Opinion Rant!
- Thread starter PC
- Start date
Been a while since some one had posted so I thought I would re-invigerate it and yes I know we are all in the same boat and this will be the last time I speak of this matter.
How in Hell can the implementation of a DNP for Melbourne and Essendon players and implementation of best 18 be considered equitable?
How the Hell can CD have different treatment to the Melbourne and Essendon players than other format such as AFL Fantasy?
Why should teams with 4 plus players from Essendon and Melbourne be penalised more than other teams?
It is a totally ridiculous outcome.
Case and point:
Team one has Petracca, Oliver, Viney, Merrett allocated DNP and has to play Taylor and Cameron effectively against team 2 that has access to Macrae and Cripps, yes Team 2 lost Gawn, but had Pittonet as cover.
I know this game is not fair at times, but it does seem that making the Melbourne and Essendon players DNP created a totally in-equitable playing field.
As I said this will be the last thing I say on this matter, I just had to get it off my chest...
How in Hell can the implementation of a DNP for Melbourne and Essendon players and implementation of best 18 be considered equitable?
How the Hell can CD have different treatment to the Melbourne and Essendon players than other format such as AFL Fantasy?
Why should teams with 4 plus players from Essendon and Melbourne be penalised more than other teams?
It is a totally ridiculous outcome.
Case and point:
Team one has Petracca, Oliver, Viney, Merrett allocated DNP and has to play Taylor and Cameron effectively against team 2 that has access to Macrae and Cripps, yes Team 2 lost Gawn, but had Pittonet as cover.
I know this game is not fair at times, but it does seem that making the Melbourne and Essendon players DNP created a totally in-equitable playing field.
As I said this will be the last thing I say on this matter, I just had to get it off my chest...
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 638
- Likes
- 1,587
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Round 3 positives:
1900 score
Negatives:
6 Mel/Ess players
Only one chance at captain score (VC grundy) C on Gawn
17 scoring players counted but I had two bench scores I couldn't access as they already played
I loose 4 premiums scores but it's fair according to CD as it's best 18. How the f@#k is that fair? Who has 22 premiums at this time of the year?
No price change on Ess/Mel rookies so I'm behind on cash generation too.
Royally f@#ked decision by CD.
Season over.
1900 score
Negatives:
6 Mel/Ess players
Only one chance at captain score (VC grundy) C on Gawn
17 scoring players counted but I had two bench scores I couldn't access as they already played
I loose 4 premiums scores but it's fair according to CD as it's best 18. How the f@#k is that fair? Who has 22 premiums at this time of the year?
No price change on Ess/Mel rookies so I'm behind on cash generation too.
Royally f@#ked decision by CD.
Season over.
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 11,737
- Likes
- 34,732
- AFL Club
- West Coast
I'm with you mate, I was also very harshly done by this week and it's so bloody annoying.
First you lose points to the coaches with little to no ESS & MEL players... Then you lose your number one captains choice (Gawn) with no real viable alternatives due to when they announced Best 18... Then you lose vital cash generation to a lot of teams, and finally if that wasn't enough... those who had little to none of the missing players, get the opportunity to further increase their advantage by being able to trade the MEL & ESS players in to "Double Dip" in this upcoming 2 game round whenever that is.
I was talking to some mates in my private league today who where also heavily affected... These guys are nowhere near as fanatical about SC as me and don't put anywhere near as much time into it. As a result 3 of them have said they are done with SC and are now Ghost Ships... Lost to SC because of this unfair solution. That's not good for anybody when the casual SC coach wants nothing to do with the game anymore.
First you lose points to the coaches with little to no ESS & MEL players... Then you lose your number one captains choice (Gawn) with no real viable alternatives due to when they announced Best 18... Then you lose vital cash generation to a lot of teams, and finally if that wasn't enough... those who had little to none of the missing players, get the opportunity to further increase their advantage by being able to trade the MEL & ESS players in to "Double Dip" in this upcoming 2 game round whenever that is.
I was talking to some mates in my private league today who where also heavily affected... These guys are nowhere near as fanatical about SC as me and don't put anywhere near as much time into it. As a result 3 of them have said they are done with SC and are now Ghost Ships... Lost to SC because of this unfair solution. That's not good for anybody when the casual SC coach wants nothing to do with the game anymore.
I had 7 MEL/ESS players, 3 donuts and couldn't use bench player T Brown's 80pts, so obviously totally, trying not to use a swear word, disappointed.
But what upset me the most was that:
1. The rules were changed during the Round and
2. They never told us at the start what procedures they would take if certain situations occurred (Games being postponed certainly must have been a possibility worth planning for).
Imagine during an AFL game, officials run onto the ground and tell a coach that there has been an incident and 6 players, mainly Premos, would have to leave the field and the 4 bench players can replace them.
But one of the bench players is injured and can't play? What if another player in the rooms play instead? What NO, because they weren't selected on the bench?
So now you want my depleted team to keep playing the game out against a full playing team?
And what, the result will still count for premiership points!!!
That's what I felt has happened to me on the weekend.
But what upset me the most was that:
1. The rules were changed during the Round and
2. They never told us at the start what procedures they would take if certain situations occurred (Games being postponed certainly must have been a possibility worth planning for).
Imagine during an AFL game, officials run onto the ground and tell a coach that there has been an incident and 6 players, mainly Premos, would have to leave the field and the 4 bench players can replace them.
But one of the bench players is injured and can't play? What if another player in the rooms play instead? What NO, because they weren't selected on the bench?
So now you want my depleted team to keep playing the game out against a full playing team?
And what, the result will still count for premiership points!!!
That's what I felt has happened to me on the weekend.
Season over! What a terrible decision by CD.
I have Viney, Gawn, Petracca & DSmith (as well as Bennell & Rivers).
I made a very aggressive trade of Dusty to Petracca this week on the assumption of pocketing some cash/points, a bit of a zag move in the hope of strengthening in this shortened season for nothing.
I traded in Viney a few weeks back for a quick cash grab - I will now have to hold him for multiple weeks to get my advantage of the dgw which I really don't want to do.
My team was based around Gawn and his captaincy all for nothing.
So not only have I dropped points this week, I've also lost a week of cash generating.
Due to having all these 0's it meant I copped low scores from Sturt, Taylor & Pickett while other players without Melb/Ess get the opportunity to drop them as well.
What frustrates me a lot is there reasoning and inability to see how many people have been affected, how is this fair? They say we can't allow averages as its a predetermined score but how is copping several zeros not a predetermined score as well?
That 1129 teams with Scott Lycett could've traded him to Gawn for his 138.
I'd like to know how many of these teams were ghost ships? How many people had trades still available? How many had the cash left to do this? Only a very small number of people would've been able to do this, meanwhile there is 40,000 Gawn owners scoring nothing. Before this round Lycett was averaging 93 so people were looking at wasting a trade to pocket a potential 45 points and look what happened Lycett scored 156!
Now every man and his dog will be trading in Melb/Ess players to score extra points that I should've been scoring this week at a one week discount on top of that.
So instead of nulling the round, giving averages or projected scores, the decision they made was one that actually benefited the players who weren't affected by the missing game.
I have Viney, Gawn, Petracca & DSmith (as well as Bennell & Rivers).
I made a very aggressive trade of Dusty to Petracca this week on the assumption of pocketing some cash/points, a bit of a zag move in the hope of strengthening in this shortened season for nothing.
I traded in Viney a few weeks back for a quick cash grab - I will now have to hold him for multiple weeks to get my advantage of the dgw which I really don't want to do.
My team was based around Gawn and his captaincy all for nothing.
So not only have I dropped points this week, I've also lost a week of cash generating.
Due to having all these 0's it meant I copped low scores from Sturt, Taylor & Pickett while other players without Melb/Ess get the opportunity to drop them as well.
What frustrates me a lot is there reasoning and inability to see how many people have been affected, how is this fair? They say we can't allow averages as its a predetermined score but how is copping several zeros not a predetermined score as well?
That 1129 teams with Scott Lycett could've traded him to Gawn for his 138.
I'd like to know how many of these teams were ghost ships? How many people had trades still available? How many had the cash left to do this? Only a very small number of people would've been able to do this, meanwhile there is 40,000 Gawn owners scoring nothing. Before this round Lycett was averaging 93 so people were looking at wasting a trade to pocket a potential 45 points and look what happened Lycett scored 156!
Now every man and his dog will be trading in Melb/Ess players to score extra points that I should've been scoring this week at a one week discount on top of that.
So instead of nulling the round, giving averages or projected scores, the decision they made was one that actually benefited the players who weren't affected by the missing game.
- Joined
- 24 Feb 2015
- Messages
- 6,697
- Likes
- 30,160
- AFL Club
- Sydney
That sucks man and I feel for you, I'm in the same boat and don't feel its fair for a large number of coaches but I think I'm still dirty I held Naismith with Grundy and Gawn and watched Pitto go bang again. Trades would've been very different if we had of known earlier. IMO the fair thing to do was to award the 3 round average to any Melb/Ess players for the game and move on.
Also, don't blame Champion Data, they just provide a statistical/scoring system where I think Virtual Sports are the games administrator.
Also, don't blame Champion Data, they just provide a statistical/scoring system where I think Virtual Sports are the games administrator.
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 4,731
- Likes
- 9,085
- AFL Club
- Brisbane
Two in a row! I'm on fire!
Collingwood v GWS v Champion data work experience crew v punters - Green scored six points for hitting moore on the chest... Got points for a Free against. Whitfield? Really? Howe too? Do they have the work experience kids on stats today? They accidentally plonking on points to Maynard again?
Collingwood v GWS v Champion data work experience crew v punters - Green scored six points for hitting moore on the chest... Got points for a Free against. Whitfield? Really? Howe too? Do they have the work experience kids on stats today? They accidentally plonking on points to Maynard again?
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 11,737
- Likes
- 34,732
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 399
- Likes
- 1,625
- AFL Club
- GWS Giants
I don't think he's a massive failure, although I suppose it depends who you traded him out for. He's made more money than many of my rookies so far, and has scored about the same as Bont, for $185k less. They play the Rowell less Suns in Sydney this week, so I reckon he could be worth holding for another week, if rookie non-selections make trading him out impossible.