AXVs: Official Discussion Thread

[upthemaidens]

Not sure how keeping your best 15 or delisting your worst 10 players fixes anything.

Drafts are fun

[Nige]

All these ideas of partial redrafts or finding new coaches don't really fix the main issues this competition has.

- The activity and atmosphere here makes Euros look like Worlds
- The administration, while doing the best they can (and you don't need to tell me about hard it is), doesn't help
- Some of the rules are beyond silly, like the team naming format and having both a submission and match centre thread
- The balance of teams in this comp is absolutely cooked
- There are about 6 coaches on the way out with basically no replacements

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see AXVs continue but not like this. If any of the proposed ideas so far come in to play, it's basically just prolonging the inevitable by keeping it on life support.

I think there are three coaches in this comp, not in other one on the for whatever reason, and one of them is as good as banned, so it really doesn't make a lot of sense to me as to why people are so opposed to this comp dying out.

I understand it's a sad and grim reality that this comp could and probably should die, but there's no easy way to pull the plug.

[Rids]

Personally I love the AXV comp and want it to continue. I am not concerned about the activity levels through the season at all. The AFL season is very long and usually kills enthusiasm by the bye rounds.

Last preseason the AXV comp was very active. All drafts were completed by mid January. There were 29 trades done in the first period last year and 4 in trade period 2. This was up from the year before where there was 26 in total. I love the scoring format for AXV where it makes the big forwards more relevant than they usually would be. I don't particularly care about what format I need to name the team in as it only takes a simple copy and paste with a couple of amendments week to week.

I have no idea why people are comparing AXV to other comps in regards to participation and activity. I understand everyone has their own thoughts and different enjoyment levels but for me I like the slower activity through the year as it means I do not have to be on fanfooty anywhere near as much as I am in the off season. I personally could not think of anything worse than a WXV comp where I would need to be active 24/7. Again, I am not saying that is a bad thing at all but it really is an each to their own thing and what individuals like.

Nostra and I finally have a team that won a premiership last year in the Crabs (first one for AXV) and would be very disappointed to have spent many years developing this list to start again. We took on a struggling Grope Lane team in BXV and have done a rebuild there to the point that Grope Lane have played finals for the very first time this year. We handed in our AXVIII DT and EXV teams because we found we could not commit fully to all 4 time wise.

How to improve AXV participation and activity.

1. AXV is the comp of choice for us but it needs to be administered better. This is very difficult to do unless someone has a heap of free time.

2. AXV needs to have a much better trade approval process. It cannot come down to the admin's opinion of a player or a popularity contest. It is counter productive to be rejecting too many trades as it kills the activity and participation levels for the comp. Sometimes there is a chain of 50 messages to finally sort out a trade to have it rejected because the admin does not rate one of the players involved. There was even an instance last year where the Crabs were told they gave away Hugh Greenwood in a trade for not enough. We cannot have it both ways. If the top teams lose the odd trade or 2 then it should make other teams more competitive.

3. Maybe the addition of UF also has lowered activity here. People are no longer providing score updates through the weekend as was previously done. This means that people really just use UF to see a score update and don't even need to log in here (I know I have been doing this myself). We need to prob look at that moving fwd.

I don't mind in the least if we do a redraft but I do think it is important that coaches get to hold a number of the players from their current team (prob 15 is the right number). I am all for trying to level up the comp. The bottom teams though need a lot of work but that is fine. We did it in BXV and with Grope Lane and it is a lot of fun doing a proper rebuild in a keeper league.

[Nige]

Don't mind me, but I really need to break down the post above, because there's a few issues with it. I think it's the kind of healthy discussion we need here, don't take it as being vitriolic, I just need to highlight some things.



First and foremost, if anyone wants a tl;dr of Rids' post, it basically reads: "I love AXVs, I love my team, I want to keep things as they are."

There's nothing wrong with that really, I can understand why Rids would say that, and others for that matter too.

However, there is this little bit:

I don't mind in the least if we do a redraft but I do think it is important that coaches get to hold a number of the players from their current team (prob 15 is the right number). I am all for trying to level up the comp.

I can't be alone in thinking that Bangkok has the best XV (most well rounded) in the comp right now. It explains why they're in the grand final and could very well go back to back.

Someone has to explain to me, what does keeping 15 players do? Keeping intact your best XV? In the case of Bangkok, who have a strong XV, this is massive for them. It certainly won't help level the comp imo. Potentially, every team keeps their best XV and just reshuffles and redistributes their depth. That doesn't make much of a difference.



Another issue is highlighted by this:

I love the scoring format for AXV where it makes the big forwards more relevant than they usually would be.

Apart from the top defenders (guys like Yeo etc), the rest of the defenders are a level playing field and almost worthless, they all score roughly the same. It's one of the issues with the scoring system imo. If say, 10 defenders have value, and the rest are a dime a dozen. BXVs had a similar issue, identified it and at least found a way to fix that.

2. AXV needs to have a much better trade approval process. It cannot come down to the admin's opinion of a player or a popularity contest. It is counter productive to be rejecting too many trades as it kills the activity and participation levels for the comp. Sometimes there is a chain of 50 messages to finally sort out a trade to have it rejected because the admin does not rate one of the players involved. There was even an instance last year where the Crabs were told they gave away Hugh Greenwood in a trade for not enough. We cannot have it both ways. If the top teams lose the odd trade or 2 then it should make other teams more competitive.

Maybe I'm wrong or out of line, but I sense there's a bit of sour grapes about this part. The Hugh Greenwood trade wasn't nearly as bad as the Swallow + Atley for Bowes + Dunkley trade. Two of the best young players the Dongs had for a guy who isn't even named in the grand final team for Bangkok because of their depth and Atley, who is garbage and irrelevant in both fantasy and irl. Can you imagine if this trade got passed? Dunkley's been their best player with a 124 average, that's great. Certainly wouldn't have helped Hong Kong to lose him, so thankfully they didn't.



Anyway, Rids was well within his right to say what he did and admire the passion he has, but there's a few lines of thinking there that are shared between a few coaches here and it's not really helpful for a comp already on its knees waiting for the death blow.

[iZander]

Don't mind me, but I really need to break down the post above, because there's a few issues with it. I think it's the kind of healthy discussion we need here, don't take it as being vitriolic, I just need to highlight some things.



First and foremost, if anyone wants a tl;dr of Rids' post, it basically reads: "I love AXVs, I love my team, I want to keep things as they are."

There's nothing wrong with that really, I can understand why Rids would say that, and others for that matter too.

However, there is this little bit:

I don't mind in the least if we do a redraft but I do think it is important that coaches get to hold a number of the players from their current team (prob 15 is the right number). I am all for trying to level up the comp.

I can't be alone in thinking that Bangkok has the best XV (most well rounded) in the comp right now. It explains why they're in the grand final and could very well go back to back.

Someone has to explain to me, what does keeping 15 players do? Keeping intact your best XV? In the case of Bangkok, who have a strong XV, this is massive for them. It certainly won't help level the comp imo. Potentially, every team keeps their best XV and just reshuffles and redistributes their depth. That doesn't make much of a difference.



Another issue is highlighted by this:

I love the scoring format for AXV where it makes the big forwards more relevant than they usually would be.

Apart from the top defenders (guys like Yeo etc), the rest of the defenders are a level playing field and almost worthless, they all score roughly the same. It's one of the issues with the scoring system imo. If say, 10 defenders have value, and the rest are a dime a dozen. BXVs had a similar issue, identified it and at least found a way to fix that.

2. AXV needs to have a much better trade approval process. It cannot come down to the admin's opinion of a player or a popularity contest. It is counter productive to be rejecting too many trades as it kills the activity and participation levels for the comp. Sometimes there is a chain of 50 messages to finally sort out a trade to have it rejected because the admin does not rate one of the players involved. There was even an instance last year where the Crabs were told they gave away Hugh Greenwood in a trade for not enough. We cannot have it both ways. If the top teams lose the odd trade or 2 then it should make other teams more competitive.

Maybe I'm wrong or out of line, but I sense there's a bit of sour grapes about this part. The Hugh Greenwood trade wasn't nearly as bad as the Swallow + Atley for Bowes + Dunkley trade. Two of the best young players the Dongs had for a guy who isn't even named in the grand final team for Bangkok because of their depth and Atley, who is garbage and irrelevant in both fantasy and irl. Can you imagine if this trade got passed? Dunkley's been their best player with a 124 average, that's great. Certainly wouldn't have helped Hong Kong to lose him, so thankfully they didn't.



Anyway, Rids was well within his right to say what he did and admire the passion he has, but there's a few lines of thinking there that are shared between a few coaches here and it's not really helpful for a comp already on its knees waiting for the death blow.

Yeah i +1 this :P

The scoring system is something i dislike obviously thats just an opinion of mine but tbh i think it needs to be changed or defenders need something added (like +2 for rebound 50s or +2 for spoils, or tbh both) otherwise all defenders are worthless basically, just like nige said :P

Nas did a great job last year when ruling on trades, and the fact it took 50 messages was just his hesitation of rejecting a clearly terrible trade for the competition. Made the right decision in the end, i dont see what the problem is there.

Yeah exchanging depth isnt going to fix the problem but theres nothing new there, suggestion have been made for a while to even up the comp but they are all shut down. Which i completely understand, im not sure id want to part with a great team that i had made either, so theres nothing wrong with that at all.

I also just wanna thank Nas for doing a great job with admining this comp, i think ur doing a great job but unfortunately this was probably going to happen to AXV anyway :/

[Rids]

I think the points I was making have either been missed or not explained well enough. I will do point by point by post to give further thoughts.

Keeping 15 players

This keeps the coaches that have been drafting and trading for years to keep some of what they have already created (good or bad). People should be held accountable for poor teams if they went hard for older guys to win Premierships early while others should not lose the foundation of their squad if they took another strategy and went young to create contenders from around now. It should be highlighted that it isn't just the Crabs who have taken this strategy. There are other teams that are now contending due to how coaches have drafted and traded.

The other thing that happens here is that 30 players are released into a pool of players. The lower teams 30 players won't be as good in quality as the 30 guys released by the better teams eg: we will be delisting guys like Cotchin etc that would no doubt strengthen the lower teams. My problem though is that these guys who would make teams much more competitive would be overlooked by young kids who still have 3 to 5 years before they become decent.

Greenwood Trade

The point being made here is that the admin asked us at the time if we wanted more for Greenwood and we said no. We were happy to take unders as we were having massive trouble with making any trades. Making the lesser team pay more to level out the trade in this instance was not required yet it happened.

I never referenced the Dunkley rejected trade and won't. At the time we were not impressed with the decision but we moved on. The decision was final after all. Discussion was had at the time and it was obvious that it was a majority decision. We have not mentioned it since and won't be moving forward. I could easily highlight other approved trades that are now awful with hindsight but once again, it isn't in the best interest of the comp to do so.

50 messages to finally land a trade to get it rejected

This had nothing to do with the approval process. This had everything to do with sending many many message between coaches to finally agree to a trade to have it rejected due to the opinion of an admin or whoever that is subjective depending on what people look at. It does kill the enthusiasm to go through trade discussions the next time after getting rejections. We should try and find a more transparent way for this process.

Scoring format

The scoring format was one of the first things I loved about this comp. It meant there was a point of difference between AXV and the other XV comps. I never mentioned whether more scoring could or should be added (which could be up for further discussion). But was just stating why I loved the idea of 12 point goals.

I am all for discussion and will partake always. The fact of the matter is that people are being way too negative about a fantasy footy keeper league. If individuals are not having fun then they need to make a decision to either leave or to attempt to increase their enjoyment levels by participation etc.

[BB67th]

I have sent out a pm to all our coaches last night to get everyone's thoughts on the future of the competition. So far I've had a few positive responses, and at this stage I believe we will definitely have enough interest to continue the competition in the future in some format.

One more thing I should add is if anyone is interested in joining in with the running of the competition in the future in some capacity, or has weekly features they would like to run, please let us know.

Meanwhile, we have a grand final on at the moment! I'll be doing a score update in the match centre thread shortly.

[upthemaidens]

I think we need to get some sort of bail/commitment ratio from the three guys who are unsure.

Do they want to be involved in the change process or should we look to make it 10 coaches who can agree on a path to progress?

^This^   Coaches who are leaving shouldn't have an input in any future changes.

[Football Factory]

I think we need to get some sort of bail/commitment ratio from the three guys who are unsure.

Do they want to be involved in the change process or should we look to make it 10 coaches who can agree on a path to progress?

^This^   Coaches who are leaving shouldn't have an input in any future changes.

+1

I know (Peter - McBasketball) would like to join .. he's been in FF Bluddy Good for years. He doesn't post massive amounts but is keen to join and then i think he would be more active on the site.

[upthemaidens]

I think we need to get some sort of bail/commitment ratio from the three guys who are unsure.

Do they want to be involved in the change process or should we look to make it 10 coaches who can agree on a path to progress?

^This^   Coaches who are leaving shouldn't have an input in any future changes.

+1

I know (Peter - McBasketball) would like to join .. he's been in FF Bluddy Good for years. He doesn't post massive amounts but is keen to join and then i think he would be more active on the site.

That's it, once we know there are 11 coaches keen to stay.  Advertise and see how many we can get.  If ends up being a 14 club comp, then so be it.
   Even a Coach from one Club can be a caretaker of another Club until a new Coach is found.  There are many ways to solve a problem.

[Football Factory]

I think we need to get some sort of bail/commitment ratio from the three guys who are unsure.

Do they want to be involved in the change process or should we look to make it 10 coaches who can agree on a path to progress?

^This^   Coaches who are leaving shouldn't have an input in any future changes.

+1

I know (Peter - McBasketball) would like to join .. he's been in FF Bluddy Good for years. He doesn't post massive amounts but is keen to join and then i think he would be more active on the site.

That's it, once we know there are 11 coaches keen to stay.  Advertise and see how many we can get.  If ends up being a 14 club comp, then so be it.
   Even a Coach from one Club can be a caretaker of another Club until a new Coach is found.  There are many ways to solve a problem.

Yep ... i am willing to take on another team, obviously i wouldn't be able to trade between my own teams but that's fine, no issue for me.

In terms of trying to even up the comp ..maybe top 4 don't get a first round pick in the draft ?

[upthemaidens]

I think we need to get some sort of bail/commitment ratio from the three guys who are unsure.

Do they want to be involved in the change process or should we look to make it 10 coaches who can agree on a path to progress?

^This^   Coaches who are leaving shouldn't have an input in any future changes.

+1

I know (Peter - McBasketball) would like to join .. he's been in FF Bluddy Good for years. He doesn't post massive amounts but is keen to join and then i think he would be more active on the site.

That's it, once we know there are 11 coaches keen to stay.  Advertise and see how many we can get.  If ends up being a 14 club comp, then so be it.
   Even a Coach from one Club can be a caretaker of another Club until a new Coach is found.  There are many ways to solve a problem.

Yep ... i am willing to take on another team, obviously i wouldn't be able to trade between my own teams but that's fine, no issue for me.

In terms of trying to even up the comp ..maybe top 4 don't get a first round pick in the draft ?

I thought about the no trading with yourself thing.  As long as you make the trade known and allow it to be bettered.
    Also if it's a fair trade, there shouldn't be a real issue.  Let's cross that river if we get to it.


If every Club de-lists 10 contracted players that go into a draft.  Whether we hold it before or after the Nat draft.
  The weaker teams will pick up some decent players out of it and we all get to do a draft.
On top of getting better draft picks, another reward for a poor performance.  ;) 

[Rids]

I 100% agree. The coaches thinking about giving up their teams need to make up their minds so we can move on.

My suggestion is we first look for replacement coaches then have a discussion if we cannot find enough in regards to lowering the teams involved in the comp. Would be nice to get a decision and move on to trading and draft planning etc.

[Nige]

I simply cannot fathom how you all think of those ideas are good.

First of all, having two teams might just one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. A coach of a current club can't possibly be 'caretaker' of another, that's a conflict of interest no matter how you look at it, and if you think otherwise, I have no idea what to say.

The fact is that forum activity and interest in these comps has dipped dramatically, only Worlds had any form of demand to join because it's an attractive competition to join for a multitude of reasons, whereas this comp more issues that you can count, starting with some incumbent coaches thinking two teams per coach is actually something worth considering.

As mentioned previously, delisting 10 players each does nothing for equalisation. Most clubs won't suffer because they'll keep their best players and delist their worst 10, therefore you're just shuffling depth which does nothing.

Hong Kong is one of the most broken sides in the history of XVs, you can't salvage it with any other method other than a redraft, but a lot of current coaches wouldn't want to ruin their sides, hence wanting to only do a partial redraft that only fulfils a desire to have another draft, not to actually even out the comp.

I'm still waiting for someone to present a reasonable idea that will fix this comp and make it enjoyable, but I and many other interested onlookers have yet to see even one.

[Rids]

Who knows if Hong Kong gets a new coach or not. We will never find this out until there is a decision made and the team is advertised to see if a new coach is willing to take on the team. After that we can then vote as a league as to what measures can be given to the new coach to assist them in quickening up the rebuild. There are plenty of options. Maybe we give them the first 3 picks of the draft but make them trade them ala a mini draft from a few years ago in the AFL that saw Hogan go to Melb and Crouch to Crows etc. Or maybe, Hong Kong is one of the teams that gets dismantled. Whatever does get decided needs to be done by a league vote that includes only participating coaches moving forward.

If people are not enjoying the comp then fair play and they should leave. The whole idea of keeper leagues is enjoyment after all. But to hold up the league is not the right answer. Especially when trading and drafting periods are coming up. It should not be up to the other coaches to convince others to stay. Time to at least get confirmation of coaches intending to partake in 2019 and then to start finding replacements for the ones that leave.