WXV Discussion

[RaisyDaisy]

Getting in with a monster trade already  ;D

New York trade: Gryan Miers
Cape Town trade: NAT Pick 74

GL to confirm

rekt.

Haha  ;D

Trade 26
New York trade: Reece Conca, Jordan Lewis, Robbie Tarrant + Pick 47
Cape Town trade: Pick 19 + Pick 20

I used 19 and 20 to move up to get Rankine and Duursma, so..

rekt :P

Conca won me my match last week! And how is Rankine going?

Ask me in 2 years when Lewis and Tarrant aren't playing  ;)

Miers had the game of his life and scored 69 - enjoy :P

[Holz]

Getting in with a monster trade already  ;D

New York trade: Gryan Miers
Cape Town trade: NAT Pick 74

GL to confirm

rekt.

Haha  ;D

Trade 26
New York trade: Reece Conca, Jordan Lewis, Robbie Tarrant + Pick 47
Cape Town trade: Pick 19 + Pick 20

I used 19 and 20 to move up to get Rankine and Duursma, so..

rekt :P

Conca won me my match last week! And how is Rankine going?

Ask me in 2 years when Lewis and Tarrant aren't playing  ;)

Miers had the game of his life and scored 69 - enjoy :P

He was even better last week

[Purple 77]

WXV trade: 1st round draft pick
Christchurch trade: meow meow

Reasoning: compo.

Don't say I didn't warn you!

WXV Vacant Coaching Position

[upthemaidens]

Well it was pretty obvious he was going to leave.  Dump your team in a hole and let someone else deal with it.
   Solid evidence that the Min. Cap needs to be brought back in.

[GoLions]

Well it was pretty obvious he was going to leave.  Dump your team in a hole and let someone else deal with it.
   Solid evidence that the Min. Cap needs to be brought back in.

It never left?

[upthemaidens]

Well it was pretty obvious he was going to leave.  Dump your team in a hole and let someone else deal with it.
   Solid evidence that the Min. Cap needs to be brought back in.

It never left?

I mean the not being able to make trade if it brings you under min cap rule.   Punishment for not getting above min cap is counter productive.
 

[meow meow]

Well it was pretty obvious he was going to leave.  Dump your team in a hole and let someone else deal with it.
   Solid evidence that the Min. Cap needs to be brought back in.

It never left?

I mean the not being able to make trade if it brings you under min cap rule.   Punishment for not getting above min cap is counter productive.

The only time Christchurch went under the minimum cap was after the very last trade. I doubt Stephen Hill would be making much of a difference.

[upthemaidens]

Well it was pretty obvious he was going to leave.  Dump your team in a hole and let someone else deal with it.
   Solid evidence that the Min. Cap needs to be brought back in.

It never left?

I mean the not being able to make trade if it brings you under min cap rule.   Punishment for not getting above min cap is counter productive.

The only time Christchurch went under the minimum cap was after the very last trade. I doubt Stephen Hill would be making much of a difference.

Losing the following years pick does make a difference.
   You clearly were not making decisions in the best interest of your club by not staying over min.

[Ringo]

Well it was pretty obvious he was going to leave.  Dump your team in a hole and let someone else deal with it.
   Solid evidence that the Min. Cap needs to be brought back in.

It never left?

I mean the not being able to make trade if it brings you under min cap rule.   Punishment for not getting above min cap is counter productive.

The only time Christchurch went under the minimum cap was after the very last trade. I doubt Stephen Hill would be making much of a difference.

Losing the following years pick does make a difference.
   You clearly were not making decisions in the best interest of your club by not staying over min.

I was one that wanted the change as it cost decent trades in 2017 - Wanted to trade 2 lower priced players for a prem but trade rejected because it took me below minimum cap not by much but still below.  Same this year but was easily fixed by start of season.

[RaisyDaisy]

I know this is going to be controversial and could even ruffle a few feathers, but with the recent departure of meow I can't help but feel that this might be the right time to evaluate WXV and possibly use this opportunity to make a change

Fact of the matter is, the Church list is absolutely stuffed - barely scraping over 100 points per week

You can throw picks at them, but this team will be lucky to win a couple of matches over the next couple of years, which leads me to my point - I think 18 teams might be too much, as we use every single player in the AFL - many which are useless too so I think WXV might be more competitive and certainly more healthy if we moved to 16 teams

This obviously means another team would need to be scrapped, and it's an awkward conversation to have because nobody wants to ask/tell someone to step away, but I think the comp would be much better with 16 sides

The 90ish players both Church and the second club would be redrafted by the remaining 16 clubs in a random lottery style draft using the snake draft approach

Of the 90ish players, there is probably only going to be 10-15 starting quality players, so each team will likely end up picking up an extra starter, and the rest is just spread around

This would also require the min/max caps to be increased to accommodate the extra players

Now I know the easy thing to say is that we're already in the middle of a season, so it's too hard, just push it to the side and forget about it, and I won't be surprised if that's the actual outcome, but sometimes you need to make big decisions when the pressure is on, and I think for the longevity and future of this comp it would be the best thing to do

We only have a couple of FF members waiting in the wings to coach too - so once they get a team there's every chance the quality applications dry up, so I see that as another benefit as this will ensure we have a few good coaches in the wings long term as well which is important to keep the comp going long term

Now I understand it's not ideal for me to be raising this and expecting someone else to step aside for the betterment of the comp for this to happen, so by default I need to put my hand up as being someone who might be willing to do this, although I would hope it's something that perhaps the majority would vote on

Discuss

[Holz]

certainly some that makes sense and would fix a few issues.

admin wise its going to push Purp

[fanTCfool]

IMO dropping to 16 teams is punishing someone else for the questionable decisions made by the departing coach.

[RaisyDaisy]

IMO dropping to 16 teams is punishing someone else for the questionable decisions made by the departing coach.

Fair comment, and there is no arguing what was done to Church, but I think it has highlighted some of the points I made above

Do we want an 18 team comp that is always going to have a few sides that struggle endlessly, or do we want 16 teams which would bridge the gap and make all teams more competitive?

[Nige]

Worlds has always had 18 comps and this is an overreaction I feel, plus I also agree with what Ryno said.

In the AFL, and even Worlds since it's inception, there's always been team that have struggled, not every team can be competitive in this comp, that's just the nature of it. Sure, this is an extreme, but just because it is doesn't mean we suddenly uproot the essence of what Worlds is.

This also feels disrespectful to the prospective coaches, obviously it's the opinion of most that the list isn't in great shape, but depriving them of the opportunity to turn the list around seems unfair and unwarranted, it's been done to some extent before, there's no reason why it can't be done again.

[RaisyDaisy]

Worlds has always had 18 comps and this is an overreaction I feel, plus I also agree with what Ryno said.

In the AFL, and even Worlds since it's inception, there's always been team that have struggled, not every team can be competitive in this comp, that's just the nature of it. Sure, this is an extreme, but just because it is doesn't mean we suddenly uproot the essence of what Worlds is.

This also feels disrespectful to the prospective coaches, obviously it's the opinion of most that the list isn't in great shape, but depriving them of the opportunity to turn the list around seems unfair and unwarranted, it's been done to some extent before, there's no reason why it can't be done again.

3 days ago there was no prospective coaches to worry about, so I think the health of the comp trumps them, which is why I decided to float this suggestion

I don't think it's an overreaction either, but I didn't expect anyone to really get on board with it anyway, because I know how things generally roll here