World 15 Discussion

[AFEV]

instead of more mids why not more utilities?

A few people keep calling them utilities - but they aren't, they are benchies :P

I think 2 should be the max there really (is a bit of a cheat as it is)

Perhaps we could just re-purpose the 'utilities' as mids then?
Definitely all for having different structures we can elect to use each week for.

Reducing the points cap seems OK, it's quote clear there are a few teams with far too much depth. It's not really about punishing franchises for building good teams, it's to stop premium players ending up on the sidelines while bottom feeders struggle to even get 15 guys playing each week...

[Justin Bieber]

On the cap, think we need to wait until end of the season to see how big the gap is between the top and bottom. Halfway through the season, so alot can happen and can adjust the cap to try and even up competition at that time.

3D-5M-1R-4F-2I
Or
4D-5M-1R-3F-2I

I like the sound of the above. Most people use midfielders on the bench anyway and sometimes struggle for Forwards/Defenders to field. Think it's the right call to let them see which of the two they can field 4 players for. Only thing that bugs me about 3 Bench spots is that if people load up on mids and play half of their team with midfielders to masximise points, so got to try and keep it sort of realistic to real-life (in that there are more midfielders, but still need the other positions).

[JBs-Hawks]

Not fussed on format but s big fan of a points cap reduction. Tighten that salary cap and give the lesser teams a bit more bargaining power come trade time.

[ossie85]

On the cap, think we need to wait until end of the season to see how big the gap is between the top and bottom. Halfway through the season, so alot can happen and can adjust the cap to try and even up competition at that time.

That gave me an interesting thought... How about we set the cap at the total points the 5th highest team scored?

Example:

1st. 36,000
2nd. 34,000
3rd. 33,500
4th. 32,000
5th. 31,675

As 5th scored 31,675 --> thats the level that teams have to match?

Just thinking out loud...

[Nails]

The main reason Buenos Aires aren't near the cap is due to injuries to a lot of our best players

Chapman, Carrazzo, Boomer Harvey suspension and a lot more

We'd have a lot more total points if we weren't destroyed by injuries to our best players. Biggest issue I have with the points reduction is its ability to kill some trades I might like to do

like Trading Dane Swan > Two decent low level premiums who cost me more in the salary cap could put me move. i.e. it'd hurt my star out > young kids future development plans.

[ossie85]

like Trading Dane Swan > Two decent low level premiums who cost me more in the salary cap could put me move. i.e. it'd hurt my star out > young kids future development plans.

I disagree Nails, that would hurt your 'trade star out for two established players' plans. But if you are trading out 1 premium to 2 premiums (no matter how good the first premium) than that is really a trade I'd like to think is rejected.

Anyway, you are in a position to increase your cap (particularly if Boomer + others retire, reducing the points you scored).

[Ringo]

On the cap, think we need to wait until end of the season to see how big the gap is between the top and bottom. Halfway through the season, so alot can happen and can adjust the cap to try and even up competition at that time.

That gave me an interesting thought... How about we set the cap at the total points the 5th highest team scored?

Example:

1st. 36,000
2nd. 34,000
3rd. 33,500
4th. 32,000
5th. 31,675

As 5th scored 31,675 --> thats the level that teams have to match?

Just thinking out loud...

Like this one Oss but I would make it 6th place rather than 5th.  Know it is only one more position but think it may even the playing field. Top 4/5 teams may have to relinquish players giving lower placed teams a chance to build.

Thinking out loud and not sure whether this would work or not.
Clubs exceeding Cap must delist players to achieve Cap.
Teams with less then 4 wins say get priority picks from de-listed players.
Only issue may be the quality of delisted players so maybe we can work out some system where a quality player is to be delisted by clubs exceeding cap. Whether we categorize players into Levels and state a Level1/2 player must be delisted. Will assist those clubs who are not very good traders.
As I said thinking out loud and not sure if will work.

[Maca24]

I don't mind the points cap deduction provided trading is still free reign.
I dislike the structure change, teams will stack midfielders and win flags as a result.
Plus a team low on mids like mine will suffer.

[ossie85]

I don't mind the points cap deduction provided trading is still free reign.
I dislike the structure change, teams will stack midfielders and win flags as a result.
Plus a team low on mids like mine will suffer.

I'm against stacking of midfielders also, but with champion data classifying more and more midfielders, and less forward/defenders, it is getting pretty thin to spread across.

i.e in Round 10, there were 136 defenders that played, 168 mids, 114 forwards and 33 rucks.

[Maca24]

My team will struggle to field six midfielders, but I could field 8 forwards haha.

[nrich102]

I don't get the points cap thing. Is it saying that teams aren't allowed to be good? I don't get it. I think teams should be focusing on scoring lots of points, not scoring a couple. imo it is unfair to take players out of the good teams. It is the teams who aren't going well's fault for drafting badly.

[ossie85]

I don't get the points cap thing. Is it saying that teams aren't allowed to be good? I don't get it. I think teams should be focusing on scoring lots of points, not scoring a couple. imo it is unfair to take players out of the good teams. It is the teams who aren't going well's fault for drafting badly.

If you have the best 15 players in the comp and no reserves, you'll be fine with the cap. It's about depth, not talent. All caps are inherent unfair (why can't Collingwood pay its players more? The fault of other clubs for not winning more and making more money) opoints are as good an indication of salary that we are going to get

[Toga]

I know it's obvious why, but I'm in favour of a bit of a reduction in the points cap... Why? Because it's hard looking at lots of the top teams putting up mammoth reserves scores, and then looking at us, who don't even have 15 players to play with this week. :-\

This would go along way in evening the playing field, which would be good for the competition.

As for the positional changes I do agree with you Oz in that CD have started to classify more and more as midfielders so logically you'd think we'll have to do the same... Not a huge deal if it doesn't change though. :)

[nrich102]

I don't get the points cap thing. Is it saying that teams aren't allowed to be good? I don't get it. I think teams should be focusing on scoring lots of points, not scoring a couple. imo it is unfair to take players out of the good teams. It is the teams who aren't going well's fault for drafting badly.

If you have the best 15 players in the comp and no reserves, you'll be fine with the cap. It's about depth, not talent. All caps are inherent unfair (why can't Collingwood pay its players more? The fault of other clubs for not winning more and making more money) opoints are as good an indication of salary that we are going to get

Then whats the point a reserves comp? :P

I guess it is a good idea if we want the bottom teams to get better. Yeah, I think we should lower it a bit.

[Maca24]

I get what Nrich is saying, I traded and drafted to get into this position while others didn't. Kind of sucks that I get penalized for that but I can deal with that provided the trading doesn't disadvantage the smarter coaches who get good deals.
Plus it will encourage me to make my team younger. Haha.