Discussion 2024 Fantasy General Discussion / Help

[happy_eagle]

Rookies are place holders as per usual

The season starts in a few days ?

 

[SM]

Man i am still trying to catch up on the bullshit bye things they have done this year and they are still changing s**t after the season has started (sorta)

Next year if they want 2 byes for all teams just take 2 ******* weekends off... Say after round 8 and after round 16

2 weekends without football won't ******* kill the BullshitFL

The point isn't to have two byes, it's to just have the northern teams playing on the first weekend.

 

[Gunf]

The point isn't to have two byes, it's to just have the northern teams playing on the first weekend.

I have no idea why that is important it isn't going to help grow the game in any significant way and most fans in other states will just hate it.

They should just have a normal round 1 and make sure that all the northern states are playing the highly watched free to air games.

 

[SM]

I have no idea why that is important it isn't going to help grow the game in any significant way and most fans in other states will just hate it.

They should just have a normal round 1 and make sure that all the northern states are playing the highly watched free to air games.

That's like, your opinion man.

 

[Catastrophe!]

The point isn't to have two byes, it's to just have the northern teams playing on the first weekend.

Mmm but as discussed on the main board thread, it comes at the expense of 10 other teams - 4 who are interstate and 5 who aren't one of the 'Big 4' clubs.

They could easily have kept the Northern schedule, and played the other games given it was a long weekend.

Could have gone, as an example:

Geelong vs Freo (WA)
Saints vs Adelaide (Adelaide)
North vs Hawthorn (Tassie)
Bulldogs vs Essendon (Canberra)
Port vs Eagles (NT)

Would have not screwed up the fixture. Would have not screwed up the game they try and fund and spruik (Fantasy). Would have played all games outside of Melbourne. Would have given exposure to other areas of Aus too.

Just seems very short sighted, and very based on trying to follow the US again - when a lot of their ideas don't work here with our fixturing/schedule.

 

[SM]

Mmm but as discussed on the main board thread, it comes at the expense of 10 other teams - 4 who are interstate and 5 who aren't one of the 'Big 4' clubs.

They could easily have kept the Northern schedule, and played the other games given it was a long weekend.

Could have gone, as an example:

Geelong vs Freo (WA)
Saints vs Adelaide (Adelaide)
North vs Hawthorn (Tassie)
Bulldogs vs Essendon (Canberra)
Port vs Eagles (NT)

Would have not screwed up the fixture. Would have not screwed up the game they try and fund and spruik. Would have played all games outside of Melbourne. Would have given exposure to other areas of Aus too.

Just seems very short sighted, and very based on trying to follow the US again - when a lot of their ideas don't work here with our fixturing/schedule.

I think it's actually in response to the comments of the GWS/Swans leaders during the year last year who criticised the AFL abandoning NSW and the need to compete more directly with the NRL. It was clearly pretty kneejerk but four basically sold out games is pretty good.

 

[Gunf]

Mmm but as discussed on the main board thread, it comes at the expense of 10 other teams - 4 who are interstate and 5 who aren't one of the 'Big 4' clubs.

They could easily have kept the Northern schedule, and played the other games given it was a long weekend.

Could have gone, as an example:

Geelong vs Freo (WA)
Saints vs Adelaide (Adelaide)
North vs Hawthorn (Tassie)
Bulldogs vs Essendon (Canberra)
Port vs Eagles (NT)

Would have not screwed up the fixture. Would have not screwed up the game they try and fund and spruik (Fantasy). Would have played all games outside of Melbourne. Would have given exposure to other areas of Aus too.

Just seems very short sighted, and very based on trying to follow the US again - when a lot of their ideas don't work here with our fixturing/schedule.

Exactly you could still have the 4 games that happened in the spotlight whilst not shitting the bed and screwing every other team.

 

[Gunf]

I think it's actually in response to the comments of the GWS/Swans leaders during the year last year who criticised the AFL abandoning NSW and the need to compete more directly with the NRL. It was clearly pretty kneejerk but four basically sold out games is pretty good.

AFL and overreactions name a more iconic duo

 

[Gunf]

You could have had on free to air everywhere
Thursday night Sydney and Melb
Friday night Lions and Carlton
Sat arvo Suns and Rich
Sat night Coll and GWS

Whilst having all the other games on foxtel/kayo on Sunday Surely foxtel has enough channels to not have much or any overlap

 

[Catastrophe!]

I think it's actually in response to the comments of the GWS/Swans leaders during the year last year who criticised the AFL abandoning NSW and the need to compete more directly with the NRL. It was clearly pretty kneejerk but four basically sold out games is pretty good.

Yeah agreed on the reasoning, but the AFL is so motivated by short term solutions, it doesn't see the forest for the trees.

Definitely did pretty well, but it's kinda rank that they explicitly chose the biggest drawing teams/Top 8 likely teams at the expense of teams who could actually have used the exposure.

Freo comes to mind as a decent drawing club who could have played the Suns (and probably put up a better contest), than Richmond - given their current list state.

Is what it is, but I would like to see a more considered approach that doesn't screw over the rest of the comp, if this was to continue. Having an early bye really distorts the comp as well.

 

[Mezzoculo]

AFL and overreactions name a more iconic duo

.... Joel Selwood and ducking?....

 

[Catastrophe!]

.... Joel Selwood and ducking?....

Not even gonna touch this one

 

[Gunf]

.... Joel Selwood and ducking?....

Bevo and wanting the Horses Ass trophy
Geelong and late changes

 

[SM]

Yeah agreed on the reasoning, but the AFL is so motivated by short term solutions, it doesn't see the forest for the trees.

Definitely did pretty well, but it's kinda rank that they explicitly chose the biggest drawing teams/Top 8 likely teams at the expense of teams who could actually have used to exposure.

Freo comes to mind as a decent drawing club who could have played the Suns (and probably put up a better contest), than Richmond - given their current list state.

Is what it is, but I would like to see a more considered approach that doesn't screw over the rest of the comp, if this was to continue. Having an early bye really distorts the comp as well.

I actually don't even think it was that deep. They chose the Dees because of the Grundy factor, Pies because they played in the PF, Blues because they also played in the PF, and Tigers because of Hardwick. It worked conveniently well but think that's just a coincidence.

 

[Gunf]

I actually don't even think it was that deep. They chose the Dees because of the Grundy factor, Pies because they played in the PF, Blues because they also played in the PF, and Tigers because of Hardwick. It worked conveniently well but think that's just a coincidence.

The story lines were definitely there but they were most likely picked initially because they are the supposed big 4 and the story lines just worked out to be good.

AFL have show over a very long period that they will give prime time special treatment to the big 4 even if they aren't any good.

And yes i know they draw big crowds.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

I'm not sure they don't affect things at all, just less weight being put on the R0 scores as I understand it

The BEs are already changed fwiw

View attachment 1924603

AFL has said these stats are wrong and will be updated.

This would be their BE had their price changed, but givne their price won't change it needs to be updated. So these BE's should be even lower when they're fixed to give the 'double' price change they're supposed to have.

 

[SM]

AFL has said these stats are wrong and will be updated.

This would be their BE had their price changed, but givne their price won't change it needs to be updated. So these BE's should be even lower when they're fixed to give the 'double' price change they're supposed to have.

I'm so confused.

 

[Balsam]

As I have said before, we need to realise the AFL is a business, and cares only about making money. TV rights earn them more than anything else, so all they want is to spread the games out as much as possible to gain TV audience.

They don't care about people going to games.... nobody goes to GCS or GWS home games, but they still throw millions of dollars at those clubs because it's another game on TV that attracts viewers.

R0 probably attracted bulk viewers as everyone was hanging out for some footy, and then R1 will do the same as the rest of the teams will be playing their first game. They will never have a complete bye round as there would be zero viewers that week. With the current scenario, even if your team isn't playing, you still watch some footy that week. When we get a Tassie team and there are byes over multiple rounds, I reckon the overall viewing audience will increase. The problem will be when each team gets it's bye... what chance the big teams get theirs later in the season, while teams that aren't expected to make finals, or those that will always attract a big audience get theirs early?

It's the same reason they don't announce times and dates for the second half of the season... they want to put "blockbuster" games in prime time to maximise the viewing audience. Doesn't matter that those of us that want to fly to another state once a year to see their team play simply can't plan for that, but the TV audience is king.

Love my footy, but can you imagine what would happen in ANY other football competition anywhere in/ the world, if you didn't play all the other teams twice? Think EPL as a starting point...

/end rant

 

[TheInjuryFactory]

Can someone explain this to me, but in English?

 

[happy_eagle]

Can someone explain this to me, but in English?

He was wrong is the summary. Prices are as we expected all pre season. Players that played R0 will have two price changes applied after R1.

 

[Pure Grunt]

He was wrong is the summary. Prices are as we expected all pre season. Players that played R0 will have two price changes applied after R1.

I thought it meant the weighting on R0 was lower than it normally would be but still significant

 

[Barrybran]

Jaiden has lost the plot

Yeah, I think he jumped the shark on this one. Even if there wasn't a double price increase, players with a good score in their history will either make more money the second week with a good score or hold their value with a poor score better than a player with a poor score in their history.

Double price rise or not, Howes, Whitfield, Heeney, etc are all still plays that either make money or don't lose money.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Yeah, I think he jumped the shark on this one. Even if there wasn't a double price increase, players with a good score in their history will either make more money the second week with a good score or hold their value with a poor score better than a player with a poor score in their history.

Double price rise or not, Howes, Whitfield, Heeney, etc are all still plays that either make money or don't lose money.

The break evens that showed in the system were as if the players price had already changed. I.e Roberts goes up 60K and his BE drops to -21.

However, the prices obviously didn't change. Because they aren't changing before Round 1.

Jaiden did the maths and was like, hold on, we're not going to get Round 0 price increase s(i.e Roberts doesn't get the 60k).

AFL have confirmed that the break evens are wrong and that the 60K + the change from his score next week will happen- which is what we understood it to be the whole time. It just doesn't show that in the system yet and will be adjusted or 'un hidden' next week.

 

[Catastrophe!]

The break evens that showed in the system were as if the players price had already changed. I.e Roberts goes up 60K and his BE drops to -21.

However, the prices obviously didn't change. Because they aren't changing before Round 1.

Jaiden did the maths and was like, hold on, we're not going to get Round 0 price increase s(i.e Roberts doesn't get the 60k).

AFL have confirmed that the break evens are wrong and that the 60K + the change from his score next week will happen- which is what we understood it to be the whole time. It just doesn't show that in the system yet and will be adjusted or 'un hidden' next week.

So Jaiden essentially outsmarted himself, lol. Not too clever then it would seem, as his need to be the first to report the news, outweighed his need to fact check before posting.

Should be an AFL journo

 

[WaynesWorld19]

So Jaiden essentially outsmarted himself, lol. Not too clever then it would seem, as his need to be the first to report the news, outweighed his need to fact check before posting.

Should be an AFL journo

Summarised perfectly