I reckon it is fair. Giving teams that finished lower in the previous season the most advantageous draw is as fair as giving them higher draft picks.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Solution for DT when Gold Coast enter
- Thread starter Alex_au
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Its not fair giving some teams more byes then others though (whether they finished bottom 4 or not) - give everyone two byes.
Port adelaide finished bottom 4 in 2008 - they still are a chance to be a finals participant. Western Bulldogs were also bottom four in 2007, but where a major played in 2008. You just cant judge this thing - its impossible!
Port adelaide finished bottom 4 in 2008 - they still are a chance to be a finals participant. Western Bulldogs were also bottom four in 2007, but where a major played in 2008. You just cant judge this thing - its impossible!
They would still get 2 byes each.
Eg. One team has a bye each week for the first 9 rounds. Then there are 5 rounds of triple byes (only 7 games in the round, this is where the major DT problem is!). Then finish with 10 rounds of single byes. Total: 9*1 + 5*3 + 10*1 = 34, which is 2*17.
Hawthorn gets byes in round 1 and round 13, Melbourne in rounds 12 and 24.
- Mar 23, 2009
- 5,296
- 4,946
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- San Antonio Spurs
Wow great idea, thats perfect. Pretty much solves the whole problem if you pick a player of equal or less value for 1 week. I hope that Virtual Sports do this one.
DIG
Brownlow Medallist
Herald-Sun:
THE AFL is likely to play a 24-week season in 2011 to cater for the 17th team, with all teams having two byes. The league has already done its preliminary modelling to cater for the 11 home games that will be created by the inclusion of the Gold Coast team.
The AFL is in no rush to finalise the structure of the 2011 fixture, to be released late next year, and says all its planning is at a preliminary stage.
But the league will start the home-and-away season a week earlier, and is likely to play two extra rounds: one of eight games and one of just three.
Effectively, there would be no set split round, but 11 teams would have a break the weekend three games were played.
All teams would have two byes, staggered over the season.
It would create the unfortunate - but necessary - situation where teams are judged by a win-loss ratio rather than premiership points because, until Round 24, sides will have played a different number of games.
AFL chief operating officer Gillon McLachlan said yesterday the league had several options, but the two-bye season looked likely.
"Obviously 2011 is a long way away, but we have come up with one solution which sees us playing 22 rounds over 24 weeks," he said.
"The 17th team essentially puts 11 home games into the fixture. You have one extra club playing 11 home games."
Presently, there are 176 home games on the fixture, but Gold Coast's games will increase that to 187.
"It effectively becomes another full round of eight games, and a round of three," McLachlan said.
If all goes to plan, the AFL will introduce the western Sydney side in 2012, with the season to then expand to a 24-round fixture without a pre-season competition.
This could conceivably push out the 2012 fixture to 26 weeks, considering the clubs will need up to two split rounds in what will be a long and arduous season.
The AFL is almost certain to keep the pre-season competition for 2011, before dispensing with it in 2012 because of the length of the 24-round season.
If the league is forced to delay the 18th team's arrival by a year, the 2011 format would continue for an extra season.
The league has already confirmed it will not expand the final-eight system, despite the introduction of two more teams.
Last year the Hall of Fame game to celebrate football's 150th anniversary created two spare weekends for all players who didn't take part in the showpiece clash.
The league knows it must strike a delicate balance between giving players rest and robbing the season of momentum.
"The guys that play a lot of football look forward to the break, but our view is that it does put unnecessary holes in our season, so we are pretty comfortable that in a 16-team competition, one break is the right number," McLachlan said.
AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou floated the 24-round concept in the Herald Sun last year.
"We are looking at 24 rounds with 18 teams coming in, but that would be at the expense of the pre-season competition," Demetriou said at the time.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nothing's confirmed yet but a longer season's definitely on the cards.
Wonder if dreamteam leagues will be expanded from 16 to 17 on the website too.
THE AFL is likely to play a 24-week season in 2011 to cater for the 17th team, with all teams having two byes. The league has already done its preliminary modelling to cater for the 11 home games that will be created by the inclusion of the Gold Coast team.
The AFL is in no rush to finalise the structure of the 2011 fixture, to be released late next year, and says all its planning is at a preliminary stage.
But the league will start the home-and-away season a week earlier, and is likely to play two extra rounds: one of eight games and one of just three.
Effectively, there would be no set split round, but 11 teams would have a break the weekend three games were played.
All teams would have two byes, staggered over the season.
It would create the unfortunate - but necessary - situation where teams are judged by a win-loss ratio rather than premiership points because, until Round 24, sides will have played a different number of games.
AFL chief operating officer Gillon McLachlan said yesterday the league had several options, but the two-bye season looked likely.
"Obviously 2011 is a long way away, but we have come up with one solution which sees us playing 22 rounds over 24 weeks," he said.
"The 17th team essentially puts 11 home games into the fixture. You have one extra club playing 11 home games."
Presently, there are 176 home games on the fixture, but Gold Coast's games will increase that to 187.
"It effectively becomes another full round of eight games, and a round of three," McLachlan said.
If all goes to plan, the AFL will introduce the western Sydney side in 2012, with the season to then expand to a 24-round fixture without a pre-season competition.
This could conceivably push out the 2012 fixture to 26 weeks, considering the clubs will need up to two split rounds in what will be a long and arduous season.
The AFL is almost certain to keep the pre-season competition for 2011, before dispensing with it in 2012 because of the length of the 24-round season.
If the league is forced to delay the 18th team's arrival by a year, the 2011 format would continue for an extra season.
The league has already confirmed it will not expand the final-eight system, despite the introduction of two more teams.
Last year the Hall of Fame game to celebrate football's 150th anniversary created two spare weekends for all players who didn't take part in the showpiece clash.
The league knows it must strike a delicate balance between giving players rest and robbing the season of momentum.
"The guys that play a lot of football look forward to the break, but our view is that it does put unnecessary holes in our season, so we are pretty comfortable that in a 16-team competition, one break is the right number," McLachlan said.
AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou floated the 24-round concept in the Herald Sun last year.
"We are looking at 24 rounds with 18 teams coming in, but that would be at the expense of the pre-season competition," Demetriou said at the time.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nothing's confirmed yet but a longer season's definitely on the cards.
Wonder if dreamteam leagues will be expanded from 16 to 17 on the website too.
Papa Juggs
Hall of Famer
- Banned
- #31
Expanding the bottom 8 to a bottom 10 lol
Less finals action per club
Some clubs don't get any as it is.
Less finals action per club
Some clubs don't get any as it is.
iluvparis
Import Whisperer
- Apr 1, 2005
- 50,055
- 40,654
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Calgary Flames, Man Utd
If they had any balls they'd return it to a top 4.Expanding the bottom 8 to a bottom 10 lol
Less finals action per club
I agree. I think that top 8 with 16 teams is pretty bad - you can lose more than you win and still make the 8 some years. On the other hand, top 4 is really really tough with so many teams. I personally they should extend the rugby to a top 6 (or something)
top 8 with 18 getting closer to optimal - however with way AFL does finals (i.e. not single elimination) they could easily modify it to an arbitrary number of teams in the finals. It need not be the traditional power of 2.
The Falcon Strike
Hall of Famer
i reckon either leave it as it is and make it harder(with the 3 game round excluded).
or add an extra bench spot to each line without changing the salary cap. The rules will be the same for everyone - and it will be much more interesting for a year or 2 when everyone has a different side.
I think it would also mean that the stratgies for a league win and overall ranking would be further separated.
or add an extra bench spot to each line without changing the salary cap. The rules will be the same for everyone - and it will be much more interesting for a year or 2 when everyone has a different side.
I think it would also mean that the stratgies for a league win and overall ranking would be further separated.
Whatever happens won't make everyone happy, so there'll obviously be people who crack the shits for one reason or another.
The most likely outcome with the fixture is that there'll be a fair bit of yoyo-ing up and down the rankings, so people won't really know where they're truly at until the latter stages of the season.
Team selections will be interesting as well. Will be interesting to see whether or not those who are aiming for a league win avoid the premiums from clubs that have byes during the finals period (Edit: just saw a similar point mentioned above).
Hopefully average scores don't come in for players with byes. I also hope that it's not reverted to the old system where en emergency could fill in for any position.
It'll more than likely be a fair mess for the year or so that there's an uneven amount of teams, but overall it'll hopefully be a good challenge.
The most likely outcome with the fixture is that there'll be a fair bit of yoyo-ing up and down the rankings, so people won't really know where they're truly at until the latter stages of the season.
Team selections will be interesting as well. Will be interesting to see whether or not those who are aiming for a league win avoid the premiums from clubs that have byes during the finals period (Edit: just saw a similar point mentioned above).
Hopefully average scores don't come in for players with byes. I also hope that it's not reverted to the old system where en emergency could fill in for any position.
It'll more than likely be a fair mess for the year or so that there's an uneven amount of teams, but overall it'll hopefully be a good challenge.
- Oct 3, 2004
- 1,138
- 1
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Dream team
That's a decent idea, but what about say if you have Ablett and he was in the middle of a 3 week injury when Geelong have their bye? That would mean you could bring in Swan for Ablett even though Ablett wouldn't play anyway as he'd have an injury. Just another consideration I guess...
Well for the one week where geelong have the bye you could sub Ablett and I guess it will just be a bit of luck.
agreed...think its the best and only solution. Taking a players average defeats the purpose of the game because the idea is to find players with consistency...not someone who can get 150 then 75 and carry an average of 90.
Think if you were fortunate to have ABlett in your team and he was out injured...then that's the bit of luck you get by been able to trade him to Swan for the 1 week.
However, it would only be a temp trade...no matter what it reverts back at the conclusion of the round.
So if Ablett is then declared out for a month...you still get him back, you can't keep Swan. Could actually be a decent way to force people to keep injured players. If they have a bye coming up, then they can use the sub so they miss 1 less game.
And you would also have to monitor your bank account. If you have an extra 200K in your account, you could say swap Rich to Ablett for a 1 off week....but when the is over and you get Rich back, you have blown $200K for a 1 off match.
Could be a way to build money, you could swap Ablett to Muston and make 300K...but i think in this situation you should have to pay the money back when Ablett returns.
Or alternativey you have a separate balance for these temporary bye trades. You start off with $0 and you would obviously try and build that balance so that you can trade out average players for a star...but to do that, you blow all the money in this separate account. But you could build that back up again by say swapping Ablett to Muston for that round. Would be up to you how you manage that separate account. But if you have a tough match coming up, you can put a bit extra into your side for that round.
NewBabyBombaz
Debutant
I have a proposal that i believe is nearly flawless and will really shake up the competition for those who are feeling like its becoming stale.
How about when a player of yours has a bye you can elect a player of equal or less value to sub in. For instance Richmond is having a buy, you could replace Bowden with Burgoyne, assuming he is worth more at that point. This way there will be greater dynamic for coaches skill in picking players beyond initial selection and then the 20 trades, this will also mean there will be no need for more bench positions or more trades, HOWEVER,
I do accept criticism in that certain injured players will be able to be subbed when their team has a bye, but i'm sure there is means to avoid this, eg only those who played the previous week can be subbed, or just accept this minor indiscretion as another positive in keeping those who are injured for a few weeks!
What do you think, i think its brilliant
How about when a player of yours has a bye you can elect a player of equal or less value to sub in. For instance Richmond is having a buy, you could replace Bowden with Burgoyne, assuming he is worth more at that point. This way there will be greater dynamic for coaches skill in picking players beyond initial selection and then the 20 trades, this will also mean there will be no need for more bench positions or more trades, HOWEVER,
I do accept criticism in that certain injured players will be able to be subbed when their team has a bye, but i'm sure there is means to avoid this, eg only those who played the previous week can be subbed, or just accept this minor indiscretion as another positive in keeping those who are injured for a few weeks!
What do you think, i think its brilliant
Why is it that everyone thinks that adding extra rules and stipulations to the system makes it better? Complication leads to problems, then you're forced to create solutions to those problems, and so on in an ever expanding problem spread.
Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is the best.
Same format as now, people learn to deal with the inherent problems the format creates. Means you have to be better at choosing your rookies and when they have byes; you have to have a better understanding of the fixture to be a contender; requires greater thought on when to bring in premiums outside of just their price and B/E; not just picking up 5-6 Geelong players at the start of the year, as it will bite you on the arse twice in the year, etc. It won't be easy, but this game is getting simple as it is; mixing it up and adding extra difficulties is a good thing.
I guess the people advocating other ad-hoc/band-aid solutions to 2011 don't want to have to work this hard to be good. If people don't like this format, they can always boycott until 2012/13 when these issues become void.
Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is the best.
Same format as now, people learn to deal with the inherent problems the format creates. Means you have to be better at choosing your rookies and when they have byes; you have to have a better understanding of the fixture to be a contender; requires greater thought on when to bring in premiums outside of just their price and B/E; not just picking up 5-6 Geelong players at the start of the year, as it will bite you on the arse twice in the year, etc. It won't be easy, but this game is getting simple as it is; mixing it up and adding extra difficulties is a good thing.
I guess the people advocating other ad-hoc/band-aid solutions to 2011 don't want to have to work this hard to be good. If people don't like this format, they can always boycott until 2012/13 when these issues become void.
Piikeyyy
Team Captain
The EPL has a similar dilemma each year. I havent played it for a couple of years but im pretty sure what they do is everyone can make one free trade each week. Any trade you wish to make during that week after you have used that one trade will cost you points to your overall score. Example for AFL dt, say an extra trade cost you 50 points, for every trade after you make your free trade you will lose 50 points (For the EPL it is 4 points you lose).
Just thought it could be something to think about.
Just thought it could be something to think about.
PL4ST1CV1K1NG
Debutant
How many people are playing NRL DT this year? There's byes and State of Origin to contend with, and there's no complicated 'take the average of the player who's having a bye and divide it by the number of cats their next door neighbour has' type of shenanigans...Just 30 trades for the year (25 rounds) and 8 non-playing subs.
I know it's been said before, but if they need to change anything, just increase the number of trades or extend the bench an extra player per position. That should do the trick, especially for the casual player, and makes a lot more sense than using averages or equations that make the Duckworth-Lewis system look simple.
I know it's been said before, but if they need to change anything, just increase the number of trades or extend the bench an extra player per position. That should do the trick, especially for the casual player, and makes a lot more sense than using averages or equations that make the Duckworth-Lewis system look simple.
I also back the 'replace' the bye player for one week idea (I made a similar suggestion earlier in the thread). I don't believe it is adding more rules to make things more complicated - I believe it is the simplest solution for the once-off situation (assuming we actually get West Sydney in 2012).
If not what value do you give to the premiums of the team with the bye in R22 - or any of the finals rounds (18-22) for that matter? And what of the round with 3 games only (as I believe is proposed) - it would be a rabble.
As a bonus I really think it would add an extra element to the gameplay.
If not what value do you give to the premiums of the team with the bye in R22 - or any of the finals rounds (18-22) for that matter? And what of the round with 3 games only (as I believe is proposed) - it would be a rabble.
As a bonus I really think it would add an extra element to the gameplay.
I think in the end, its not going to be some complicated solution (ie not replacing player of equal or lessor value for their bye week) as it just becomes too complicated.
In all honesty, they will just expand each bench spot by one position (or something similar) and we will have to deal with it. That is the most logical solution IMO.
In all honesty, they will just expand each bench spot by one position (or something similar) and we will have to deal with it. That is the most logical solution IMO.
They will do it the easiest possible way, bigger bench, more trades, 3 or 4 trades per week.
BUDDY 4 PM
Draftee
you have to go the sub idea anythin else is ridiculous. i suggest you hav the 20 regular trades and 30 sub trades, that can be only b made on players that hav the bye.
possible adjustment is 2 seperate slary caps one for normal tadring and 1 for subs (this is particularly 4 supercoach wit greater difference in price) for example u hav ablett and geelong hav teh byw 4 a week u sub him 4 swan nd still have 50K left over after the sub. u then have mackie u can sub him for any1 his price plus the 50K from ablett trade. of course at teh completion of rnd both ablett and mackie r bak in ur teams probs 2 confusing but another thing 2 think about.
if they dnt change anything it will b impossible 2 cover if 3 teams hav the bye in one week. for example geelong, stkilda and western bulldogs hav a bye in the same week
atm i wud hav ablett, bartel, chapman, mackie, goddard, fisher, roo, hayes, higgins, cross and hargreaves out. u couldnt hav enough subs to stop all of them but subs wud stop u from copping 10 zereo's. and plus the good old days of having 6 geelong players will b gone.
not sure of xtended bench either
at the end of the day its going 2 b very messy but shuld b interesting will b massiv difference between teams
possible adjustment is 2 seperate slary caps one for normal tadring and 1 for subs (this is particularly 4 supercoach wit greater difference in price) for example u hav ablett and geelong hav teh byw 4 a week u sub him 4 swan nd still have 50K left over after the sub. u then have mackie u can sub him for any1 his price plus the 50K from ablett trade. of course at teh completion of rnd both ablett and mackie r bak in ur teams probs 2 confusing but another thing 2 think about.
if they dnt change anything it will b impossible 2 cover if 3 teams hav the bye in one week. for example geelong, stkilda and western bulldogs hav a bye in the same week
atm i wud hav ablett, bartel, chapman, mackie, goddard, fisher, roo, hayes, higgins, cross and hargreaves out. u couldnt hav enough subs to stop all of them but subs wud stop u from copping 10 zereo's. and plus the good old days of having 6 geelong players will b gone.
not sure of xtended bench either
at the end of the day its going 2 b very messy but shuld b interesting will b massiv difference between teams
Word is that rather than having several 7 game rounds, there will be just one 3 game round and every other round has 8 games. Forget complicated solutions, it won't happen. I think there wil just be an increase in trades (30 or 40, maybe limit of 3 per round). The 3 game round might just be ignored.
