Welcome Guest
[Log In]
[Register]

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! |
| ANNOUNCEMENT regarding the 2017 season | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jul 14 2016, 12:49 AM (1,910 Views) | |
| Stoney | Jul 25 2016, 05:02 PM Post #21 |
|
David Spriggs
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I disagree that the GC/GWS introduction was insufficient. But that's irrelevant - the question is 'do we have enough active coaches to facilitate an 18 club competition'? In a perfect situation - I agree with the 18 teams model. However, the two ways I can see this going: 1 - We cut back to 16, we'll still find problems and people will always complain about something. That's inevitable. 2 - We don't cut back, we'll still face the same issues as we currently do, and the chronic complainers will either leave (forcing us back to 16), or ramp up their complaining to the point that it becomes unbearable and everyone else will leave. Under both scenarios, I'm resigned to the fact that the best result is 16. That's my personal opinion. Edited by Stoney, Jul 25 2016, 05:06 PM.
|
- 18/8/2017 | |
![]() |
|
| Colby | Jul 25 2016, 05:25 PM Post #22 |
|
Tom Jonas Appreciation Society
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That's right people! The only problem here is the people talking about the problems. Everything is completely fine except for those pesky, negative nancy's. Go about your day and enjoy the thriving hub of interaction that is AFFL. Edited by Colby, Jul 25 2016, 05:26 PM.
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Stoney | Jul 25 2016, 05:28 PM Post #23 |
|
David Spriggs
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That's the reality isn't it? We either reduce two inactive managers = a 16 team comp OR We likely lose the "negative nancy's" who don't agree with an 18 team comp. Either way, the end result seems foregone as to how many clubs we're rolling with. |
- 18/8/2017 | |
![]() |
|
| Colby | Jul 25 2016, 05:37 PM Post #24 |
|
Tom Jonas Appreciation Society
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You act like I'd (we can drop the charade lol) quit if I didn't get my way on a 16 team comp lol. My continued willingness to play this game is based both upon my and admin's willingness to confront and address the issues we face. You laughed off my initial suggestion of a 16 team comp earlier in the year and I'm glad you're warming to the idea, but please don't try to minimise a big decision for the direction of the site down to whether or not it'd make me happy. I understand this puts you in a favourable position of never having to really commit to the change in direction and being able to play it off on my wishes should it be the wrong call, but I'm hoping you can put your big boy pants on and make this call on its merit rather than our pissing match. Edited by Colby, Jul 25 2016, 05:38 PM.
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Snappy | Jul 25 2016, 05:49 PM Post #25 |
|
#TeamLummas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Do we actually have anyone waiting in the wings for a coaching gig? |
| |
![]() |
|
| Stoney | Jul 25 2016, 05:54 PM Post #26 |
|
David Spriggs
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Wrong. 1 - I laughed at your comment "at what point do we concede that this is AFFL's last season?" 2 - I've been open to the 16 team comp since the minute you raised it. I maintain my initial reaction to each of your suggestions. |
- 18/8/2017 | |
![]() |
|
| boof | Jul 25 2016, 06:00 PM Post #27 |
|
John Meesen
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think any big changes should always address two key criteria: 1) Increased activity on the site. 2) Improve the evenness of the competition. I think going to sixteen can and will meet both criteria. Evening out the comp. is something we've done really well at in the last few years and it only helps make the game enjoyable. You could take huge strides in totally evening out most of the teams in terms of value by dismantling two lists. That should be the objective. The other important point is that there's no reason we can't re-introduce one or two teams at a later date if the coaching pool strengthens. This isn't a definitive, never to be reversed action. |
| Unfinished business. | |
![]() |
|
| Stoney | Jul 25 2016, 06:06 PM Post #28 |
|
David Spriggs
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That's a very good summary. |
- 18/8/2017 | |
![]() |
|
| boof | Jul 25 2016, 06:12 PM Post #29 |
|
John Meesen
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Why thank you. |
| Unfinished business. | |
![]() |
|
| Stoney | Jul 25 2016, 06:15 PM Post #30 |
|
David Spriggs
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Jog on. |
- 18/8/2017 | |
![]() |
|
| Stife | Jul 25 2016, 09:14 PM Post #31 |
|
John Meesen
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
How would redistribution work? Objectively reverse points for makes the most sense but then (and I'm just getting in early) it's probably a bad look that underscoring lists that are perceived as high-value (like port) get a better reward than lower value lists up mid/top. But then is there a subjective way that isn't really going to ruffle feathers? I dunno. |
![]() |
|
| Colby | Jul 25 2016, 10:08 PM Post #32 |
|
Tom Jonas Appreciation Society
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Pls let it finally be time for an AFFL draft lottery... |
| |
![]() |
|
| boof | Jul 26 2016, 11:10 AM Post #33 |
|
John Meesen
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm with Stife on this one, here's my idea for a solution. . . - All coaches send JM a pm listing their thoughts on the most valuable to least valuable list. - JM does what he loves best and collates the data in a spreadsheet. - The draft order is set using the collective wisdom of all AFFL coaches in this transparent manner. - The bottom six get two rounds of picks (12 picks) I.e the cream of the crop - Teams 7-10 get one round (4 picks) handy players - Teams 1-10 get another one round (10 picks) - Teams 7-16 get one round (10 picks) - Teams 11-16 get two rounds (12 picks) - Teams 1-16 get two rounds (32 picks) This equates to 80 picks total, 5 picks per team. I think we should add the draft picks that each list holds into the pool and they can be chosen like a player would. Left over players into the PSD pool. Left over picks to be deleted from the draft. I'll add a visual representation of this shortly. Edited by boof, Jul 26 2016, 11:12 AM.
|
| Unfinished business. | |
![]() |
|
| Stoney | Jul 26 2016, 11:24 AM Post #34 |
|
David Spriggs
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think's it's a combination between the two... But I disagree that we weight the draft. I think a team like Port would be considered one of the more valuable club's on the site - but I'd hate the outcome if stife didn't get a pick inside the top #20. I think the draft could be just normal 1-18, based on reverse value-ladder order - however we can determine that - I don't mind boof's suggestion that "All coaches send JM a pm listing their thoughts on the most valuable to least valuable list." |
- 18/8/2017 | |
![]() |
|
| Schulzenfest | Jul 26 2016, 11:25 AM Post #35 |
|
Beau Dowler
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Would that not be going against the precedent set with the Geelong equalisation draft and the Essendon top-ups draft last preseason? That draft threw up results like Ryder and Hurley being considered less valuable than Brent Stanton, but we all went with that. Just go by ladder position or points IMO. It'll throw up some random results, but that's life. |
![]() |
|
| boof | Jul 26 2016, 11:31 AM Post #36 |
|
John Meesen
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Disagree Schulz, if Port gets a pick before Collingwood or Richmond then we've missed a huge opportunity to even out the comp. |
| Unfinished business. | |
![]() |
|
| Schulzenfest | Jul 26 2016, 11:42 AM Post #37 |
|
Beau Dowler
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It's a major departure from precedent. I would've loved that to be the criteria for the Geelong equalisation draft where I had one of the least valuable lists on the site and ended up with pick 14. I'd be fine with just using the ladder/points for as is, but if we were to make changes, the only major anomalies on the ladder are Port being too low and Richmond being too high. Assuming Stife would agree, we could pretty much just swap those teams and be done with it rather than going through the hassle of polling the entire site and reordering the whole ladder based on opinion. Edited by Schulzenfest, Jul 26 2016, 11:42 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Stoney | Jul 26 2016, 12:01 PM Post #38 |
|
David Spriggs
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What precedent does that set for future - that we use the points ladder but swap teams as the groupthink/coaches see fit based on value? Either all-in points, or all-in value. Mixing the two(even minorly) seems a poorer outcome IMO. |
- 18/8/2017 | |
![]() |
|
| Schulzenfest | Jul 26 2016, 01:31 PM Post #39 |
|
Beau Dowler
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If you want to talk about 'setting precedents for future', we already have set a precedent for the future and it was to just use total points. |
![]() |
|
| boof | Jul 26 2016, 01:41 PM Post #40 |
|
John Meesen
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think we do what's best for the evenness of the comp Schulz. As the bloke with the least points, I don't think my team deserves that top pick. I think it's been an oversight in the past because we couldn't develop a transparent method to deal with it. We should always be looking to improve. |
| Unfinished business. | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Official Press Releases · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
6:29 PM Jul 11
|




![]](http://z1.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)



6:29 PM Jul 11