If that’s the case, then surely for competition fairness we carry forward the positions and game setup that coaches have specifically planned around? I think throwing a bombshell that we’re changing the entire structure and then swapping to whatever positions this new site has would be unfair.
Right now my 20 keepers has enough coverage to cover any shortages. Looking at the different aflfantasy site, their positions now have me 12 pure midfielders (plus they have reduced C spots to 5), 3 pure rucks, 4 backs and 1 forward. Considering I traded basically all my picks, I’ll basically be playing short in the forwardline. I certainly wouldn’t have traded the way I did if I knew everything would be scrapped.
I’d have thought you go to the website that carries forward the closest setting to what we have now and then you can just customize positions to what ultimate footy had at the end of last year, which is what I think the other league is doing.
I haven’t been to or joined the AFL site yet to see the changes to positions but id be surprised if it was too much different to what UF would have done this year.
Every time you trade you are at risk of whatever site you play on changing the positions, that’s not just an AFL site thing, that’s UF also. There always been a discussion in our league of doing our own positions vs whatever UF decides.
Whichever option you choose, there are issues. Melk and I did the positions one year and it is a massive job and still some people didn’t agree, same as if UF does it. I prefer that the site we play on does it just because then it is something that coaches can’t be upset with other coaches for voting one way or the other or the coach/coaches manually doing the positions. It’s just the luck of the draw.
Either way i don’t feel super strongly about it to fight to the death over it but as i said, i would prefer to keep it simple this year and we can assess for next year and there’s every chance the AFL site will adapt to customer wants and change for the next season.
Yes, you are at risk of the site you play on changing positions to a degree, but I’ve never had that website completely shutdown, and one of the alternative options have such drastic position changes as a result and be forced to change the entire game format (5-7-5-1) that coaches have specifically planned or traded for. Because make no mistake the game format makes a huge difference for me and was one of my key strategies in formulating my team in the past 5 years.
I’m not sure anyone was suggesting we all manually do every player position. I was suggesting we just copy the final UF player positions from last year, and for the new draftees we simply use what The Bench has given us. It’d be a simple solution. Another solution would be to simply copy the other leagues’ positions.
The game format is huge for me and the way I traded/drafted. There is no chance I do some of my trades knowing we completely change game format. Both present issues sure, but The Bench we can carry forward the same format and simply change the positions to what UF had which would be the most consistent and fair way to continue forwards. It would be the less significant changes of the two options. End of next year we can evaluate if we continue. I believe the other league is also using The Bench option.
I admittedly have more skin in the game as I’m in premiership contention. I inherited a wooden spoon side, and with years of drafting, trading and research have formulated a team that has won a premiership to this specific game format (5-7-5-1). To basically have the rug pulled out from under you a few weeks out from the comp start would really hurt my enthusiasm and be really disappointing. I’d basically have to revamp my entire squad in a few weeks.
I was under the understanding that they copy official ones and then added their own. They have always had different positions to what the official AFL Fantasy/Supercoach has. Overall it’s been very disappointing from UF. AFL clearly brought them out and in turn screwed lots of keeper leagues similar to ours. Reading their twitter page, the responses seem to echo the disappointment:
By copying over last years UF positions you are fundamentally changing the system we have been using for years.
I think the majority of players you are upset about having lost dual status would have happened on UF this year any way. As i said, when we trade, we take the risk of them losing dual status or changing from a C to a F or whatever. That’s part of the strategy of trading.
Yup. That’s how I remember things as well. We use the delivered UF positions (which are champion data positions, plus a couple of extra additions that UF feel CD missed)
That is correct. Each year players would be adjusted based on champion data’s reclassifications. So we have a similar problem each year. UF would add a few extra positions at the start of the season and then during the season. But it wouldn’t be drastically different to what AFL fantasy does.
As I said I will collate the data and come back with the overall impact.
How so? If we are copying UF last positions then that is just carrying it forwards from the same site we’ve used for 5+ years? This AFL site is not related in any way to UF, they’ve just been bought out, and this AFL site is far different in terms of game format, positions, league customization and squads.
And what about the game format? That is surely the most significant change? I’m not hearing much about changing the game format which has a huge impact on teams, how can you plan for something that has been sprung on you a few weeks out from the season start?
We’ve never copied last years positions into the new season. We always rolled with CD positions, so we’ve always had the risk to lose a position moving into a new season.