SCSUL RULE CHANGES - Discussion
- Thread starter KLo30
- Start date
- Joined
- 21 May 2012
- Messages
- 22,366
- Likes
- 31,319
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Joined
- 16 Apr 2014
- Messages
- 1,014
- Likes
- 2,102
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Could I confirm, as I don't think it is in rules document, year on year positional changes follow the Supercoach game.
The only exception is rucks, who is drafted with ruck eligibility keep it if it is removed?
So I maintain Comben as a ruck forward, despite being a forward only this year.
However, Holmes is only a mid this year, so I lose his forward status?
The only exception is rucks, who is drafted with ruck eligibility keep it if it is removed?
So I maintain Comben as a ruck forward, despite being a forward only this year.
However, Holmes is only a mid this year, so I lose his forward status?
Hi all
I would like to propose / agree some clear “rolling lockout rules” which apply to: (i) rounds with Wednesday or Thursday games; and (ii) split bye rounds.
Current Rules (which we keep)
- VC/Cs lock in the first game of the round
- Players from teams playing in the earlier games (whether in an earlier week or a Wednesday or Thursday), lock at the commencement of their game.
- Teams will fully lock at the first Friday game of a round (which will be the second Friday if there is a split round unless otherwise notified by the Commissioner (ie if there isn’t a Friday game)).
New clarifacatory rules:
- once Es on a line have played, pre-full lockout, the Es can’t be automatically moved onfield by a coach when there is an “out” unless there is a note flagging that the Es are “next in” and a replacement E has already been nominated
- if a player in the original 22 is subsequently not named at Thursday teams and the E on their line has played, that E must come on field. Unless a replacement E is nominated in Notes, the coach must leave team as is and let the Commissioner make the change.
- before full lockout, positions in the 22 can be freely altered, but obvious non-playing players are not permitted to be moved on field to take E scores. For clarity, this rule is intended to permit players to benefit from returning injured players (so playing weaker players can be replaced by returning stronger players).
For discussion:
- for notes about replacement Es to be valid, a replacement player must be named (reference to depth chart order are not valid).
Last one for discussion as personally, I think clarity in the notes benefits all otherwise, the team selection seems to be potentially open to debate (given the depth chart changes from time to time).
I would like to propose / agree some clear “rolling lockout rules” which apply to: (i) rounds with Wednesday or Thursday games; and (ii) split bye rounds.
Current Rules (which we keep)
- VC/Cs lock in the first game of the round
- Players from teams playing in the earlier games (whether in an earlier week or a Wednesday or Thursday), lock at the commencement of their game.
- Teams will fully lock at the first Friday game of a round (which will be the second Friday if there is a split round unless otherwise notified by the Commissioner (ie if there isn’t a Friday game)).
New clarifacatory rules:
- once Es on a line have played, pre-full lockout, the Es can’t be automatically moved onfield by a coach when there is an “out” unless there is a note flagging that the Es are “next in” and a replacement E has already been nominated
- if a player in the original 22 is subsequently not named at Thursday teams and the E on their line has played, that E must come on field. Unless a replacement E is nominated in Notes, the coach must leave team as is and let the Commissioner make the change.
- before full lockout, positions in the 22 can be freely altered, but obvious non-playing players are not permitted to be moved on field to take E scores. For clarity, this rule is intended to permit players to benefit from returning injured players (so playing weaker players can be replaced by returning stronger players).
For discussion:
- for notes about replacement Es to be valid, a replacement player must be named (reference to depth chart order are not valid).
Last one for discussion as personally, I think clarity in the notes benefits all otherwise, the team selection seems to be potentially open to debate (given the depth chart changes from time to time).
During our discussions when developing the game, we highlighted that the game itself would evolved as the seasons went by, especially in regards to the make up of team lists with 2nd Contract, Restricted Free Agency and Free Agency.
Tim has been working on tallying the games played for each player for each Keeper League team, and that got me thinking about team loyalty, the pride we have as we watch our players develop over time and how we agonise over losing them when we trade, they retire or get delisted.
We altered slightly the 2nd Contract pricing after a few years to help teams retain the players they drafted. Now, it's the turn of RFAs, and in a few years, FAs. We proposed that once a player had reach free agency and had been on their original team through all contract stages they would be eligible for a signing discount if the original team won their contract rights, with the discount being in the region of 2.5% - 5%. What we didn't thoroughly work through is RFAs, and the original team losing them. Which is a worthwhile discussion.
This will be the first year that high profile and/or high scoring RFAs will hit the market, and as within the AFL, protecting clubs from losing players they have spent time cultivating on their lists. In the AFL, if a club loses a player they receive a compensation draft pick determined by a formula (only known to the AFL). If we were to emulate the AFL, which is the basis of our competition, what should it look like for us?
For the sake of the discussion, I'll put up some ideas:
1. There would be only one band/threshold, and the compensation would be an end of first round draft pick.
2. The player would need to be a top 15 Defender, Ruck or Forward or top 25 MId (as there are more positions to field in this area). Looking at this year's scores to date that would put the band at approximately:
4. A player can't be traded after the season before their RFA draft and be eligible for compensation.
5. The contract price would exceed the determined price for each position via a formula. e.g. Position Threshold x 5500 x 1,6
** The multiplier could be raised or lowered, or the actual players average used instead of the position threshold.
# Alternatively the players season average could be used, and probably a slightly lower multiplier (say 1.5)
e.g. LDU 110.4 x 5500 x 1.5 = $910,800
Tim has been working on tallying the games played for each player for each Keeper League team, and that got me thinking about team loyalty, the pride we have as we watch our players develop over time and how we agonise over losing them when we trade, they retire or get delisted.
We altered slightly the 2nd Contract pricing after a few years to help teams retain the players they drafted. Now, it's the turn of RFAs, and in a few years, FAs. We proposed that once a player had reach free agency and had been on their original team through all contract stages they would be eligible for a signing discount if the original team won their contract rights, with the discount being in the region of 2.5% - 5%. What we didn't thoroughly work through is RFAs, and the original team losing them. Which is a worthwhile discussion.
This will be the first year that high profile and/or high scoring RFAs will hit the market, and as within the AFL, protecting clubs from losing players they have spent time cultivating on their lists. In the AFL, if a club loses a player they receive a compensation draft pick determined by a formula (only known to the AFL). If we were to emulate the AFL, which is the basis of our competition, what should it look like for us?
For the sake of the discussion, I'll put up some ideas:
1. There would be only one band/threshold, and the compensation would be an end of first round draft pick.
2. The player would need to be a top 15 Defender, Ruck or Forward or top 25 MId (as there are more positions to field in this area). Looking at this year's scores to date that would put the band at approximately:
- Defender: 100
- Midfielder: 105
- Ruck: 95
- Forward: 85
4. A player can't be traded after the season before their RFA draft and be eligible for compensation.
5. The contract price would exceed the determined price for each position via a formula. e.g. Position Threshold x 5500 x 1,6
- Defender: 100 x 5500 x 1.6 = $880,000
- Midfielder: 105 x 5500 x 1.6 = $924,000
- Ruck: 95 x 5500 x 1.6 = $836,000
- Forward: 85 x 5500 x 1.6 = $748,000
** The multiplier could be raised or lowered, or the actual players average used instead of the position threshold.
# Alternatively the players season average could be used, and probably a slightly lower multiplier (say 1.5)
e.g. LDU 110.4 x 5500 x 1.5 = $910,800
Last edited:
Is this how it would work practically? So the player would go into the auction and get bid on. Let's say the top bid came at 800k then the rfa rights holder would then have a choice to either match bid, but get discount so get to keep the player for say $760k, or they don't match bid and get a end of first round compo.
Probably one thing to chat about is being say a top 15 defender, is this based purely on the last year of contract stats only? I'm just thinking about the possible situation where a player averages 100 points 5 years in a row, and then in there last contract year are injured early and subbed in their 2nd or 3rd game, thus have abnormally low ranked year.
Probably one thing to chat about is being say a top 15 defender, is this based purely on the last year of contract stats only? I'm just thinking about the possible situation where a player averages 100 points 5 years in a row, and then in there last contract year are injured early and subbed in their 2nd or 3rd game, thus have abnormally low ranked year.
1. RFA doesn't get a discount. Only FA that had gone through all contract stages with the one team.
2. $800K wouldn't meet the threshold above. If the bid is not matched then their is no compensation. If the bid was $900K, and not matched, there would be compensation.
3. Yes, I was basing it upon the last season. A rule could certainly be implemented for the injury scenario. As they would have been on their 2nd contract, a shorter period of consistent excellence might be fairer, but your point is valid.
2. $800K wouldn't meet the threshold above. If the bid is not matched then their is no compensation. If the bid was $900K, and not matched, there would be compensation.
3. Yes, I was basing it upon the last season. A rule could certainly be implemented for the injury scenario. As they would have been on their 2nd contract, a shorter period of consistent excellence might be fairer, but your point is valid.
This is an interesting idea.
I have a few suggestions at this stage:
1. The multiplier should be materially lower - I think we can potentially do away with it altogether. I think the rationale for multipliers previously was to reflect the natural progression of players … second contracts get calculated/set when players are early in their careers, so their second year averages are not representative of what they will develop into, and a multiplier adjusts for this. In the example above we are only looking at players who are already top 15-25 in their position, so they are unlikely to have much, if any, natural progression left 🙂 Looking at it a different way, a multiplier of 1.6x implies salaries or $748k and even higher … the best averaging player in last year’s auction, even including free agents, only went at $700k, which wouldn’t be high enough to trigger compensation. I think we can significantly reduce the multiplier on the basis that we want owners to be compensated for losing a quality player - ie we want the trigger to be reachable/reached.
2. We could potentially make an exception for rucks, and apply a multiplier of >1 for them, if desired. It seems clear that they get paid more per point scored, ie they effectively have a higher multiplier based on their market price. I don’t really mind either way on this point, I’m mainly raising it for completeness/as an exception to the arguments supporting point 1. Plenty of rucks went above $700k last auction, despite not being overly high averaging, so there does seem to be a two tiered market operating. Perhaps our rules should reflect that fact.
3. A simple way to deal with a gun player getting injured, and so posting an unrepresentative low average, could be to take the higher of the last two years’ averages. [Another option could be to impose a minimum game count to qualify, otherwise it reverts to the prior season’s average being tested against the threshold.]
4. Given we may have more than one compensation pick in a given year, we would need a way to decide the order. A logical and fair way to do it would seemingly be to base it on the average of the player lost. Given we do the auction in order of prior year’s average, I think that would mean that whoever was the first coach to lose a player by not matching the bid would receive pick 11, the next one would receive pick 12, and so on … which seems a neat solution 🙂
I have a few suggestions at this stage:
1. The multiplier should be materially lower - I think we can potentially do away with it altogether. I think the rationale for multipliers previously was to reflect the natural progression of players … second contracts get calculated/set when players are early in their careers, so their second year averages are not representative of what they will develop into, and a multiplier adjusts for this. In the example above we are only looking at players who are already top 15-25 in their position, so they are unlikely to have much, if any, natural progression left 🙂 Looking at it a different way, a multiplier of 1.6x implies salaries or $748k and even higher … the best averaging player in last year’s auction, even including free agents, only went at $700k, which wouldn’t be high enough to trigger compensation. I think we can significantly reduce the multiplier on the basis that we want owners to be compensated for losing a quality player - ie we want the trigger to be reachable/reached.
2. We could potentially make an exception for rucks, and apply a multiplier of >1 for them, if desired. It seems clear that they get paid more per point scored, ie they effectively have a higher multiplier based on their market price. I don’t really mind either way on this point, I’m mainly raising it for completeness/as an exception to the arguments supporting point 1. Plenty of rucks went above $700k last auction, despite not being overly high averaging, so there does seem to be a two tiered market operating. Perhaps our rules should reflect that fact.
3. A simple way to deal with a gun player getting injured, and so posting an unrepresentative low average, could be to take the higher of the last two years’ averages. [Another option could be to impose a minimum game count to qualify, otherwise it reverts to the prior season’s average being tested against the threshold.]
4. Given we may have more than one compensation pick in a given year, we would need a way to decide the order. A logical and fair way to do it would seemingly be to base it on the average of the player lost. Given we do the auction in order of prior year’s average, I think that would mean that whoever was the first coach to lose a player by not matching the bid would receive pick 11, the next one would receive pick 12, and so on … which seems a neat solution 🙂
Last edited:
A minor addition:
It may be worth clarifying which position is used, to avoid any risk of disappointment.
Perhaps:
5. (a) We use starting positions in the year the draft is occurring. For example, Flanders will be D-M next year, so he gets tested against the DEF and MID thresholds, not the FWD threshold (which is one of the positions he had when he registered his 2024 average - and the one that has the lowest average threshold), and
(b) for players starting the year with DPP, satisfying either threshold is sufficient (eg if Flanders averaged 102, he would hit the DEF threshold of >100, but miss the MID threshold of >105, but either is sufficient to qualify.
The approach outlined in (b) is similar to how we determine which players go in the auction and which go into the draft.
It may be worth clarifying which position is used, to avoid any risk of disappointment.
Perhaps:
5. (a) We use starting positions in the year the draft is occurring. For example, Flanders will be D-M next year, so he gets tested against the DEF and MID thresholds, not the FWD threshold (which is one of the positions he had when he registered his 2024 average - and the one that has the lowest average threshold), and
(b) for players starting the year with DPP, satisfying either threshold is sufficient (eg if Flanders averaged 102, he would hit the DEF threshold of >100, but miss the MID threshold of >105, but either is sufficient to qualify.
The approach outlined in (b) is similar to how we determine which players go in the auction and which go into the draft.
- Joined
- 16 Apr 2014
- Messages
- 1,014
- Likes
- 2,102
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Like the thought process behind this, will be a keen supporter if it is planned for "in a few years" for Free Agents. Let teams strategise and build knowing this.
I clearly have a higher turnover strategy than some squads, however will adjust accordingly based on these rules coming in.
Initial thoughts:
1. I like the band / threshold, turnover should still be a key part of the game. Understand this is a little nuanced, so potentially to lower slightly, don't like it going down too low.
I disagree with Darkie here, if trigger isn't reached, I feel they should be free to market.
2. Think there does need to be some consideration to years before last year, however this does complicate it.
Would this be done purely on top XX based on current year average, inlcluding all eligble players for that year. Could see this as a little sticking point if not clear.
3. Confused on this point, in another reply it is drafted as "Only FA that had gone through all contract stages with the one team.", but then original point 3 says a player wouldn't have to have been on a team list throughout his career?
Actually not sure where I sit on this one, just think it needs to be clarified.
4. I suspect this means trading of these players is proposed to be locked in line with all 1 year contracted players? Which i think makes sense
5. I like this, if you really want to keep a player, pay the quoted price.. certainly isn't "overs".
- Joined
- 16 Apr 2014
- Messages
- 1,014
- Likes
- 2,102
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Is it SCSUL Rucks or SC rucks?
Gun player piece is interesting.. Touk Miller has been top 25 mid, this year playing injured and sits 27th on average. So would be an interesting study on how our rules would affect him.
Not a bad idea re order, I had just presumed it was based on first round order (eg ladder).
Gun player piece is interesting.. Touk Miller has been top 25 mid, this year playing injured and sits 27th on average. So would be an interesting study on how our rules would affect him.
Not a bad idea re order, I had just presumed it was based on first round order (eg ladder).
Thanks. My suggestions would be:
1. SCSUL rucks. It’s the ruck eligibility that people are paying for (as is clear from the auction results … I’m looking at you Mark Blicavs! 😋), so anyone with ruck eligibility in UL has that higher market value. To be clear, I don’t really mind if rucks have a higher multiplier than everyone else, but doing so would be internally consistent with my argument under item 1 above. As things stand, it will only be rucks that trigger compensation in practice (based on auction results from the last couple of years), which doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. If the thresholds are never being reached for non rucks, it tells me they are too high.
2. One thing I’m unsure of is how we objectively determine who is playing injured. Some clubs try to keep this a secret, or it only comes out as the next season starts (we’ve all had this happen in Classic). I’d hate for someone to miss out on compensation because an AFL coach reveals a day after our auction that Joe Bloggs was playing injured last year!
3. I would be open to other ideas re the order, it’s basically just shuffling picks 11/12/maybe 13 most years, ie not overly material. I have no objections if we wanted to order them based on the ladder or some other method, but I agree that clarity is helpful. Anything that achieves that is probably fine by me.
1. SCSUL rucks. It’s the ruck eligibility that people are paying for (as is clear from the auction results … I’m looking at you Mark Blicavs! 😋), so anyone with ruck eligibility in UL has that higher market value. To be clear, I don’t really mind if rucks have a higher multiplier than everyone else, but doing so would be internally consistent with my argument under item 1 above. As things stand, it will only be rucks that trigger compensation in practice (based on auction results from the last couple of years), which doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. If the thresholds are never being reached for non rucks, it tells me they are too high.
2. One thing I’m unsure of is how we objectively determine who is playing injured. Some clubs try to keep this a secret, or it only comes out as the next season starts (we’ve all had this happen in Classic). I’d hate for someone to miss out on compensation because an AFL coach reveals a day after our auction that Joe Bloggs was playing injured last year!
3. I would be open to other ideas re the order, it’s basically just shuffling picks 11/12/maybe 13 most years, ie not overly material. I have no objections if we wanted to order them based on the ladder or some other method, but I agree that clarity is helpful. Anything that achieves that is probably fine by me.
At RFA level positions are determined by Supercoach positions.
Touk Miller is not a RFA, however if he was he currently sits 26th including Setterfield who has played only 4 games and thus skews the average rankings. I'd be removing Setterfield to determine top 25.
I'd be looking a ladder positions, as the intention of the rule is to protect the lower teams trying to build. i.e. not set them back.
We don't want to compromise the draft with lots of compensation picks. With the average thresholds I listed there would be only 6 players eligible this coming draft, they would then need to not be resigned at the salary threshold (whatever that may be).
Touk Miller is not a RFA, however if he was he currently sits 26th including Setterfield who has played only 4 games and thus skews the average rankings. I'd be removing Setterfield to determine top 25.
I'd be looking a ladder positions, as the intention of the rule is to protect the lower teams trying to build. i.e. not set them back.
We don't want to compromise the draft with lots of compensation picks. With the average thresholds I listed there would be only 6 players eligible this coming draft, they would then need to not be resigned at the salary threshold (whatever that may be).
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2014
- Messages
- 9,934
- Likes
- 39,639
- AFL Club
- Essendon
I agree with regard to not having an immediate change. However, I think if we could agree now (or before preseason draft) then I would be comfortable with it coming in in 2026. That gives us two preseasons and a full season to “correct” our strategies / teams. For example, I would feel for any coach who made a trade this year that may be regretting that trade if the rule change was immediate. However, I think a year is enough time to do something about it.
I also agree that the trigger needs to be a combination of player average AND price paid by acquiring the player. I feel both average (by position) and price need to trigger any draft pick compensation.
I think we need some sort of clear rule to deal with the injured or poor score season. I don’t have an answer, but I suspect whatever we come up with won’t be perfect so we need to to agree on a fair assessment with knowledge that we will all cop the occasional hit.
I also agree that the trigger needs to be a combination of player average AND price paid by acquiring the player. I feel both average (by position) and price need to trigger any draft pick compensation.
I think we need some sort of clear rule to deal with the injured or poor score season. I don’t have an answer, but I suspect whatever we come up with won’t be perfect so we need to to agree on a fair assessment with knowledge that we will all cop the occasional hit.
Who would the six potential players be?
Might be helpful to understand which sorts of players we are talking about.
My only comment was on this condition:
- 3. A player wouldn't have to have been on a team list throughout his career to be eligible for compensation.
This probably needs to be clarified.
Unless I understood the process incorrectly, I think there should be a minimum number of years a player needs to be on a list for a coach to be eligible for compensation for their loss on “loyalty” grounds. I’d think at least 4 years…?
For example, if a new coach signs a high scoring ruck (say Nank or Gawn) for one season and then he’s hitting the threshold, that shouldn’t result in a compensation pick.
Might be helpful to understand which sorts of players we are talking about.
My only comment was on this condition:
- 3. A player wouldn't have to have been on a team list throughout his career to be eligible for compensation.
This probably needs to be clarified.
Unless I understood the process incorrectly, I think there should be a minimum number of years a player needs to be on a list for a coach to be eligible for compensation for their loss on “loyalty” grounds. I’d think at least 4 years…?
For example, if a new coach signs a high scoring ruck (say Nank or Gawn) for one season and then he’s hitting the threshold, that shouldn’t result in a compensation pick.