WXV Discussion

[GoLions]

I guess my point is that these leftover players, which could easily go to a bottom team the next year and help them out, can instead go to a top team who doesn't really need them.

For any British team struggling in defence, we currently have a few guys like Ruggles, Collins, and Dea who would be reasonable depth, and even starters for a few teams. So if any of the bottom 3-4 teams need a defender, theybasically have an instant fix. And if they don't, their rookie pick has decent value for anyone above them needing a defender.

Hopefully I remember to bring it up again in September ahaha

[Holz]

I think we're the perfect example

We are 4th for overall points scored, but currently sit 8th on the ladder

To be honest, I think that's a fair reflection of the year we've had. Yes when we're on we're on and can score well, but we still have plenty of stinkers and when we do teams that would be seen to be below us have beaten us and got the points

That being said, I don't think we should be 4th on the ladder at all because we have been poor on many occasions, so I guess this is an argument to leave things as is based on %

You can score all you like, but you have to beat who is put in front of you each week and do it enough to qualify for finals

I dont think anyone is saying it should go on points scored. Of course winning games is more important.

If it was done on Points scored then you would not be 4th, you would be 6th which i think is fair reflection of a team that is inconsistent but the 4th highest scoring.

in fact the only changes in the 8 would be

New York Revolution 8th to 6th
New Delhi Tigers 6th to 7th
Beijing Thunder 7th to 8th

no change to the finals.

so really if the season ended now you get to play NDT at home opposed to Seoul in Korea.

[RaisyDaisy]

How would we be 6th and not 4th?

Our points scored for the year is 2260, only behind Mexico, Dublin and Rio

And of course someone has said it should go on points scored (upthemaidens) - well at least raised the question. If not, we wouldn't even be talking about this lol

[Holz]

How would we be 6th and not 4th?

Our points scored for the year is 2260, only behind Mexico, Dublin and Rio

because im suggesting and im pretty much everyone else is not to say just do the ladder by points scored. Keep the system as it is hence wins and losses then instead of %, use points for.

You have won less games then 4th and 5th, so it doesn't matter that you have scored more points.

[Purple 77]

Brits have less teams I think

Yes, but reducing team list sizes by 1 could easily fix that. Also, I'm not sure if the Essendon saga has anything to do with it, but checking our list size against Berlin's, seems like we have 2 extra players?

Yeah you got Essendon top-ups which increased your overall list size temporarily. You also had one extra player in the leftover rounds in the rookie draft.

Lets take the players from the "leftover" rookie rounds, then introduce the next last 18 picks of the rookie draft:

29. Moscow - Alex Keath
30. Berlin - Daniel Talia
31. PNL - Paul Hunter
32. Rio de Janeiro - Lachlan Keeffe
33. New Delhi - Dallas Willsmore
34. Buenos Aires - Matt Spangher
35. Cairo - Dougal Howard
36. Tokyo - Liam Jones
37. New York - Todd Elton
38. PNL - Cameron Loersch
39. Mexico City - Nicholas Coughlan
40. New Delhi - Jordan Foote
41. PNL - Ryan Nyhuis
42. Dublin - Ryan Gardner
43. Mexico City - Sam Shaw
44. Dublin - Kyle Galloway
45. Mexico City - Matt Korcheck
46. Dublin - Luke Surman
47. New Delhi - Zac Webster
48. Buenos Aires - Shem-Kalvin Tatupu
49. Cairo - Paul Stewart
50. Rio de Janeiro - Tom Derickx
51. Beijing - Xavier Richards
52. London - Zachary Bates
53. Seoul - Kaiden Brand
54. Cape Town - Padraig Lucey
55. Tokyo - Steven Morris
56. Toronto - Jake Long
57. New York - Jackson Paine
58. Pacific - Tom Read
59. Moscow - Cameron Delaney
60. Berlin - Malcolm Karpany
61. PNL - Jermaine Miller-Lewis
62. Christchurch - Alex Silvagni
63. Dublin - Luke Delaney
64. Mexico City - Lewis Melican
65. New Delhi - Michael Jamison
66. Buenos Aires - Zac Dawson
67. Cairo - Dale Morris
68. Rio de Janeiro - Sean Hurley

There is literally ONE player that would be of some value in that entire list. I'm not sure that's an easy fix.

[Purple 77]

Having 16 teams instead of 18 widens the talent pool immensely, and it makes sense to not draft every player as it would make list sizes almost unmanageable and unrealistic. So that leads itself to having quality develop from that pool.

Having 18 teams doesn't allow any talent to slip through the cracks, so why not make every team draft every player and increase your team depth? From that list, I can see a handful of players that was called on to play for their team... I'd much prefer them to use those players instead of no one; making them less competitive  :-\

[Holz]

Having 16 teams instead of 18 widens the talent pool immensely, and it makes sense to not draft every player as it would make list sizes almost unmanageable and unrealistic. So that leads itself to having quality develop from that pool.

Having 18 teams doesn't allow any talent to slip through the cracks, so why not make every team draft every player and increase your team depth? From that list, I can see a handful of players that was called on to play for their team... I'd much prefer them to use those players instead of no one; making them less competitive  :-\

Agreed 18 draft everyone.

16 or less let people slip.

Euro with 14 teams gives us very very good rookie drafts.

[RaisyDaisy]

How would we be 6th and not 4th?

Our points scored for the year is 2260, only behind Mexico, Dublin and Rio

because im suggesting and im pretty much everyone else is not to say just do the ladder by points scored. Keep the system as it is hence wins and losses then instead of %, use points for.

You have won less games then 4th and 5th, so it doesn't matter that you have scored more points.

Ah I'm with you now - thought the discussion was about replacing % with points scored, but replacing % with points scored with wins and losses like you say makes more sense

[upthemaidens]

How would we be 6th and not 4th?

Our points scored for the year is 2260, only behind Mexico, Dublin and Rio

because im suggesting and im pretty much everyone else is not to say just do the ladder by points scored. Keep the system as it is hence wins and losses then instead of %, use points for.

You have won less games then 4th and 5th, so it doesn't matter that you have scored more points.

Ah I'm with you now - thought the discussion was about replacing % with points scored, but replacing % with points scored with wins and losses like you say makes more sense

Yeah I wasn't suggesting taking away wins and loses, just replacing percentage with points scored.

[RaisyDaisy]

I'm all for it

[Torpedo10]

I'm all for it

[Levi434]

WXV > AFL



In regards to the percentage discussion I had a few ideas:

Option 1:
- Since every team plays each other once guaranteed every year.
- So lets say Beijing and New York both finish on 10-7.
- The winner of their regular season match is the team that is given the top spot. (Could easily take HGA out if need be.)
- Since New York won their matchup then they are given preference.

Option 2:
- Same situation. Beijing and New York are tied 10-7 and only one can be put in 8th spot.
- Each teams record against the teams ABOVE them aka finals teams get listed and that is used to determine who finishes higher.
- Example: Beijing went 5-2 against top 7 teams whilst New York went 4-3.
- Jing gets in because they had the better record.

Option 3: <- Highly controversial
- Change the finals system.
- Change from the current AFL system to a 3 week system. Where 1 VS 8, 4 VS 5, 3 VS 6, 2 VS 7
- This means we have an extra week before finals to have a tiebreaker match where the winner gets in.
- If there are no tiebreakers needed then we can bring the finals on straight away to avoid round 23 restings.
- Using the Beijing VS New York example, they would simply have a neutral match to determine who gets into the finals.

[meow meow]

What if there's 4 teams on 10-7, do we have a fatal 4-way hell in a cell ladder match?

[Torpedo10]

Option 1 is the ideal IMO, but as Meow mentions it brings into account some dodgy three or four way dealings in terms of a mini-ladder which may well need another tiebreaker.

I like Points Scored TBH.

[JBs-Hawks]

I like it how it is