Americas Supercoach Rules changes discussion

[SydneyRox]

This thread is for suggesting, submitting and discussion of potential rule changes in the Supercoach competition.


Current ideas yet to go to vote

Rookie List

"Claye Beams Principle" - Trade submission rule

Mid season break setup

Mid season draft

Team non submission penalties

Priority picks

Sub Rule

[SydneyRox]

Rules to be voted on - Pass/Fail

[SydneyRox]

I would like to talk about a couple of suggestions, currently we have no rookie list. I would like to see us implement before the next season a rookie list for each team and to treat the rookie list as they do in the AFL.

This would mean

Players drafted in the rookie draft would go onto your rookie list
You would need to use the Nat Draft to upgrade rookie list players
Players traded go onto the same list as the original club. IE if you trade in a player who is on the rookie list, he goes onto your rookie list
Long term injuries to players on your main list will allow you to upgrade a player to the senior list during the year.

[kilbluff1985]

what about the recycled player draft players in the rookie draft?

i think it's better we nominate our rookies this year then do it the normal way next year

[SydneyRox]

Leftovers from the recycled go into the rookie draft.

My opinion would be we submit our rookies, after the rookie draft (ie when we have our full list of 52 players)

then progress with the rookie rules after that, so people you choose in the upcoming rookie can go anywhere.

[powersuperkents]

I'm proposing a new rule regarding trade submission revocations to be enacted after the draft period (if there is a pre-season trading period) or from the commencement of the 2015 season.

This rule should informally be referred to as 'the Claye Beams principle'  :P and should stipulate that "once a trade is submitted to the trade submission and approval thread, the submitter is compelled to bide by that submission until the 'approvee' either confirms or rejects said submission" (this would also provide the trade rejection function a purpose).

We could make it active from the time an agreement is reached between the parties. However, that would be too difficult and arduous to investigate and enforce - and would contradict the desired result of establishing a consistent principle that exercises finality. I think upon enactment, there should be a submitter's beware mentality that ensures that any reasonable coach, beyond the day of enactment, assumes finality, of a transaction, as soon as the prospective trade has been submitted to the relevant thread.

Beyond that, the only remedy that would represent any form of revocation, whatsoever, would be a self-imposed obligation, upon the submitter, to privately message the 'approvee' (preventing esoteric posts on the trade submission and approval thread) and express his new-found disinterest in the trade. It would then be at the approvee's discretion to either 'confirm' or 'reject' the relevant trade - the approvee would thereby be free to exercise whichever option they desire which enforces consistency with the presumed 'submitter's beware' mentality.

Ultimately, the presumption will be that the submitter intended the trade. Therefore, limiting them from exercising any form of revocation apart from direct communication to the approvee - in which the outcome of the trade will then be entirely at the approvee's discretion.             

Thoughts?

[Football Factory]

You like to use lots of big words in one sentence   ;D

[powersuperkents]

You like to use lots of big words in one sentence   ;D

Not the kind of "Thoughts" I was referring to  :P

But yes, I want to ensure there are no ambiguities. There are far too many 'grey areas' in the rules and if we want to establish a principle in this area - we must ensure that it is final with no room for loopholes

[SydneyRox]

Yeah, it will be a little bit about the wording.

in the time i have been involved in all the xv comps I cant recall too many instances like this, so I would favour something that prevents the players/draft pick (from both teams) from being traded again that trade period if a posted trade is reneged upon or removed once posted.

We are all big boys and girls, a full agreement in PM's should be enough. If you dont think you have the best deal, post the player in the discussion thread.

[powersuperkents]

Yeah, it will be a little bit about the wording.

in the time i have been involved in all the xv comps I cant recall too many instances like this, so I would favour something that prevents the players/draft pick (from both teams) from being traded again that trade period if a posted trade is reneged upon or removed once posted.

We are all big boys and girls, a full agreement in PM's should be enough. If you dont think you have the best deal, post the player in the discussion thread.

PM's are too difficult to enforce. The semantics of someone's message you be construed to interpret an intention to trade in case where they are merely making an additional inquiry, and vice versa. I think the evidence needs to be viewable to all parties in the league so a consistently definitive conclusion can be reached which is both accessible and obvious to any reasonable coach. I think from now on, the mentality should be if you don't think you have the best deal, don't prematurely submit it on the thread.

I just see potential debates over agreements by PM and I believe the negotiations between two coaches should be between those parties exclusively. If agreement by PM is the standard, the relevant messages would have to be made public and that is too much effort in contrast to an approach where we could just click on a thread and chronologically follow the sequence of events in a succinct manner.

[SydneyRox]

i am not say the pm's are enforceable, just that by the time two people have agreed the basis of a deal is done. (every deal I have ever done finishes with a statement like, "ok shall I post it or do you want to?")

The starting point for enforcement comes when someone posts a trade in the thread.

[powersuperkents]

i am not say the pm's are enforceable, just that by the time two people have agreed the basis of a deal is done. (every deal I have ever done finishes with a statement like, "ok shall I post it or do you want to?")

The starting point for enforcement comes when someone posts a trade in the thread.

okay, yeah I agree  :) Exact same opinion myself

[powersuperkents]

I also have a proposed rule change for the East v. West Series

I'm not sure about what the current rules are but I understand why it was the top 3 teams (based on ladder position) in the inaugural season (because it is the only logical decision)

Now that we are entering our second season, meaning we now have the 2014 season to serve as precedent, I propose the potential policy that the coaches participating in the East v West Series should be determined by ladder position the previous year - i.e. 2015 will be based on 2014's ladder, 2016 will be based on 2015s' etc. I believe this paradigm successfully removes any possibility of the coach of a weaker team participating as a result of an easy start to the season - i.e. their draw enabled them to only play lower tier sides before the East v West series commenced.

I'm not sure on whether or not that is the current policy, but if the selection criteria is currently undecided I hope this justified view is considered now that we have a basis upon which we can determine which coaches participate.

I know that this proposed policy benefits myself for the 2015 season - as my side finished 3rd. But I myself do not believe my list - in the rebuilding phase - will be capable of providing me with three consecutive appearances (e.g. as to participate in 2016 I would have to finish as a top 3 eastern team on the ladder in 2015). Personally, I just think it is the most impartial way to decide and provides stability.   

[SydneyRox]

I would like to bring in a mid season draft to the comp. We are going to have quite a few left over players in the pool to choose from and reckon we could get at least a round or two of picks done.

Draft is run during the mid season byes.

My thoughts are each team has the option to delist up to 2 players.

The picks are reverse ladder order for a maximum of 2 picks.

[powersuperkents]

I would like to bring in a mid season draft to the comp. We are going to have quite a few left over players in the pool to choose from and reckon we could get at least a round or two of picks done.

Draft is run during the mid season byes.

My thoughts are each team has the option to delist up to 2 players.

The picks are reverse ladder order for a maximum of 2 picks.

+1