Equalisation Idea

[ossie85]

Playing around with an equalisation idea



--> PACIFIC WARRIORS
(pothead & Jayman)
[A merger of Pacific and Wellington]
Select a squad of 44 from the Pacific and Wellington teams (22 each)

Example of the new best XV

D: C Hampton, S Dempster, L Spurr, T Mohr
M: M Murphy, J Redden, B Deledio, I Smith
R: H McIntosh
F: J Howe, J Elliott, T Walker, M Hurley
I: M Leuenberger, S Gibson


--> BEIJING TIGERS
(Toga and Master Q and Ricochet and Elephants)
[A merger of Beijing and New Delhi]
Select a squad of 44 from the Beijing and New Delhi teams (22 each)

Example of the new best XV

D: H Taylor, C Hooker, W Langford, E Yeo
M: O Wines, M Duncan, T Greene, L Montagna
R: M Kreuzer
F: E Betts, S Mayes, R Palmer, J Podsiadly
I: L Shiels, A Gaff


I think that works out pretty neatly, except that Beijing Tigers now have 4 coaches :/

These teams would not not get ANY draft picks (unless they needed numbers to complete a full list for unexpected delistment)

Neither of those best XVs are earth shattering, but are so much more competitive.




So I wondered instead of stopping there, we add 2 more teams:


--> CHRISTCHURCH SAINTS
(kilbluff1985)
[A new team, getting kb back in the game]

--> MUMBAI ELEPHANTS
(elephants and Ricochet)
[A new team, unless Master Q and Toga want to swap]



And, now this is the controversial part, have what I deem 'surplus' players removed from other teams to complete the lists.

The Christchurch Saints would get the remainder of the Pacific/Wellington players.

The Mumbai Elephants the remainder of the Beijing/New Delhi players.


Christchurch and Mumbai would have picks 1 and 2 [which they'd have to use on the draft]

Picks 3 to 8 would be the current picks of teams 14th to 9th

Picks 9 to 36 [28 picks] in total will be allocated to Christchurch and Mumbai. EACH team will be required to trade 2 players for 2 picks to these teams. None of these picks can be used by Mumbai or Christchurch, and if a team hasn't traded players, I'll take players away based on what I think is fair and/or surplus to that teams requirements.


Really think that this will radically equalise the competition?

Just thinking out loud right now...

[kilbluff1985]

Genius  ;D

[DazBurg]

i like your creative thinking Ossman

a couple of questions though
if trading to them for thier picks what is deemed ok?

my point is ofc they won't want say Angus Graham
but in saying that if most teams don't want draft picks (which looking at the trade talk thread most want to trade them away).....if say KB is coach and we at PNL or the other teams have to trade too him what if he doesn't like what we offer

i.e i know he wouldn't want angus graham but what if say we offered heath grundy and he didn't like it?


who says what pick is worth what i mean what if most say ok i'll trad these 2 depth players for pick 37 and 38 but most have this idea etc

[ossie85]

Yeah good point

might make it so those players overall need to fit a certain profile...

Eg a 100 ave mid,  75 ave def, etc

[ossie85]

Really up for better ideas than that though

id much rather just take players from teams.... but that could prove unpopular

[Toga]

Wait so what players do the two new teams get from Beijing/NDT and the Pacific/WW lists? When you say they will get the "remainder" of the lists?

[JBs-Hawks]

What about us teams ranked between 8-14 this would really hurt us as would see the combined teams zoom past us and we also lose our yools to try and bridge our gap to the top 8.

[ossie85]

Wait so what players do the two new teams get from Beijing/NDT and the Pacific/WW lists? When you say they will get the "remainder" of the lists?

Also up for discussion,  but whatever players don't go to the merged team

[Toga]

Wait so what players do the two new teams get from Beijing/NDT and the Pacific/WW lists? When you say they will get the "remainder" of the lists?

Also up for discussion,  but whatever players don't go to the merged team

Righto, so how would the players going to the merged team be decided on?

Sorry for the questions, just trying to get it straight in my head :P

[AaronKirk]

I'm all for equalisation Oz but this would totally ruin our plans to strengthen our side that we have been working on for the last month or 2.

[ossie85]

What about us teams ranked between 8-14 this would really hurt us as would see the combined teams zoom past us and we also lose our yools to try and bridge our gap to the top 8.

I'm all for equalisation Oz but this would totally ruin our plans to strengthen our side that we have been working on for the last month or 2.

I tend to agree, my first preference would actually be to create two divisions and let time sought it out. Way too many one sided games atm

Div 1 top 10

Div 2 bottom 8

[Purple 77]

What about us teams ranked between 8-14 this would really hurt us as would see the combined teams zoom past us and we also lose our yools to try and bridge our gap to the top 8.

I'm all for equalisation Oz but this would totally ruin our plans to strengthen our side that we have been working on for the last month or 2.

I tend to agree, my first preference would actually be to create two divisions and let time sought it out. Way too many one sided games atm

Div 1 top 10

Div 2 bottom 8

Will never, ever support that.

Sorry for the negativity... watching Melbourne atm. Feel I should give my thoughts in this 3 hour window every week, because I'd say what I really think.

I'm up for equalisation. Would prefer a 18 club comp rather than the current 14 club comp.

[roo boys!]

Yeah I'm really starting to like the sounds of a tiered competition. While this merger idea is relatively strong in theory, I think it could be a bit rough to the teams already existing, especially those in the lower half of the ladder. Pacific Warriors and Beijing Tigers would certainly ruffle a few feathers with that squad which would make things hard for sides from 8th or so down as JB says.

I say we revisited the idea of tiers.

[Purple 77]

Yeah I'm really starting to like the sounds of a tiered competition. While this merger idea is relatively strong in theory, I think it could be a bit rough to the teams already existing, especially those in the lower half of the ladder. Pacific Warriors and Beijing Tigers would certainly ruffle a few feathers with that squad which would make things hard for sides from 8th or so down as JB says.

I say we revisited the idea of tiers.

Is it fair to the bottom 4 now? The lists the coaches have?

Think the other bottom 10 clubs should cop it, have more of an even comp.

[RaisyDaisy]

I like the idea of equalisation too, but as AK said it would be brutal right now

JB also raises a valid point about how these new teams could overtake the 8-14 range teams, so here's an idea

You introduce the new teams as suggested, but AFTER the trade period

That way, the rest of us can continue to trade etc, then the new teams can be formed after that

We would need to ensure the new team coaches who currently coach the active teams you are looking to merge don't sandbag, but they wouldn't, because they will continue to talk trades as they still need to improve their lists

So, this merger after the trade period works for me :)