AXVS: FEEDBACK - VOTE / CHANGE IDEAS

[Adamant]

we will alos be discussing and voting on the approval process for trades next season.

I see 2 options same as last season.

by admin, or by majority of coaches votes.

i think best to add an appeals process - so if a trade is blocked under a majority vote system i see the best way to resolve it being an outside committee , likely the 3 other XVS admins.

and if i was to decide on a vote again and if blocked the coaches involves could appeal it OR a coach or multiple coaches outside of the trade could appeal it being passed and again it goes to the committee for review.

my only concern would be annoying the other admins by having them have to vote and decide on evry AXVS trade.

ANY IDEAS HERE NEED TO BE DISCUSSED AND PUT FORWARD AND THIS WILL BE VOTED ON .

amongst any other ideas for changes.

I'm sorry but l'm totally against the majority vote idea, in my opinion there's too much scope for voting to be affected by biases if we go down this path ........i.e. voting based on self-interest, or bias due to a team being percieved as strong enough already (especially if they come out slightly better in the trade in question), and l hate to say it but personalities can come into it too (if someone can be a bit annoying or rub people up the wrong way there's potential for their trades to be judged more harshly)

I believe Colli should have total say as to whether or not trades pass, I trust him totally and have always found him to be impartial and fair......."why change it if it aint broken?"

**however if we are to seriously consider going down the path of having a panel, l think it needs to be discussed as to the panels format and rules prior to any vote so we all have a clear idea of what (and who) we're actually voting for.**

Yep, 100% agree with nost here. Well said.

[BB67th]

Hey Colli I'm not sure if this has been discussed properly but what about the idea of home ground advantage in the finals (excluding the Grand Final).

The AFL has it and it rewards the teams who finish higher on the ladder.

I know I'm bit biased given my ladder position but I would be in favour of it.

l dont agree, lets look at the AFL....its a mish mash as to HGA during finals

*interstate teams get a massive HGA if they're placed higher on the ladder

*could anyone say Geelong get a HGA during finals, l think not

*what about teams who's home ground is Etihad hmmmmm, it depends on their crowd pulling capacity as to whether they're fixtured there or the MCG

l think we should just leave as it is in our comp - no points based HGA
                                                                   - but keep (as in line with the AFL) the advantage of the double chnce for top 4 teams

We al talk about keeping it in line with the AFL, well lets keep it that way

If we are keeping in line with the AFL though, then top teams play at home, which really does give some sort of HGA. I guess the reason there really should be HGA for finals is that it means that there is actually a difference between finishing 2nd and 3rd. Otherwise it doesn't matter which place you finish in, and I really think that higher ladder positions should be rewarded.

[nostradamus]

Hey Colli I'm not sure if this has been discussed properly but what about the idea of home ground advantage in the finals (excluding the Grand Final).

The AFL has it and it rewards the teams who finish higher on the ladder.

I know I'm bit biased given my ladder position but I would be in favour of it.

l dont agree, lets look at the AFL....its a mish mash as to HGA during finals

*interstate teams get a massive HGA if they're placed higher on the ladder

*could anyone say Geelong get a HGA during finals, l think not

*what about teams who's home ground is Etihad hmmmmm, it depends on their crowd pulling capacity as to whether they're fixtured there or the MCG

l think we should just leave as it is in our comp - no points based HGA
                                                                   - but keep (as in line with the AFL) the advantage of the double chnce for top 4 teams

We al talk about keeping it in line with the AFL, well lets keep it that way

If we are keeping in line with the AFL though, then top teams play at home, which really does give some sort of HGA. I guess the reason there really should be HGA for finals is that it means that there is actually a difference between finishing 2nd and 3rd. Otherwise it doesn't matter which place you finish in, and I really think that higher ladder positions should be rewarded.

as l stated above its not necessarily the case that the higher placing team plays at home in the AFL at all

*take for example Geelong playing a team that is based at the MCG or Etihad.......the game is never played at Skilled Stadium, where's the home ground advantage there??

[BB67th]

Hey Colli I'm not sure if this has been discussed properly but what about the idea of home ground advantage in the finals (excluding the Grand Final).

The AFL has it and it rewards the teams who finish higher on the ladder.

I know I'm bit biased given my ladder position but I would be in favour of it.

l dont agree, lets look at the AFL....its a mish mash as to HGA during finals

*interstate teams get a massive HGA if they're placed higher on the ladder

*could anyone say Geelong get a HGA during finals, l think not

*what about teams who's home ground is Etihad hmmmmm, it depends on their crowd pulling capacity as to whether they're fixtured there or the MCG

l think we should just leave as it is in our comp - no points based HGA
                                                                   - but keep (as in line with the AFL) the advantage of the double chnce for top 4 teams

We al talk about keeping it in line with the AFL, well lets keep it that way

If we are keeping in line with the AFL though, then top teams play at home, which really does give some sort of HGA. I guess the reason there really should be HGA for finals is that it means that there is actually a difference between finishing 2nd and 3rd. Otherwise it doesn't matter which place you finish in, and I really think that higher ladder positions should be rewarded.

as l stated above its not necessarily the case that the higher placing team plays at home in the AFL at all

*take for example Geelong playing a team that is based at the MCG or Etihad.......the game is never played at Skilled Stadium, where's the home ground advantage there??

Well that is for 1 team out of 18, you can't say that no one gets a HGA in AFL finals just because Geelong doesn't get to play at Kardinia.

The real reason for it imo is what I said before, so that you actually get an advantage from finishing 2nd over finishing 3rd on the ladder. Otherwise, why do ladder spots matter? As long as you make the top 4 then, it doesn't matter where you finish? Doesn't seem right to me.

[nostradamus]

Hey Colli I'm not sure if this has been discussed properly but what about the idea of home ground advantage in the finals (excluding the Grand Final).

The AFL has it and it rewards the teams who finish higher on the ladder.

I know I'm bit biased given my ladder position but I would be in favour of it.

l dont agree, lets look at the AFL....its a mish mash as to HGA during finals

*interstate teams get a massive HGA if they're placed higher on the ladder

*could anyone say Geelong get a HGA during finals, l think not

*what about teams who's home ground is Etihad hmmmmm, it depends on their crowd pulling capacity as to whether they're fixtured there or the MCG

l think we should just leave as it is in our comp - no points based HGA
                                                                   - but keep (as in line with the AFL) the advantage of the double chnce for top 4 teams

We al talk about keeping it in line with the AFL, well lets keep it that way

If we are keeping in line with the AFL though, then top teams play at home, which really does give some sort of HGA. I guess the reason there really should be HGA for finals is that it means that there is actually a difference between finishing 2nd and 3rd. Otherwise it doesn't matter which place you finish in, and I really think that higher ladder positions should be rewarded.

as l stated above its not necessarily the case that the higher placing team plays at home in the AFL at all

*take for example Geelong playing a team that is based at the MCG or Etihad.......the game is never played at Skilled Stadium, where's the home ground advantage there??

Well that is for 1 team out of 18, you can't say that no one gets a HGA in AFL finals just because Geelong doesn't get to play at Kardinia.

The real reason for it imo is what I said before, so that you actually get an advantage from finishing 2nd over finishing 3rd on the ladder. Otherwise, why do ladder spots matter? As long as you make the top 4 then, it doesn't matter where you finish? Doesn't seem right to me.

there's alot of other examples too, just cant be bothered going thru all the scenarios, but am sure you can work them out too

[Memphistopheles]

I had an idea last night and would be interested to know if anyone else thinks it's a good one.

Instead of having a mid-season trade period or being able to pick undrafted players up (how do you decide who gets who?) how about a mid-season player auction.

Just to liven things up a bit. It sounds a bit complicated but please read all the way to the end before commenting as I think it would work out fair. There are pros/cons for all teams involved.

Here's how I would envision it working.

At the start of the week (or perhaps during the week before) each coach advises Colli, or whoever is in charge of running the auction, of all the players that are undrafted that they are interested in.

Then at the start of the week a list is posted of all players who have had interest from at least one coach.

As for the auction itself - what do you bid with? You bid with national draft picks.

The first two rounds of the draft are set in stone. But, we could use our third and fourth round picks to bid with.

Obviously we won't know which teams have which picks yet but we can go off the positions of the ladder at the time of the auction.

So, for the purposes of the auction the Llamas third round picks would be worth more than the Eskimos which would be worht more than the Crocodiles and so on... We could then assign them 'virtual' picks based on this position.

So based on current ladder positions the 'virtual' picks each team would have are as follows:
LLamas: Picks 33 + 64
Eskimos: Picks 34 + 63
Crocodiles: Picks 35 + 62
Elephants: Picks 36 + 61
Crabs: Picks 37 + 60
Vipers: Picks 38 + 59
Tigers: Picks 39 + 58
Ales: Picks 40 + 57
Headhunters: Picks 41 + 56
Gazelles: Picks 42 + 55
Strikers: Picks 43 + 54
Dongs: Picks 44 + 53
Folders: Picks 45 + 52
Bears: Picks 46 + 51
Lambs: Picks 47 + 50
Dolphins: Picks 48 + 49

Then once we know picks the bids are placed and at the end of the week at a certain deadline if a team has the highest bid then they get that player and lose their pick (or it gets moved back in the draft order).

For example say the Dolphins wanted Blicavs. They bid for him with pick 48. If no other teams want him at the deadline they get him but lose pick 48 (or their third round pick) in the draft.

However, if another team - say the Headhunters also wanted Blicavs they could outbid the Dolphins with a higher pick (which in this case would be pick 41).

Once outbid the Dolphins then get their pick back and can use it to bid of another player or can choose not to use it.

Coaches DO NOT have to bid for players and I imagine most of the struggling teams won't as they have nothing to gain in a mid-season draft.

The teams who are battling to make the eight or the top four on the other hand would be more likely to want to try and get a player or two to bolster their team.

This in turn advantages the weaker teams or those who don't use a pick because they then move up in the national draft order.

For example if say eight clubs pick up players in the auction and the Llamas don't get involved their fourth round pick (pick 64) would now essentially be pick 56 which benefits them.

However, if there was a good youngster missed then the strugglers/teams going for youth could get involved in the draft.

Also as these are virtual picks, just because you have certain # pick in this draft it does not mean that's the pick you will get at the end of the season.

Let me explain. Lets say the Headhunters (virtual picks 41+56) decided not to get involved in the auction but the Ales do but only have to use up their fourth round pick (virtual pick 57) to get the player they want.

If the Ales then finish above the Headhunters when the real draft is done the draft order in the third round will go Headhunters (pick 40) then Ales (pick 41).

Of course this could be affected if teams below these two use up their picks.

I think it would well because there is a few elements of risk/uncertainty involved.

You can pick up a couple of players (two maximum I think unless otherwise voted on) to help you get that Top 4 or Top 8 spot or win the flag but the risk is that you miss out on two picks in the National draft.

I know this is not in line with the AFL but I really think we could do with something to invigorate the comp mid-season and I personally hate looking at all those wasted players sitting there.

If people are confused about this (it'sa lot of text) maybe we could run a mock draft this season to outline how it would work and then we could vote on whether it's a good idea or not afterwards?

[BB67th]

I don't think this is a great idea. Doesn't really seem to make a lot of sense why we need it in the first place? Too much involved with draft picks that could or could not happen, and it favours the teams down the bottom of the ladder too much. Also the national draft is not a snake draft so the picks listed above are wrong.

[nostradamus]

Memph l really admire the effort and thought you've put into your suggestion.....kudos to you mate. But l'm not in favour of a mid-season draft regardless of the format

[Nige]

I'm not in favour of mid-season anything, but I'm not a coach so I guess my opinion doesn't count for too much.

[Justin Bieber]

It would help ruckless teams get Nicholls, Blicavs and Fitzpatrick, but I would take them overa Nat pick any day of the week.

[Colliwobblers]

It would help ruckless teams get Nicholls, Blicavs and Fitzpatrick, but I would take them overa Nat pick any day of the week.

for this reason that there are only a few invaluable players available that everyone would want, it may be unfair to short cut the draft process with a mid season anything.

As it stands at the moment, unless traded, the lowest team will get nat pick #1 and also rookie pick #1 where they can rightfuly have first pick of these remaining players in the pool as well as players from the 2014 AFL preseason and rookie drafts.

to have a mid season draft just brings forward this process from the end of the season to mid season, as the same teams should win hte best players with their lowest picks.

I respect the idea but cannot support a mid season anything as it is not in keeping with the true AFL process.

however happy to have it voted on if enough coaches support the idea, but even if enough coaches do support i unfortunately cannot only for the reason that it is not real AFL like.

But credit for the idea and thinking behind it, however if a team is struggling mid season it can't fix it until post season in the AFL and even then it may take several seasons to fix it, this is as it should be.