Better way for Dreamteam to handle 3 "Bye Weeks"

[McCrann]

I think the way that Dreamteam (& Supercoach) have handled the bye rounds this year is not ideal, and in future years I believe I have a better way for it to be handled.

Hear me out.

There are 23 Rounds this year
20 "Regular" Rounds
3 "Bye" Rounds

For each league you have

17 Home & Away
4 Finals

So, instead of everyone being shot up by 6 teams having a bye for 3 weeks, the comps should roll all 3 Bye Rounds into 1 SUPER ROUND. (Where (in theory) each of your players plays twice).

Therefore you have team matchups starting in Round 1 (instead of Round 3).

This year would be

Rounds 1-10 (10 Rounds)
Rounds 11-13 (1 "Super" Round)
Rounds 14-19 (6 Rounds)
17 Rounds of Home & Away matches

Rounds 20-23 (Finals)

I think it works perfectly and frankly I thought this would be how it was done before it came out that instead we have 3 weeks of instability.

I like the concept of the Super-Round - perhaps they could put up $5,000 for the highest score for that 3 weeks.

Really make it into something.

What do people think???

 

[SkankDanker]

I don't mind it really, but would actually prefer a slight modification to the scoring...

5 backs scores count (out of 9), 4 mids, 1 ruck, 5 fwds.

That means 15 out of 30 players' scores count

This allows for strategy, allows for a bit of a bench. Maybe for those rounds the captain only adds 50% rather than 100% as it represents a greater percentage of points on the park.

Better than what is happening which is interesting in a way, but very painful for a lot of people and will turn people off the comp if they do it again.

 

[54Dogs]

The current set up is an absolute disgrace for those going for the overall win. No thought at all from VS, looks like they just found it all too hard. Considering the 300,000 players maybe they could've spent 5 mins more and come up with a better system that didn't rely 100% on pot luck during the 3 weeks based on an injury crap shoot. It's OK to build a solid team with good cover but that cover is useless when all players are forced to play and injuries strike.

6 backs scoring
5 mids scoring
1 ruck scoring
6 fwds scoring

18 players total scoring instead of 22.

Still requires solid cover so the stronger teams will get through and those who haven't planned will not but at least allows some skill to cover for injuries etc.

 

[Schulzenfest]

That's actually a really good, thinking outside of the box idea. Well done You should have a job at VS.

Hopefully it won't be an issue next year though. I don't see what was wrong with the mid-year split round that they used to have.

 

[pillager]

I hope the AFL brings back the split round next year so we have NO byes. Four games in one week and five games the following week with the partial lockout helping coaches deal with the two week stretch.

Byes just screw with fantasy football.

 

[Hank93]

The current set up is an absolute disgrace for those going for the overall win. No thought at all from VS, looks like they just found it all too hard. Considering the 300,000 players maybe they could've spent 5 mins more and come up with a better system that didn't rely 100% on pot luck during the 3 weeks based on an injury crap shoot. It's OK to build a solid team with good cover but that cover is useless when all players are forced to play and injuries strike.

6 backs scoring
5 mids scoring
1 ruck scoring
6 fwds scoring

18 players total scoring instead of 22.

Still requires solid cover so the stronger teams will get through and those who haven't planned will not but at least allows some skill to cover for injuries etc.



VS hang your head in shame, your contract to run this game should be immediately revoked and given to someone who give a sh--.

+1!

I've just about given up due to the structure.

I have Scotland, Waters, Spurr, Hargrave, Townsend, Pendles, Rockliff, Zorko, Cox, Giles, Dangerfield, Treloar and Kennedy all out for round 11.

There will be 1000s of players that will lose interest due to the byes. And as you said, surviving the bye rounds will be complete and utter luck. Before this week, I was set up nicely for the bye rounds.

Now with Waters suspended, Scotland injured and Pendles injured, I'm screwed.

 

[Byron_Clanger]

I don't know why they went for three bye weeks, surely two split rounds could have done the job, but whatever

 

[BartBart]

I don't know why they went for three bye weeks, surely two split rounds could have done the job, but whatever

I suspect the AFL didn't want to have some teams getting an advantage come finals time depending on where their bye was. That said, they don't usually worry about some teams getting an advantage with fixturing, etc. And it probably wouldn't hurt if the Byes were spread over 6 rounds in the middle of the season.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

The season should just start straight away instead of 3 rounds in and there is no dt during the bye rounds, its as simple as that Dream Team get it done.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

If they kept the 30 man squad like last year it would be fine. If people think that makes cash generation too easy they could always just keep the salary cap the same and have the three extra players, meaning they could upgrade easier.


And for those of you that think it will be back to a split round again next year you are dreaming.

3 rounds = 12 live games for channel 7
Split round = 8 live games for channel 7

I could almost guarentee it's written in the rights agreement.

 

[mike262]

Would u be able to trade during this super round? cause if you can its basically what we have now and if you cant people would be raging about injuries and outs they cant do anything about in round 12,13.

I personally like the current structure. adds a new degree of difficulty to people goin for overall and it can really throw a spanner into league results for 3 weeks. makes it more interesting.

 

[yogibbear]

Game should be:

6 defenders, 3 bench
8 mids, 3 bench
1 ruck, 1 bench
6 fwds, 3 bench

... or some combination that reduces fwd/back/ruck and increases midfielders while improving bench to match bye issues. If there was no bye I could go with 2 bench in all positions.

4 x EMGs (1 per position, rather than ruck late outs = instant zeros with the 3 EMGs we have now or can set 2/3 in one position if you want with same rules as applies now).

Even IF they had bye rounds in whatever stupid configuration the AFL and the broadcasters can agree on, we would have minimal issues, and it provides better diversity in teams and is less of an issue for average players to deal with.

 

[Hank93]

Game should be:

6 defenders, 3 bench
8 mids, 3 bench
1 ruck, 1 bench
6 fwds, 3 bench

... or some combination that reduces fwd/back/ruck and increases midfielders while improving bench to match bye issues. If there was no bye I could go with 2 bench in all positions.

4 x EMGs (1 per position, rather than ruck late outs = instant zeros with the 3 EMGs we have now or can set 2/3 in one position if you want with same rules as applies now).

Even IF they had bye rounds in whatever stupid configuration the AFL and the broadcasters can agree on, we would have minimal issues, and it provides better diversity in teams and more

I like that structure for the entire season, but I think the idea of limiting the scoring to 16 players would have been a much better system to employ during the byes.

 

[Mattrox]

I like the idea League season starting in round 1 and no matches during the byes. Adjust League numbers to account for the one game lost.
I'd like to see the current 22 field players but have a bench of 3 FWD/DEF, 2 MID and 1 RUC for a total of 31 players. This makes it hard but not impossible to negotiate the byes for those interested in overall rankings.
They need to sort something out about the green vest though. The Red vest is a crap shoot like injuries etc during games. But having a rookie forgotten about on the bench in a game and then brought on for a score of 6 kills all the research and planning gone into cash cows. One bad vesting can ruin everything where you lose tens of thousands of value. There should be a box that you can choose, that activates your emergency if your player gets the Green vest after lock out (Sat & Sun games). That way if you don't want your emergency fielded for a vest situation, you can still have it there for the late out. ie tick the box to cover for a green vest or don't tick the box if you are happy with any score a green vested player may get. That would mean that if one of the players gets green vested you lose your emergency in that position if there is a late out (Unless you select 2 emergencies in that position) and you cop a 0.
They also need to look at DPP. Having Kruizer and Ryder not DPP FWD/RUC is plain old dumb. The FWD/DEF DPPs need to be looked at too. Johnson is working out well for me in that role, but there are other players that should have that status too. Having a reasonable (and accurate) DPP status players will also help negotiate the bye rounds under the above conditions.
On the downside, I reckon Sidey, Danger, Lids and a couple others will lose DPP next year due to their full time Mid roles.

 

[dylan123]

The current set up is an absolute disgrace for those going for the overall win. No thought at all from VS, looks like they just found it all too hard. Considering the 300,000 players maybe they could've spent 5 mins more and come up with a better system that didn't rely 100% on pot luck during the 3 weeks based on an injury crap shoot. It's OK to build a solid team with good cover but that cover is useless when all players are forced to play and injuries strike.

6 backs scoring
5 mids scoring
1 ruck scoring
6 fwds scoring

18 players total scoring instead of 22.

Still requires solid cover so the stronger teams will get through and those who haven't planned will not but at least allows some skill to cover for injuries etc.



VS hang your head in shame, your contract to run this game should be immediately revoked and given to someone who give a sh--.

Exactly, was shocked at how little they did to help us with these 3 bye rounds. Was pretty negative about it all once I first found out that they were just throwing us an extra 4 trades and the ability to do an extra trade during the three rounds. Now we're on the verge of the bye rounds, everything seems to be ****ed as expected....

I can't believe we got an extra spot in our fwd/mid/def last year when at most 3 teams would miss in one week (which I thought was a good fix for last year) and they decided to take this away this year when we have 6 teams missing for 3 weeks! Honestly hope we don't have byes like this in the AFL next year or VS decide to do a little more then spin the wheel and go with whatever it lands on as it was a pathetic attempt to assist us with the byes this year...

 

[warnie]

Many options were debated, and this was the one selected. I'm sure like any business, VS will look at how to move forward from here. The only thing I've got to say to all of the whingers is that we're all in the same situation. The playing field is even.

In saying that, we have some suggestions for how it can be done next year because what we don't want for this game (coming from my DT Talk business head), are people being disengaged and dropping off. Having 3 weeks off isn't the answer as floated by some (maths is one part of that).

Anyway... we'll see how it all ends up for 2013. At the moment, whinging isn't going to save you from a multitude of donuts over these next 3 weeks! Only luck can! (But isn't there luck EVERY week of DT?! Hmm...).

 

[SkankDanker]

Many options were debated, and this was the one selected. I'm sure like any business, VS will look at how to move forward from here. The only thing I've got to say to all of the whingers is that we're all in the same situation. The playing field is even.

In saying that, we have some suggestions for how it can be done next year because what we don't want for this game (coming from my DT Talk business head), are people being disengaged and dropping off. Having 3 weeks off isn't the answer as floated by some (maths is one part of that).

Anyway... we'll see how it all ends up for 2013. At the moment, whinging isn't going to save you from a multitude of donuts over these next 3 weeks! Only luck can! (But isn't there luck EVERY week of DT?! Hmm...).

Hey Warnie, firstly what were the other options debated? Are you at liberty to say? Going with this option seems to me that the least difficult route was taken ie no programming changes...easy from where I sit though.

Secondly I don't think people are whinging as such, most of these posts have offered up alternatives which it would be in VS's interests to read. Whinging would simply involve complaining but I think all DTers are smart enough to know we are in the same boat.

The overriding issue for me anyway is that VS have chosen a path which as you say can alienate some people...some like it some don't of course, but if they choose to go a certain way then they should listen to the feedback, and this is a good forum for it. I think calling people whingers just inhibits debate.

 

[adelaidecrow]

i love dt and always will no matter what.ive been involved in the same cash league with mates for 5 yrs now.not saying were elite dters by any stretch but the competive spirit between each other is what we love and why we all play.i know all 18 of us signed up for assistant coach.this is more a msg for vs than anything.the spirit has sunk to a new low heading into these mbr and some are talking of not playing next yr.it seems the fun has evaporated from dt heading into the mbr.i realy hope changes are made next yr. my favoured suggestions would be being able to temporarily trade out any players with a bye for another of equal or less value which automatically changes back at rounds completion or only having 5 backs 4 mids 1 ruck 5 fwds for these rounds.

 

[mollyfud]

I think the bigger worry is that the Players want two bye rounds. Personally I favor Bye round loans! So, if you have a player having a bye, you can loan a player of equal or less value just for that week to replace that player. Once the round is over and your player comes back, the loan player is gone!

 

[RustNeverSleeps]

Many options were debated, and this was the one selected. I'm sure like any business, VS will look at how to move forward from here. The only thing I've got to say to all of the whingers is that we're all in the same situation. The playing field is even.

In saying that, we have some suggestions for how it can be done next year because what we don't want for this game (coming from my DT Talk business head), are people being disengaged and dropping off. Having 3 weeks off isn't the answer as floated by some (maths is one part of that).

Anyway... we'll see how it all ends up for 2013. At the moment, whinging isn't going to save you from a multitude of donuts over these next 3 weeks! Only luck can! (But isn't there luck EVERY week of DT?! Hmm...).

You can manage some bad luck through the season with good bench options and team structure.
The bye period with no bench cover is plain russian roulette.

Having your 2012 "overall" DT season essentially decided by the next 3 weeks is kind of deflating.
It feels like the time spent in pre-season analysis was wasted somewhat.

The good people at VS screwed up in 2012... they should have maintained the 33 man squads.

 

[dylan123]

It seems most of us agree that how VS went about the bye rounds this year was very poor and hopefully "whinging" on places such as bigfooty will get their attention so they know what they did isn't popular and maybe consider spending some of their time on it this pre season to try and come up with a better fix (or look at one of the many ideas that have floated around on places such as here). If we all stayed quiet then they'd assume we're all happy with the "solution" they went for which certainly isn't the case for myself and most others by the looks of it.

 

[James]

The extra trade for each bye week has backfired for VS, as no one expected there to be so many injuries to popular DT premiums in the first 10 rounds. I'm not trading for the next 3 weeks, not because I think I'm being clever, but because I will lose interest if I'm almost out of trades by Rd14, which I will be if I try and cover 9 doughnuts during the MBR's. And even if I made the maximum 9 trades, I will most likely still cop at least 2 or 3 unexpected 0's.

 

[dylan123]

The extra trade for each bye week has backfired for VS, as no one expected there to be so many injuries to popular DT premiums in the first 10 rounds. I'm not trading for the next 3 weeks, not because I think I'm being clever, but because I will lose interest if I'm almost out of trades by Rd14, which I will be if I try and cover 9 doughnuts during the MBR's. And even if I made the maximum 9 trades, I will most likely still cop at least 2 or 3 unexpected 0's.

At best, I think the absolute minimum zeroes you could get during the bye rounds is 2 and that's when you're using 3 trades each bye round. Now when you consider, just how often we get to the mid season and have our full list playing? Almost never due to a number of things such as injuries/suspension/player being rested/dropped etc. When you then take out a third of the sides playing each week for 3 weeks running, VS's "solution" was always going to backfire if it was meant to somehow help us avoid zeroes completely or even minimally.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

Sorry but am I the only one that doesn't know who (or what) VS is?

 

[dylan123]

Sorry but am I the only one that doesn't know who (or what) VS is?

VS = virtual sports, the ones that run DT/SC etc.