SCSUL RULE CHANGES - Discussion

[KLo30]

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.

Andrew Brayshaw
Darcy Cameron
Sam Flanders
LDU
Tristan Xerri
Lloyd Meek

Certainly could impose a minimum. Bear in mind we also don't want to discourage trading.

Sam Flanders would not be eligible in that case. Despite potential, he was a leap of faith for his new coach, which paid off in spades.

The scenario is for players transitioning from 2nd Contract to RFA, so Nank or Gawn are not examples I'd use. Andrew Brayshaw would be the example in the above list.

 

[Darkie]

Andrew Brayshaw
Darcy Cameron
Sam Flanders
LDU
Tristan Xerri
Lloyd Meek

Certainly could impose a minimum. Bear in mind we also don't want to discourage trading.

Sam Flanders would not be eligible in that case. Despite potential, he was a leap of faith for his new coach, which paid off in spades.

The scenario is for players transitioning from 2nd Contract to RFA, so Nank or Gawn are not examples I'd use. Andrew Brayshaw would be the example in the above list.

I think you’ve identified a couple of issues with imposing a minimum:

- It discourages trading, which would seem a bit perverse given that in a lot of leagues, coaches want to see more trading. It’s a big part of the fun of a league, and I’m not sure why we would want to disincentivize coaches trying to improve their sides.

- It disadvantages coaches that made that leap of faith and invested in a young player. I paid a high draft pick to trade in Flanders, and then watch him plug away in the VFL … he played 9 games and averaged 47 in 2022! Until the second half of last year he was worse than useless, soaking up a high draft pick, a list spot and getting overpaid while doing it 😂

There is an additional issue as I see it, and it’s one that has been touched on to some extent:

If we impose a significant minimum, I think the rule has to be implemented a long way into the future. If we impose, for example, a 4 year minimum and introduce it today, we are penalizing trading decisions made up to 4 years ago, without any warning. If we want to impose a minimum, implementation of the rule has to be delayed by the same amount, or we are penalizing trading decisions retrospectively.

 

[lappinitup]

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.

Agreed, tentatively agreed and agree.

2 drafts should be enough time to pivot strategy. Think we need a clear rule and we have to accept it won't be perfect, shouldn't bend rules to make something work. Can always evolve and change if things need in future.

 

[Bomber18]

Andrew Brayshaw
Darcy Cameron
Sam Flanders
LDU
Tristan Xerri
Lloyd Meek

Certainly could impose a minimum. Bear in mind we also don't want to discourage trading.

Sam Flanders would not be eligible in that case. Despite potential, he was a leap of faith for his new coach, which paid off in spades.

The scenario is for players transitioning from 2nd Contract to RFA, so Nank or Gawn are not examples I'd use. Andrew Brayshaw would be the example in the above list.

No worries that sounds good to me. I didn’t understand properly that this only applies to 2YC transitioning to RFA and doesn’t apply to players taken in the FA draft.

I think a 2 year minimum requirement on a team’s list for a 2YC player makes sense to me to be eligible for a “loyalty discount”.

 

[Darkie]

One option, if we want there to ultimately be a minimum, but want to avoid penalizing decisions retrospectively, could be to phase it in.

For example:

2025 draft - rule introduced, 0 year minimum
2026 draft - 1 year minimum
2027 draft and beyond - 2 year minimum

 

[Bomber18]

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.

Interesting comments.

On the trigger, what about if we made it solely referable to price? (not previous year average?)

That seems to be the way it’s done in the AFL. If people on the market want to pay Ben McKay a large sum of money, makes sense that the old club gets some compensation for that if they don’t want to match such a price.

 

[Bomber18]

One option, if we want there to ultimately be a minimum, but want to avoid penalizing decisions retrospectively, could be to phase it in.

For example:

2025 draft - rule introduced, 0 year minimum
2026 draft - 1 year minimum
2027 draft and beyond - 2 year minimum

That’s not a bad way to do it.

Although I’m not sure if we ultimately landed on implementing the rule immediately or whether it would be implemented in 2026.

 

[Diabolical]

Interesting comments.

On the trigger, what about if we made it solely referable to price? (not previous year average?)

That seems to be the way it’s done in the AFL. If people on the market want to pay Ben McKay a large sum of money, makes sense that the old club gets some compensation for that if they don’t want to match such a price.

I don’t mind that idea as it takes out the grey if basing on previous year average. We just need to work out best way to determine the trigger price for each position.

 

[lappinitup]

Interesting comments.

On the trigger, what about if we made it solely referable to price? (not previous year average?)

That seems to be the way it’s done in the AFL. If people on the market want to pay Ben McKay a large sum of money, makes sense that the old club gets some compensation for that if they don’t want to match such a price.

This makes sense to me, if kept to the upper echelon of players.

I like the idea of turnover in this game, perhaps more than others!

 

[Darkie]

@KLo30 I trust you are having a busy summer period.

I thought I would touch base regarding the flex position - is this something you will be looking to incorporate in Ultimate League?

 

[KLo30]

@KLo30 I trust you are having a busy summer period.

I thought I would touch base regarding the flex position - is this something you will be looking to incorporate in Ultimate League?

It wasn't something I was contemplating for this league.

1. There are pros and cons, which can be argued. If we back through games over the last few seasons, and just did the best bench score we'd find out how useful it might be.

2. It would take an enourmous amount of time to add in the extra player and have best 22 of 23 formulated.

 

[Darkie]

Thanks Ken.

I just had a look at a small sample of rounds from this year to give a guide:

- The average score that would drop out is c. 33. It’s actually slightly lower including some donuts, but they were concentrated in one round, I think when we had byes, and so may not be representative.

- The average max bench score is c. 86. Coaches would be doing well to always be able
to pick their highest bench score, so this would also likely be slightly lower.

- The average difference (ie points impact of the flex spot on that basis) is c. 53, which is fairly material. Obviously each coach would benefit from that increase on average, but the benefit is much greater when they have copped a really low injury score.

- Scores that dropped out from the 3 rounds (30 team scores) I looked at included:

9
6
16
26
10
28
26
6
13
24
15
12
24
26

I am relaxed either way, but thought this may give some useful context. It might even be a somewhat useful guide for Classic.

 

[lappinitup]

Thanks Ken.

I just had a look at a small sample of rounds from this year to give a guide:

- The average score that would drop out is c. 33. It’s actually slightly lower including some donuts, but they were concentrated in one round, I think when we had byes, and so may not be representative.

- The average max bench score is c. 86. Coaches would be doing well to always be able
to pick their highest bench score, so this would also likely be slightly lower.

- The average difference (ie points impact of the flex spot on that basis) is c. 53, which is fairly material. Obviously each coach would benefit from that increase on average, but the benefit is much greater when they have copped a really low injury score.

- Scores that dropped out from the 3 rounds (30 team scores) I looked at included:

9
6
16
26
10
28
26
6
13
24
15
12
24
26

I am relaxed either way, but thought this may give some useful context. It might even be a somewhat useful guide for Classic.

How does the flex position work?

The way that is written above, is my assumption correct your highest scoring bench player automatically replaces the lowest scoring field player?

I suspect simply looking at average lowest score isn't remotely relevant if you have to choose the player that drops out, as vast majority of the time the lowest scoring player in hindsight wouldn't be the clear and obvious pick pre game one (with the exception of 0's). This would then make the gap far less material.

 

[Darkie]

It’s the lowest on field score, from 23, dropping out.

So versus 2024, each coach’s preferred bench player comes on field, and then the lowest score automatically drops out (best 22 of 23 scores count).

That means there is no need for the coach to identify which of their best 22 will be injured, sub or the like - which would obviously be difficult in advance!

The calcs above do use the best bench score (as Ken referred to), which is slightly generous, but given how shallow many of our benches are, I think most coaches can narrow their best bench scorer down to a couple of players most weeks.

It’s the dropping of a score of <30 that makes the big difference. It essentially takes out some of the bad luck of an early injury, or a player getting a vest.

 

[Goodie's Guns]

My position at this stage on the introduction of a Flex of some description into keeper/ultimate leagues is to wait a year and then assess. Seeing what they do normal SC wise after a year or so of it in play across the formats, as well as allowing time to properly craft restrictions specific for its introduction into draft/keeper leagues, etc.

 

[lappinitup]

Interesting, I clearly haven't been keeping up.

Does that make Ruck less important? If we remain at 2, you could easily play a 1 ruck strategy and just have a spare mid on bench?

Means you are exposed to an early injury, more so than opponent (whilst saving $500k-$1m)?

 

[KLo30]

Lots of discussion in the Super Early SC Planning thread
https://supercoachscores.com/thread...roy-team-picker-526.5357/page-34#post-1159588

The flex position is really more relevant in classic formats where people can choose the same players/team. I don't know that if it has added much to the BBL game.

Dynasty and Keeper leagues are more nuanced. In many ways adding a flex position takes away from the list management decisions as you can keep a player you might ordinarily trade.

 

[Bomber18]

Interesting discussion - I’m not sure if FLX applies to official SC draft keeper leagues either.

I’d probably be in favour to “wait and see”. It’s not an official AFL change which needs to be considered for draft leagues, just an SC classic change.

 

[lappinitup]

Lots of discussion in the Super Early SC Planning thread
https://supercoachscores.com/thread...roy-team-picker-526.5357/page-34#post-1159588

The flex position is really more relevant in classic formats where people can choose the same players/team. I don't know that if it has added much to the BBL game.

Dynasty and Keeper leagues are more nuanced. In many ways adding a flex position takes away from the list management decisions as you can keep a player you might ordinarily trade.

I must admit, haven't kept up over last month.

Agree with your application of this role to keeper leagues, it softens the impact of list management decisions. I am not completely against, but would want this one in over a longer period of time - say 2 drafts / auctions away at least.

 

[Philzsay]

I think adding flex would take up far too much time and work for Ken, so we should just ignore it.