SCS Supercoach Ultimate League

[lappinitup]

View attachment 25933​

PROPOSED RULE CHANGE​

RUCKS
When the Keeper League was developed (upon which the Ultimate is derived) AFL teams largely played two rucks. This allowed the keeper league to keep the same format and player positions as SC. As we have seen in recent years, with 2020 being more so, teams moving to one genuine ruckman and a stop gap for relief.

We that in mind, the proposed rule change is that teams will be allowed to play a forward as a ruck for one of their two ruck positions in the case they do not have enough rucks in their team to fulfill their team. Teams must have at least 4 ruck eligible players to able to access this rule.

This is to allow teams to still be competitive without giving teams an advantage who don't team-list rucks.

INFORMATION TO CONSIDER:

• The top 20 rucks averaged ~70 or more. A reserve ruck replacing an injured main ruck is most likely to score around the teams main ruck.
• The top 60 forwards averaged ~70 or more. Therefore, your 7th (if all players are fit) is likely to score below 70.
• Having to play with a donut decreases the fun in the game, listing a young ruck for a few seasons who then gets a starting role is great fun. (ROB for me in keeper, Draper for Tim, etc)

Thoughts?

No way!

That is a serious disadvantage to any squad who prioritised ruck knowing it was a tough position to fill!

What is the point in having a league set up like this if you make decisions based on a current set of rules and because others didn't prioritise according to those rules, they now find themselves in a hard position and all vote to change?

When the rucks keeper league was developed teams may have played two rucks. When this league was developed, the league was largely the same!

When squad decisions were made on the formation of this league, the game was almost identical. Nothing has changed? When the current contracts run out, this could be considered, otherwise it is simply rewarding teams who didn't think about or care about Rucks!

 

[KLo30]

No way!

That is a serious disadvantage to any squad who prioritised ruck knowing it was a tough position to fill!

What is the point in having a league set up like this if you make decisions based on a current set of rules and because others didn't prioritise according to those rules, they now find themselves in a hard position and all vote to change?

When the rucks keeper league was developed teams may have played two rucks. When this league was developed, the league was largely the same!

When squad decisions were made on the formation of this league, the game was almost identical. Nothing has changed? When the current contracts run out, this could be considered, otherwise it is simply rewarding teams who didn't think about or care about Rucks!

You've obviously gone through the team lists from last season, and this season, looking at the drafting of Rucks. As a result, you will have seen how those drafted as Rucks have now changed to Forwards only in many cases.

There is not one team who is four strong in Rucks, despite many trying to draft that way. Explain to me how every one of the 10 teams can now sign or draft their way to cover injuries to both their two main Rucks.

Your own team missed the finals because there was no replacement for your premier Ruck when he was injured for his missed games and/or at his equivalent score.

There are 10+ less Ruck eligible players than last season in SC, and even less playing options, as many are rookies who won't play for three or four years. There are also many with injuries, some long term, which isn't unusual for the position. Due to shortened quarters RUC/FWDS are now FWDs only in some case from last season. If we all shared them we could have 6 each on our lists. However, Goldy goes down does he get replace by Campbell or Xerri (FWD only).

Ryder, Mumford and Chol are the only FA Rucks available.

Ruck contracts for some players have run out. Some Rucks have retired and/or been forced to retire. There is never going to be a time when all Ruck contracts run out. Is Mumford really a playing option or a break in terms of emergency assistant coach?

Teams would rather have a viable Ruck replacing their missing Ruck, as they are likely to be scoring 80+ rather than having their 7th (at best) forward who is likely to score <70. With injuries, the 7th is likely to be 8th or 9th.

The game is a lot more fun if you have a chance to win. Playing short gives little hope and little fun. And that's the essence of the rule, to allow competitiveness not a competitive advantage.

Rounds 10,11, 12 - your team had a Zero at Ruck and your reserve scored 68. You still would have lost all game, however you would likely to have felt you had a chance.
Rounds 13, 14, 15 - your team had Preuss playing scoring 84 and your reserve fwd score 52. You would have felt like you had a chance, yet still lost all games.
Rounds 16, 17, 18 - your team had Preuss playing scoring 85 (and Goldy 58) and you had no scoring reserve fwd. You would have felt like you had a chance, yet still lost all games (due to Goldy's bad game, otherwise there would have been a likely win or two).

A reserve fwd for the Ruck isn't likely to give you a win, but at least you are likely not to lose interest in the season.

 

[lappinitup]

There are 10+ less Ruck eligible players than last season in SC, and even less playing options, as many are rookies who won't play for three or four years. There are also many with injuries, some long term, which isn't unusual for the position. ).

Even less playing options? By how many? A couple.. so we remove 10 spots from the game? Doesn't equate!

Pretty sure ruck rookies who won't play for 3 or 4 years isn't a new conundrum, it is exactly the same as previous years!

I think the onus is on those wanting to change the rules to show many less players there are playing from 2020 to 2021. This is a fundamental shift in the whole concept of this competition, I don't think that should be done based on some theoretical assertions just because it suits a few coaches.

I know for a fact the team I inherited prioritised having two rucks, therefore has a weaker team in every other position as a result.

Rounds 10,11, 12 - your team had a Zero at Ruck and your reserve scored 68. You still would have lost all game, however you would likely to have felt you had a chance.
Rounds 13, 14, 15 - your team had Preuss playing scoring 84 and your reserve fwd score 52. You would have felt like you had a chance, yet still lost all games.
Rounds 16, 17, 18 - your team had Preuss playing scoring 85 (and Goldy 58) and you had no scoring reserve fwd. You would have felt like you had a chance, yet still lost all games (due to Goldy's bad game, otherwise there would have been a likely win or two).

A reserve fwd for the Ruck isn't likely to give you a win, but at least you are likely not to lose interest in the season.

Think you just proven nicely that this rule would have not helped my team one bit, 9 losses from 9. Even with a strong ruck 1-3 division! If this league is all about catering to those who may lose interest and ghost ship, I have clearly misread the concept. Pretty sure each and every coach is heavily invested and we don't need to compromise the integrity of the comp to keep people interested.

As the team was built around rucks - draft currency, salary cap and trading were all structured around the rules as outlined on inception. All would be severely compromised as a result of this change.

Ultimately, I will get out voted as I have 2 of the best rucks in the game. Most others prioritised getting elite players elsewhere, which in hindsight was the correct move with this rule change.

To be honest, likely end up trading one of my rucks, as really my only currency and many on here are interested! So will likely end up struggling to field a second ruck with any injuries, however do not feel the change is fair or in the spirit of this competition!

 

[Jordan's Jets]

Good points on both sides here. Personally I am in favour of the change, having experienced a few years now of the Keeper league it gets really difficult to consistently field rucks and can be a bit demoralising. This problem gets worse with time as teams with strong rucks don’t give them up due to the huge advantage relative to other positions, though that would be mitigated somewhat in this league due to expiring contracts. I think what is being proposed is a decent middle ground. Brings the value of rucks down slightly, but not enormously, and makes it easier to avoid a donut while still having enough restrictions that it doesn’t create a wide open loophole to be exploited.

That being said, could a possible solution be to future date this change? Bring it in beginning of next year for example? That might help balance the scales for teams heavily prioritising rucks in their initial team construction

 

[lappinitup]

This problem gets worse with time as teams with strong rucks don’t give them up due to the huge advantage relative to other positions, though that would be mitigated somewhat in this league due to expiring contracts.

Couldn't agree more, and I am sure everyone knew that when drafting and trading.

Everyone knows rucks in a keeper league, especially a keeper league that clearly defined you required 2, have a huge relative advantage.

People then drafted according to this huge relative advantage
Salary cap was then structured around this huge relative advantage.

Again I agree with you, this does bring the rucks value down... disagree on slightly, as the "huge relative advantage" is significantly impacted.

Lastly, couldn't agree more again. This should be done at a future date, when current ruck contracts expire! Then, all decisions are made on an equal playing field.

Suspect I won't get consensus on the 5 year lead time, so minimum 1 or 2 years should be the tipping point. Potentially when everyone's second contracted ruck expires?

 

[lappinitup]

There are 10+ less Ruck eligible players than last season in SC, and even less playing options,

Sorry to ask this again, to even consider fundamentally changing the concept of this game. Surely this needs to be proven?

Can you outline the 10 less playing options this season? I just do not think that exists. It is a nice statement that supports your agenda, however do not believe we have over 10 less playing options.

 

[KLo30]

I'm going to be polite here. I'm not appreciating the tone and general vibe of your posts.

 

[lappinitup]

I'm going to be polite here. I'm not appreciating the tone and general vibe of your posts.

Apologies.

Can we have the stats so everyone can make an informed decision on this one? (keep it to stats and facts / no tone or vibe).

I would like everyone to vote on what they think is fair and reasonable, not what suits their individual team.

 

[Bomber18]

We have 10 sides. 20 ruck spots to fill.

There are 18 AFL sides so theoretically 18 No.1 rucks available. 2 sides will need to find a "pinch hitting" ruck from the get go. The pool of such "pinch hitters" is very limited. I can't recall many teams who play two rucks. Sometimes Port played Lycett / Ladhams last season. WCE sometimes might play Bailey Williams + Nic Nat but it could easily be the fwd only O.Allen. Hawks play McEvoy / Ceglar. Freo play Lobb / Darcy. Maybe Sinclair / Hickey. Pittonet / TDK. Some rounds none of those pinch hitters could be playing and in future years, the pinch hitters could become fwd only players. It seems to be an inherently unfair game if it is set up for a minimum of two donuts to coaches some rounds. We also have multiple No.1 rucks on some lists which might make that 3-4 pinch hitters needed for the others and more donuts if those pinch hitters aren't available.

There is still a big advantage to those who have loaded up on rucks. Pure No.1 rucks no doubt have a scoring advantage over those playing an F7 type there.

I believe that from the outset, one of the main goals of this comp is to mimic the AFL in all facets. There are rule changes in the AFL which coaches need to adapt to. One of the main ones this season is the reduced interchange cap, which will likely see more fwds pinch hitting rather than a specialist second ruck playing. We even saw Dunkley pinch hit in the ruck last season. I personally think allowing coaches to nominate a fwd to "pinch hit" in the ruck is in line with what is happening on the football field. I have O.Allen myself and he in fact does play that pinch hitting role for the WCE in the real games.

 

[lappinitup]

@Bomber18 Do you think the number of number 1 rucks or pinch hitting ruckmen has changed from the inception of this competition.

My argument isn't against the lack of them, it is there has always been a lack of them! Hence teams had to pay extra draft capital or salary to obtain them.

 

[lappinitup]

We also have multiple No.1 rucks on some lists which might make that 3-4 pinch hitters needed for the others and more donuts if those pinch hitters aren't available.

I would assert those with multiple number one rucks paid for that right, losing out on other positions.

It looks pretty much the same conditions right now, as it did when the draft took place? So all these observations in support of the rule change were relevant when the draft took place, I haven't seen any data showing what has changed to support us changing the rules? Other than all those that took the risk on rucks, got burnt?

Why punish the coaches who planned based on the conditions at the time of the draft?

18 Numbers one rucks
+1 Marshall / Ryder (this time last year many thought both wouldn't play - now they have proven they will)
+1 Darcy / Lobb (Lobb was always going to have support, so would say same as last year)
+1 Ceglar / McEvoy (who would have thought big boy would be a full back and score well there. Huge plus for rucks depth)


Others
Lycett/Ladhams - probably proven more now together, prospect of playing together it certainly no worse than last year when draft took place.
English/Martin - Far more chance we see this combination.
NicNat/Vardy/Williams - longer games, likely needs more support. Allen the prospect. Similar to prior year when draft took place.
Sinclair/Hickey - Probably the same prospect of two playing as last season. So nothing changed since draft took place.

Then there are plenty of others who played, but not counting them for now like Chol, Esava, TDK.

 

[lappinitup]

There are 10+ less Ruck eligible players than last season in SC, and even less playing options,

Will keep this to facts/stats.

From what I can see the following changes have been made to "playing option" rucks (excluded number 1's as it is like for like in all examples Bellchambers to Draper for example):

In:
Esava (ave 68.8 going in to this season)

Out:
Balta (ave 47.5 this time last yr)

I think the only outs from the top 30 at time of formation / draft / rules creation are Kreuzer / Bellchambers and Jacobs?

Replaced by Pittonet / Draper and Preuss.

Won't speculate or give my opinion on ruck stock this year compared to last year, will just present the changes I have quickly identified. Sure many on here have far more advanced spreadsheets and can highlight any further changes.

 

[Bomber18]

I would assert those with multiple number one rucks paid for that right, losing out on other positions.

It looks pretty much the same conditions right now, as it did when the draft took place? So all these observations in support of the rule change were relevant when the draft took place, I haven't seen any data showing what has changed to support us changing the rules? Other than all those that took the risk on rucks, got burnt?

Why punish the coaches who planned based on the conditions at the time of the draft?

18 Numbers one rucks
+1 Marshall / Ryder (this time last year many thought both wouldn't play - now they have proven they will)
+1 Darcy / Lobb (Lobb was always going to have support, so would say same as last year)
+1 Ceglar / McEvoy (who would have thought big boy would be a full back and score well there. Huge plus for rucks depth)


Others
Lycett/Ladhams - probably proven more now together, prospect of playing together it certainly no worse than last year when draft took place.
English/Martin - Far more chance we see this combination.
NicNat/Vardy/Williams - longer games, likely needs more support. Allen the prospect. Similar to prior year when draft took place.
Sinclair/Hickey - Probably the same prospect of two playing as last season. So nothing changed since draft took place.

Then there are plenty of others who played, but not counting them for now like Chol, Esava, TDK.

To be frank, I don't see how those who took a "risk" on a ruck got burnt... They would still have a great advantage in terms of having the higher scorers on field in those ruck positions. Fringe forwards from other sides wouldn't be any chance to match pure No.1 rucks on scoring. Plenty of sides copped forward donuts anyway last season or had no fwd cover so the difference may not be that great.

You've pointed out that there could be a pool of up to 25 to fill 20 spots. A lot of sides have 3 options from the pool of 25 (i.e. I have Sinclair, you have Preuss) and these types of moves makes it even harder for the group to collectively fill 20 spots.

Some of this information may have been available at the start but I don't think you can expect it to have been perfectly tailored from the outset. These types of things are always a trial and error process and Ken and GG have the best intentions in mind to ensure the enjoyment for all coaches. They themselves have been part of other keeper leagues where I'm sure this sort of issue would've taken the fun out of it for a lot of coaches. Having at least some flexibility makes it more enjoyable for everyone. Would you prefer to come up against sides who have lost interest and have weekly donuts in the rucks?

 

[Bomber18]

As I type this, I now have come across the news that Marshall is now injured and I'm myself facing a donut in the rucks in the early season.

I have Marshall, Nank and traded for Sinclair. Now have Nank and Sinclair (who may not even play). It's a difficult position to fill two spots.

 

[KLo30]

I don't have a lot of time at present, so my responses are highly unlikely to be in great depth. So, apologies if anyone is expecting me to take the lead of this, or any other, discussion at this time.

Two things, I will say:
1. The issue of teams not having enough available rucks was flagged during the initial rule discussions, we decided to run with two rucks in 2020 and to re-examine during this preseason. The concerns at the time, to our mind, were proven true, therefore a proposed rule change was put up for discussion.
2. Every single rule that the competition runs on has been out in the open, open for discussion and/or more expansive explanation. The 10s of pages here in the open forum are doubled in the LG forum, where the concept grew, and the majority of SCSUL teams originated.

 

[Bomber18]

As I type this, I now have come across the news that Marshall is now injured and I'm myself facing a donut in the rucks in the early season.

I have Marshall, Nank and traded for Sinclair. Now have Nank and Sinclair (who may not even play). It's a difficult position to fill two spots.

Preuss cops an LTI now too, just as we were discussing how difficult it is to fill two spots.

 

[lappinitup]

To be frank, I don't see how those who took a "risk" on a ruck got burnt... They would still have a great advantage in terms of having the higher scorers on field in those ruck positions.

Apologies you have taken this the opposite to how I intended it, wording wasn't clear enough on my behalf! By risk, I mean punting the position, not investing in it. Have chosen to invest elsewhere, and got burnt by the ruck position under investment.

Now this isn't personally at you @KLo30, so please don't take this attack on you, as I know you are proposing this for the comp and not your team. However, I think your team is a perfect example.

Rucks pick were Lobb/Soldo/Xerri/Meek.

R1: Forward ruck who was always a risk of having a position change. Hasn't, so good risk and pick if you ask me!
R2: Someone who had never played more than half a season going in to FY20.
R3: Never played
R4: Never played

Now on percentages at least half the season that structure is going to be missing a ruck.

That is what I would saying is risking this line. Salary of $1.4m invested in the position, and I am tipping no draft capital.

As opposed to Tails strategy of investing $2.4m in the position, with back up for his number 1. That is $1m worse of around the rest of the ground.

If you then change the rule to remove the R2 requirement, or give more flexibility there. Of course the team who used the $1m elsewhere is in a far superior position due to the change.

 

[lappinitup]

I don't have a lot of time at present, so my responses are highly unlikely to be in great depth. So, apologies if anyone is expecting me to take the lead of this, or any other, discussion at this time.

Two things, I will say:
1. The issue of teams not having enough available rucks was flagged during the initial rule discussions, we decided to run with two rucks in 2020 and to re-examine during this preseason. The concerns at the time, to our mind, were proven true, therefore a proposed rule change was put up for discussion.

I did not know this. Apologies, if all the teams knew 2 rucks were a strong chance to change going in to FY21 before the draft took place, then this does change my view!

The risk was then on Tails' side investing so heavily when you were all already discussing taking this position away in FY21.

Apologies, I am new to this and haven't seen every comment posted and didn't see that particular conversation when going back through the threads.

Seriously disadvantages my team, however if the group had already flagged this to all coaches as a possibility, I would push for @Jordan's Jets suggestion of future dating the change to next season.

 

[KLo30]

Apologies you have taken this the opposite to how I intended it, wording wasn't clear enough on my behalf! By risk, I mean punting the position, not investing in it. Have chosen to invest elsewhere, and got burnt by the ruck position under investment.

Now this isn't personally at you @KLo30, so please don't take this attack on you, as I know you are proposing this for the comp and not your team. However, I think your team is a perfect example.

Rucks pick were Lobb/Soldo/Xerri/Meek.

R1: Forward ruck who was always a risk of having a position change. Hasn't, so good risk and pick if you ask me!
R2: Someone who had never played more than half a season going in to FY20.
R3: Never played
R4: Never played

Now on percentages at least half the season that structure is going to be missing a ruck.

That is what I would saying is risking this line. Salary of $1.4m invested in the position, and I am tipping no draft capital.

As opposed to Tails strategy of investing $2.4m in the position, with back up for his number 1. That is $1m worse of around the rest of the ground.

If you then change the rule to remove the R2 requirement, or give more flexibility there. Of course the team who used the $1m elsewhere is in a far superior position due to the change.

I drafted 5 rucks, you've missed Sinclair.

Tails' back up for his number 1 was an often injured ruckman who has never played a full season at any club be it at AFL level , VFL level or the combination of both. Again he is injured after moving to his third club. 2 out of the 3 top rucks is great whilst they are fit, however I wouldn't classify the team being strong at ruck.

The Darkness is strong at ruck because he bats about 6 deep.

The Law's of Supercoach state RUCKS GET INJURED.

 

[Bomber18]

Apologies you have taken this the opposite to how I intended it, wording wasn't clear enough on my behalf! By risk, I mean punting the position, not investing in it. Have chosen to invest elsewhere, and got burnt by the ruck position under investment.

Now this isn't personally at you @KLo30, so please don't take this attack on you, as I know you are proposing this for the comp and not your team. However, I think your team is a perfect example.

Rucks pick were Lobb/Soldo/Xerri/Meek.

R1: Forward ruck who was always a risk of having a position change. Hasn't, so good risk and pick if you ask me!
R2: Someone who had never played more than half a season going in to FY20.
R3: Never played
R4: Never played

Now on percentages at least half the season that structure is going to be missing a ruck.

That is what I would saying is risking this line. Salary of $1.4m invested in the position, and I am tipping no draft capital.

As opposed to Tails strategy of investing $2.4m in the position, with back up for his number 1. That is $1m worse of around the rest of the ground.

Your side has invested 2m in players averaging 240. That’s great value no matter where invested.

There are no forwards which can match that.

I think sides still retain the value of their ruck investment personally but each to their own.