slow realisation that there is a flaw in the salary cap.

This will be happening btw, and not going up for a vote. This is just a platform to provide warning.

[Purple 77]

Alrighty.


First of all, rules are now locked in. No more are being put up for a vote.


Secondly, I don't have the exact wordings I used because it appears my sent messages are gone, but now have all 18 votes in.

5. Make list preference updates MANDATORY during rep rounds
A) Yes 8
B) No - keep as is 10 

6. Expand tagging to defenders/forwards
A) Yes 9.5 (my vote)
B) No - keep to mids 9


I'm patiently waiting for my inbox to be restored to see if there was a clear winner to sub-option to 6A.

[PowerBug]

I posted this yesterday but it got culled when monty decided that grand final Saturday was when it was best to make server changes

- - - -

Can we have a vote to get a gauge on the preference of where each coach thinks WXV should be held, between:
A. FanFooty
B. Another forum
C. Its own discord server

Not a binding vote, but perhaps one that can clear up the air and give Purps some confidence behind any decision that gets made