Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
AFFL
WELCOME TO AFFL!

AFFL ROUND SEVENTEEN LOCKOUT:

Welcome to AFFL. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Sign-up now and you could be the next AFFL coach!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
ANNOUNCEMENT regarding the 2017 season
Topic Started: Jul 14 2016, 12:49 AM (1,905 Views)
Jarman Magic
Member Avatar
Beau Dowler
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The admin team is seriously looking at the option of reverting back to a 16 team competition for 2017 and has implemented a process to determine who the successful 16 coaches will be so we can quickly and efficiently make the transition if we decide to go ahead with the change.

At this stage we're more likely to revert back to 16 teams than to retain all 18.

An announcement will be made at the end of the season on which teams, if any, will be dropped and which coaches will be retained, as well as the process for the distribution of players from the teams that don't make the cut.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Colby
Member Avatar
Tom Jonas Appreciation Society
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Thank god.
Quote:
 
Stife
Just got out of a long, long relationship. Single living ftw. Freelance sex object ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Schulzenfest
Member Avatar
Beau Dowler
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
As the likely holder of pick #1 in the PSD, I applaud this move.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
boof
Member Avatar
John Meesen
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Schulzenfest
Jul 14 2016, 12:58 PM
As the likely holder of pick #1 in the PSD, I applaud this move.
Sorry Schulz, it's going to be based on total points scored.
Unfinished business.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Wacky Tiger
Member Avatar
Yazza
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Schulzenfest
Member Avatar
Beau Dowler
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Just out of curiosity, I'll pick on Carlton here since D2C has already signed off, but let's say the Carlton list is one that gets divided amongst the rest of the coaches. Would the plan be to rename the Suns as Carlton (throwing Colby the Carlton supporter a bone here) and rename the Giants as whatever other team gets scrapped? It'd seem silly to me to have a Gold Coast and a GWS but not have a Carlton.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Eskimo Brother
Member Avatar
#changethebanner
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Schulzenfest
Jul 24 2016, 11:23 PM
Just out of curiosity, I'll pick on Carlton here since D2C has already signed off, but let's say the Carlton list is one that gets divided amongst the rest of the coaches. Would the plan be to rename the Suns as Carlton (throwing Colby the Carlton supporter a bone here) and rename the Giants as whatever other team gets scrapped? It'd seem silly to me to have a Gold Coast and a GWS but not have a Carlton.
That's one of the options being discussed. Our preference is to still run 18 teams next year, with 18 committed coaches.
So if anyone knows of potential good coaches, please introduce them to the site.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jarman Magic
Member Avatar
Beau Dowler
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Schulzenfest
Jul 24 2016, 11:23 PM
Just out of curiosity, I'll pick on Carlton here since D2C has already signed off, but let's say the Carlton list is one that gets divided amongst the rest of the coaches. Would the plan be to rename the Suns as Carlton (throwing Colby the Carlton supporter a bone here) and rename the Giants as whatever other team gets scrapped? It'd seem silly to me to have a Gold Coast and a GWS but not have a Carlton.
Yes, as Eski said, we'd still prefer to keep 18 teams but that scenario is pretty likely if we drop to 16 teams... The Gold Coast list gets moved to Carlton and the GWS list gets moved to Essendon

;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
boof
Member Avatar
John Meesen
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
So what happens to Schulz and the Essendon list?
Unfinished business.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gavin12
Member Avatar
Steph Curry
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
boof
Jul 25 2016, 11:56 AM
So what happens to Schulz and the Essendon list?
Get rid of em. Both useless ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Shabby
Member Avatar
Mark Blake
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
18 teams with 18 committed coaches would be a brilliant result, going back to 16 is obviously a step backwards for the site. Hopefully we don't need to go down that path, but obviously see why we may need to.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stoney
Member Avatar
David Spriggs
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Gavin12
Jul 25 2016, 12:43 PM
boof
Jul 25 2016, 11:56 AM
So what happens to Schulz and the Essendon list?
Get rid of em. Both useless ;)
Let's hope we have more success than ASADA.
Stoney
 
"Winter is coming for you Wacky.

Remember that."
- 18/8/2017
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Schulzenfest
Member Avatar
Beau Dowler
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Stoney
Jul 25 2016, 01:57 PM
Gavin12
Jul 25 2016, 12:43 PM
boof
Jul 25 2016, 11:56 AM
So what happens to Schulz and the Essendon list?
Get rid of em. Both useless ;)
Let's hope we have more success than ASADA.
I'm pretty sure that this year's scores are an airtight defence against any accusations of my team being on PED's.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Colby
Member Avatar
Tom Jonas Appreciation Society
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Shabby
Jul 25 2016, 01:08 PM
18 teams with 18 committed coaches would be a brilliant result, going back to 16 is obviously a step backwards for the site. Hopefully we don't need to go down that path, but obviously see why we may need to.
Disagree that it's a step backwards, it's too hard to have 18 blokes all committed and active at the same time. We've literally never had that for all the years we've had the expansion sides. It's not like we really need Gold Coast and GWS anyway, the way we brought them in was totally inadequate and reflects in the state of the GWS list today. If we tried to bring in two new teams now and built them with only players from outside each teams best 22 and a handful of firsts spread out over two years then they wouldn't be relevant for several years. Looking back it was a poor decision to include two teams with very little value in the list and have the rest of the site carry them, would much rather those 80 odd players be spread out amongst 16 active coaches.

Reckon it's time we accepted that it was cool to include the expansion teams in AFFL but at the end of the day it just doesn't work for us, if nothing else a draft of the scrapped teams players will give us something to do until November.
Quote:
 
Stife
Just got out of a long, long relationship. Single living ftw. Freelance sex object ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Eskimo Brother
Member Avatar
#changethebanner
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Colby
Jul 25 2016, 03:04 PM
Shabby
Jul 25 2016, 01:08 PM
18 teams with 18 committed coaches would be a brilliant result, going back to 16 is obviously a step backwards for the site. Hopefully we don't need to go down that path, but obviously see why we may need to.
Disagree that it's a step backwards, it's too hard to have 18 blokes all committed and active at the same time. We've literally never had that for all the years we've had the expansion sides. It's not like we really need Gold Coast and GWS anyway, the way we brought them in was totally inadequate and reflects in the state of the GWS list today. If we tried to bring in two new teams now and built them with only players from outside each teams best 22 and a handful of firsts spread out over two years then they wouldn't be relevant for several years. Looking back it was a poor decision to include two teams with very little value in the list and have the rest of the site carry them, would much rather those 80 odd players be spread out amongst 16 active coaches.

Reckon it's time we accepted that it was cool to include the expansion teams in AFFL but at the end of the day it just doesn't work for us, if nothing else a draft of the scrapped teams players will give us something to do until November.
Haven't you only lost one game this year and are playing in a prelim (having come in the same time as GWS)?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Colby
Member Avatar
Tom Jonas Appreciation Society
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Not gonna quote the text wall but the GC situation was a little bit different, do you not remember how far back I stripped the list in GC's second year in the comp? First year I missed the finals on percentage and realised everything I'm saying now and how futile it would be to keep pushing ahead with that. Shabby pressed on and achieved some good top 8 finishes but IMO the list was never close to the contending group.

This probably just sounds like a self-wankfest but the point is it was never going to work from the start, pull the plug now and we don't have to carry anymore deadweight coaches.
Quote:
 
Stife
Just got out of a long, long relationship. Single living ftw. Freelance sex object ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Shabby
Member Avatar
Mark Blake
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Colby
Jul 25 2016, 03:04 PM
Shabby
Jul 25 2016, 01:08 PM
18 teams with 18 committed coaches would be a brilliant result, going back to 16 is obviously a step backwards for the site. Hopefully we don't need to go down that path, but obviously see why we may need to.
Disagree that it's a step backwards, it's too hard to have 18 blokes all committed and active at the same time. We've literally never had that for all the years we've had the expansion sides. It's not like we really need Gold Coast and GWS anyway, the way we brought them in was totally inadequate and reflects in the state of the GWS list today. If we tried to bring in two new teams now and built them with only players from outside each teams best 22 and a handful of firsts spread out over two years then they wouldn't be relevant for several years. Looking back it was a poor decision to include two teams with very little value in the list and have the rest of the site carry them, would much rather those 80 odd players be spread out amongst 16 active coaches.

Reckon it's time we accepted that it was cool to include the expansion teams in AFFL but at the end of the day it just doesn't work for us, if nothing else a draft of the scrapped teams players will give us something to do until November.
Its a step backwards as we took the step forward in the first place, to now retract is a concession that the step forward was a mistake. I don't think the concept of the 2 new teams actually failed at all, GC are in a prelim and GWS made the finals in 2014, they were given fair concessions with the opportunity to prosper without stripping the rest of the competition of too much at all. The issue with 18 teams has been the lack in depth of coaches rather than the expansion itself. I'm not sure going to 16 will necessarily solve this issue, if we keep cutting down the number of teams we risk the game losing its identity.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Colby
Member Avatar
Tom Jonas Appreciation Society
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Conceding that a step forward was a mistake isn't a step backwards, just backwards thinking. Accepting the mistake means we can now walk in the right direction.

Even when the site was firing we never had 18 active coaches, I don't think even once. We're not going to "keep cutting down teams" we're just reverting back to the old system, tbh even cutting back to 16 still won't be enough to shed all the problem coaches. If a group of promising newbies came along we could still chew a long way into the fat before it became a problem.
Quote:
 
Stife
Just got out of a long, long relationship. Single living ftw. Freelance sex object ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Shabby
Member Avatar
Mark Blake
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
You say we won't keep cutting back teams, but concede that cutting back to 16 may not be enough. If we cut to 16 now whats to say we won't cut to 14 in 2 years? I don't agree that we're just going back to what we used to have, we would be going to somewhere different again as we wouldn't be in line with real life AFL.

I don't necessarily disagree on cutting back by the way, I did like the original post and believe theres merit in both options, am just wary of what the long term effects could be if we didn't fight for 18 now.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Colby
Member Avatar
Tom Jonas Appreciation Society
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Shabby
Jul 25 2016, 04:29 PM
You say we won't keep cutting back teams, but concede that cutting back to 16 may not be enough. If we cut to 16 now whats to say we won't cut to 14 in 2 years? I don't agree that we're just going back to what we used to have, we would be going to somewhere different again as we wouldn't be in line with real life AFL.

I don't necessarily disagree on cutting back by the way, I did like the original post and believe theres merit in both options, am just wary of what the long term effects could be if we didn't fight for 18 now.
All I said was that when we cut back there'll still be shit cunts to be replaced by promising newbies if they come along, no need to keep cutting further.
Quote:
 
Stife
Just got out of a long, long relationship. Single living ftw. Freelance sex object ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Official Press Releases · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5