World 15 Discussion

[Purple 77]

Just thinking out loud here, if the points cap was 30,000, and teams were over it, they would have to

a) get under the cap then stop

and/or

b) get rid of say, 2,500 points minimum

This means, that if Mexico get 35,000, they would only have to go to 32, 500.

And if the next year they get 32,000, they would have to reduce to 30,000 (i.e. the cap), so it eventually gets their team under the cap, instead of one brutal clean out in the case of Mexico and potentially 1 or two others.

So maybe the rule should be get under the cap OR have the net reduction of a cap be 2,500 (can be another number).

Just a thought.

[Toga]

IMO that's a good idea Purps, nice one!

[My Chumps]

Yeah excellent point Purps. I like it!


Been reading on with interest! Haven't formulated my own opinion on the matter as of yet though :P

[ossie85]

Good point also...

makes me think whether we should have a minimum cap also?

[My Chumps]

Good point also...

makes me think whether we should have a minimum cap also?

How to apply it though? Concession picks? Or maybe even free agency signings that have been previously outlined?

[ossie85]

Good point also...

makes me think whether we should have a minimum cap also?

How to apply it though? Concession picks? Or maybe even free agency signings that have been previously outlined?

Or a ban on trading players away (net anway --> so you can trade players if you get more points in return) if they are under a certain amount of points?

[Maca24]

Yeah there's no way I could strip 5000 from my hard earned team.
That's like Sidey, Hurn, Maric. :/

[My Chumps]

Good point also...

makes me think whether we should have a minimum cap also?

How to apply it though? Concession picks? Or maybe even free agency signings that have been previously outlined?

Or a ban on trading players away (net anway --> so you can trade players if you get more points in return) if they are under a certain amount of points?

Hmmmm, don't know about that. Like I'm sure we all want these teams to be competitive, but if for instance Beijing traded Cape Town Daniel Kerr, and in return I gave them my first pick (#15 or whatever) I think we'd all see this as a positive for the Thunder as they're gaining a potentially good young player who'll help them develop in the future, and ditching an older guy who can still score okay.

I was thinking the free agency thing; teams nominate their 18 or 20 most important players and if a team is under that cap they're allowed to take 2 players from teams of their choosing that are outside the 18 or 20 most important... if that made sense :P
I dunno if teams would be too keen on it though. I'm sure Maca and CF will hate it :P

[Ringo]

Good point also...

makes me think whether we should have a minimum cap also?

How to apply it though? Concession picks? Or maybe even free agency signings that have been previously outlined?

Or a ban on trading players away (net anway --> so you can trade players if you get more points in return) if they are under a certain amount of points?

Hmmmm, don't know about that. Like I'm sure we all want these teams to be competitive, but if for instance Beijing traded Cape Town Daniel Kerr, and in return I gave them my first pick (#15 or whatever) I think we'd all see this as a positive for the Thunder as they're gaining a potentially good young player who'll help them develop in the future, and ditching an older guy who can still score okay.

I was thinking the free agency thing; teams nominate their 18 or 20 most important players and if a team is under that cap they're allowed to take 2 players from teams of their choosing that are outside the 18 or 20 most important... if that made sense :P
I dunno if teams would be too keen on it though. I'm sure Maca and CF will hate it :P

Like this idea My Chumps and has a lot of merit and should be worked on.

We currently have 46 players in our squads Maybe coaches list their best 22 and the remaining 24 are listed as free agents.  Then say teams finishing 15 - 18 are allowed 2 choices from free agents and Teams 11- 14 1 choice from the free agents list. This would be optional  and compensation picks for teams giving up free agents would need to be worked out.

[Nails]

Am I the only one who doesn't have a big issue against teams not being competitive?

Sure it's sad that they're not, but do they have future development stars? I haven't really looked at their team

Like right now Melbourne/GWS/WBD/Saints (and maybe even Lions) aren't competitive in the real AFL. I don't think we need every team to be competing for a top 8-10 spot every single season.

Seems like it'd take a bit of the competitive nature out of it if we're enabling the shower teams to be good and disabling the best teams to be great. Just like real AFL I think there should be some teams that are clearly the best (Geelong, Hawthorn) and some teams that are a mile off the pace

In the aim to create a competition where all teams are competitive and competing regularly will we be destroying the overall competition itself and actually making it unfair for other teams in the long run?

Suns/Pumas/Dillos won't be top 3 forever, our best players will retire one day.

[JBs-Hawks]

Yea but the AFL has salary cap to try and even it out, points cap is worlds way of evening it out,

[Nails]

Yeah Worlds currently has a salary cap though.

The Suns had to weaken their team in the off season we just had to stick to it. Not all teams are at the max salary cap in fact a lot aren't. It's like we're trying to lower the salary cap so a lot of teams can improve by doing nothing in comparison to those who have to weaken their teams.

[Toga]

An idea I thought might be cool for free agents would be like the # of WXV games a player plays might determine their free agent status... Like Oz pointed out, some players that would easily make Best XV's elsewhere aren't getting games, so like in the real AFL, like Chris Knights or someone, they use free agency to get greater opportunity. And for restricted free agents (players that play X amount of senior games), maybe Oz or a committee chooses a player from the recipient side of the free agency as 'compensation'... Someone not quite as good maybe, but compensation all the same..?

[Nails]

Perhaps after 1-2 seasons if a player hasn't got enough games they become a restricted agent

Let's say if they haven't got 9 games (or whatever number) after 1 season they become a restricted free agent

Then any team can offer draft pick x to steal him from that team. That team can then beat that offer by offering their draft pick in the same round.

Like say GAJ only played 9 games, I could offer our 2nd round draft pick for him but then GAJ's owner then can offer up their equivalent draft pick. Then whoever gets the RFA loses their draft pick. Perhaps the GAJ owning team gets the pick as compensation? IDK.

[nrich102]

Perhaps after 1-2 seasons if a player hasn't got enough games they become a restricted agent

Let's say if they haven't got 9 games (or whatever number) after 1 season they become a restricted free agent

Then any team can offer draft pick x to steal him from that team. That team can then beat that offer by offering their draft pick in the same round.

Like say GAJ only played 9 games, I could offer our 2nd round draft pick for him but then GAJ's owner then can offer up their equivalent draft pick. Then whoever gets the RFA loses their draft pick. Perhaps the GAJ owning team gets the pick as compensation? IDK.

So like bidding?