I would like to make part of my response available to all coaches -
I have suggested giving each coach the option of 20 or 21 or 22 keepers. This gives each coach the flexibility to adjust his side according to his individual circumstances. Keeping 21 would mean missing the 1st round of the draft, 1st & 2nd rounds if you keep 22. This will not keep teams at the bottom, but rather give them some options.
Sorry but this is completely impractical and unmanageable with trading involved. The only way it would work is by not allowing 1st and 2nd picks to be traded which then automatically reduced the number of trades that will occur in the league - therefore less interaction and less involvement which will slowly erode the essence of the league.
No worries , I was just looking for an alternative. My vote is still for 22 keepers then.
I would argue we should have less keepers, say 15, and fill the talent pool for the draft to have more interesting mature age prospects to decide against largely speculative new draftees. Draft picks are so wildly overrated at the moment given the current structure, because all teams have a full team in their keepers already. By reducing the number of keepers it makes the draft more interesting, more important to execute correctly and equalises the playing field slightly more so for the bottom teams where by they can maybe go for more established players in lieu of unproven draftees who may not get a run in year 1 or 2 and work their way back up the ladder quickly, as opposed to hoping pick 6 turns out to be Chad Wingard and not another Mitch Thorp.
Thoughts?
Whilst i like your thinking i think it might be a step too far at this stage. The downside is that it really increases the importance of the draft, whereas the current mix allows for drafters, traders and those in between all to be in the mix.
Why would we not want to increase the importance of the draft? That is largely the skill of fantasy sport. The only difference is we have 15 keepers to create a nucleus of our team. And I say nucleus as it doesn’t mean that we can hoard an entire team of 18 in keepers (plus 2 extra).
Fantasy sport skill is about decision-making and correctly assigning value to player x vs player y for your team. We don’t necessarily have this as much as I think we should at the moment because we get more than a whole team on our keeper list.
Not a bad suggestion Bewick, but how would that work if you've traded out your first round pick? Or like wob, traded out your first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth round picks?
I would suggest if he got any injuries, he would be in real trouble. Everyone knows the late rounds are very ordinary.
Notes: Of those who prefer to change the keeper size, one preferred to go smaller. The balance wanted more or didnt specify
Result: Vote is to stay with 20 keepers.
Change from UF position decisions to customised positions.
Yes - 3
No - 15.
Notes: A couple of coaches noted that they didnt think we had anyone with the time and resources to maintain custom positional decisions.
Result: Vote is to stay with UF assigned positions.
Assign our own Ruck eligibility as a sub-group.
Yes - 5
No - 13.
Notes: Several coaches expanded on their vote with a comment that the ruck relief rule should be shelved. This needs discussion imo.
Result: Vote is to stay with UF ruck status.
Keep Free Agency applications until after teams are named:
Yes - 14
No - 2
No opinion - 2.
Notes: The two No’s wanted a return to tuesday allocations to reward coaches who followed Reserve form. Three coaches stated that they felt that avoiding 'zero’s" outweighed the need to reward research.
Result: Free Agency applications will remain post-teams naming
Introduce a set time frame for Unrestricted Free Agents signup.
Yes - 1
No - 17
Result: Vote is to keep UFA’s signup open until 1st bounce of 1st game.
Allow Lti listings in the final 8 weeks of the AFL H&A season.
Yes - 2
No - 16
Result: Vote is to stay with current rule prohibiting addition of LTI listings post round 15.
Stick with current ground formation of 5 B, 7M, 5F, 1R.
Yes - 14
No - 4.
Notes: there is some latent support for a return to “Utility” even amongst the “Yes” vote. Several coaches noted that they would prefer that setup but felt that the current should be maintained for at least another season to let it “bed in” and lists to be formed accordingly.
So it appears after some healthy debate that there is a general consensus that everything is pretty good the way it is.
With the decision to keep using UF positions for rucks the key outstanding issue is the ruck relief rule.
My vote is to shelve it given it creates as many issues as it solves. Everyone will have fair warning and will be able to trade/draft as appropriately as possible.
On that basis you should all be coming at me with your offers - Nicholls, Nankervis and Sinclair are all starting rucks IMO for 2017!
So it appears after some healthy debate that there is a general consensus that everything is pretty good the way it is.
With the decision to keep using UF positions for rucks the key outstanding issue is the ruck relief rule.
My vote is to shelve it given it creates as many issues as it solves. Everyone will have fair warning and will be able to trade/draft as appropriately as possible.
On that basis you should all be coming at me with your offers - Nicholls, Nankervis and Sinclair are all starting rucks IMO for 2017!
I’m also happy to move one of Stef Martin, Archie Smith or Jarrod Witts (now at the Gold Coast).