SCS Supercoach Ultimate League

[KLo30]

The way I see this rule is that forward can only be selected for known outs in the ruck. It would not be a forward only acting as emergency for both fwd and ruc.

If they are iffy before the game and then a late out, then you won't have a replacement.

You don't get two bites of the cherry.

 

[Deeman1]

The biggest issue and I guess its what is trying to be addressed by the ruck rule changes is that not so much R1 and R2, but what back-up is there after that in R3 and R4 (if available)

Rucks get injured as much as anyother player and whilst if might be the case if a MID or 2 are injured, most teams have the coverage through straight MID's or DPP they can be covered. The same can not be said of RUC.

Example my rucks were Witts and McInnerney (who was DPP last yearm but is now not) with coverage from Smith (whom never played, but was a HC to Witts, Jackson who was R/F last year, but is now only F and Martin who was a HC for McInnerney, but is now no longer at the club.

Given the number of playing rucks avaiable I don't feel this was a bad set up, but things have changed over time.

FWIW I agree with the change, but I guess that serves my purpose. If the RUC rule change saves a couple of donuts and can maintain a bi of interest for a longer period of time, then I'm OK with if. Rules change in the AFL all the time and as long as its an even playing field all is good as far as I'm concerend.

 

[KLo30]

We are currently using positions allocated by virtual sports.

By there reckoning if Gawn doesn't play Bradkte is the (only) replacement.

In reality, Jackson would be ahead. Who would be the others? Daw if he gets picked up? McDonald?

 

[Deeman1]

We are currently using positions allocated by virtual sports.

By there reckoning if Gawn doesn't play Bradkte is the (only) replacement.

In reality, Jackson would be ahead. Who would be the others? Daw if he gets picked up? McDonald?

Not sure there is much else, McDonald maybe pinch-hit, M Brown maybe pinch-hit, I dont know where Bradkte is at as far as playing, but Jackson seems to be the only other option when fit to play.

 

[KLo30]

Not sure there is much else, McDonald maybe pinch-hit, M Brown maybe pinch-hit, I dont know where Bradkte is at as far as playing, but Jackson seems to be the only other option when fit to play.

So, Supercoach isn't matching clubland in regards to whom is regarded as a ruck.

 

[lappinitup]

@Bomber18 you can't be seriously saying rucks value in this game is not diminishing with this rule change? Every player and position has "value", I am arguing it is seriously diminished. I must have misinterpreted the word retain above, because we surely all agree the value is less, we simply disagree on how much?

 

[Bomber18]

@Bomber18 you can't be seriously saying rucks value in this game is not diminishing with this rule change? Every player and position has "value", I am arguing it is seriously diminished. I must have misinterpreted the word retain above, because we surely all agree the value is less, we simply disagree on how much?

Sorry, I’m not seeing personally how value invested has been lost. All teams need at least four rucks to take advantage of the proposed rule so a ruck investment is still necessary

The 930k invested in Goldy by your side will still give you a 110 avg return and a player likely to play 20+ games.

 

[lappinitup]

The Law's of Supercoach state RUCKS GET INJURED.

Pretty sure most positions have injury issues. Some years people are worried about forwards, other years backs, my opinion most have liked the ruck line in recent years when it comes to injuries!

Mind you, that is my opinion. Not going to state it is fact to support my agenda.

FWIW I agree with the change, but I guess that serves my purpose. If the RUC rule change saves a couple of donuts and can maintain a bi of interest for a longer period of time, then I'm OK with if. Rules change in the AFL all the time and as long as its an even playing field all is good as far as I'm concerend.

Well summarised if you ask me, if we need to make rules changes to maintain interest and stop ghost ships, guess we have to do it.

 

[lappinitup]

Sorry, I’m not seeing personally how value invested has been lost. All teams need at least four rucks to take advantage of the proposed rule so a ruck investment is still necessary

The 930k invested in Goldy by your side will still give you a 110 avg return and a player likely to play 20+ games.

If you look at the player in isolation - no.

However, this game is far more complex than that. A salary caps means money spent in position X, means less to spend in all other positions!

Those who have chose to invest in R1 and then all other positions, have saved value on R2-R4 and therefore been able to invest more in other positions. If they have done this knowing a rule change is coming, they are in a far better position than the teams who invested in R2-4 and then spent less money on all other positions? It is how a salary cap works.

However, @KLo30 has since outlined that everyone in this group knew this rule change was a strong possibility, and no one had more knowledge than others within the group in relation to R2 becoming a R2/F7. So if that is the case, then it is just the punt my team took.

 

[lappinitup]

So, Supercoach isn't matching clubland in regards to whom is regarded as a ruck.

A frustration that has existed since 2006!

Certainly not something new!

 

[KLo30]

Agenda! Why do you have an "agenda"?

Are you sure you actually want to be a member of this league? You certainly have the other coaches unconvinced.

 

[Bomber18]

If you look at the player in isolation - no.

However, this game is far more complex than that. A salary caps means money spent in position X, means less to spend in all other positions!

Those who have chose to invest in R1 and then all other positions, have saved value on R2-R4 and therefore been able to invest more in other positions. If they have done this knowing a rule change is coming, they are in a far better position than the teams who invested in R2-4 and then spent less money on all other positions? It is how a salary cap works

I do appreciate the debate on this. I’m still firm in my views that I think the rucks still hold their value invested.

I believe your team made the right call to go for two rucks in the bidding stage of the draft. Appreciate it is tricky for you to understand our experiences during the draft as a new coach not involved, but it was all new for us and we all were still testing the waters early on. Tails had a strategy from the outset to lockup two genuine rucks in the bidding stage, it nearly won him the comp if not for some poor luck with the timing of injuries at a critical stage.

In comparison, I spent 950k+ on guys like Dusty. At the time, it looked like a good move but clearly in hindsight, trying to lock up a second genuine ruck with high scoring potential would’ve been a better investment. If I had my time again, even knowing these rule changes, I honestly would’ve pushed harder for a genuine high scorer at ruck 2 in the bidding stage.

Essentially, I doubt teams would’ve preferred to put value elsewhere instead of the rucks given how high scoring the ruck positions are. So I reckon the rucks still retain their value invested.

 

[lappinitup]

I do appreciate the debate on this. I’m still firm in my views that I think the rucks still hold their value invested.

I believe your team made the right call to go for two rucks in the bidding stage of the draft. Appreciate it is tricky for you to understand our experiences during the draft as a new coach not involved, but it was all new for us and we all were still testing the waters early on. Tails had a strategy from the outset to lockup two genuine rucks in the bidding stage, it nearly won him the comp if not for some poor luck with the timing of injuries at a critical stage.

In comparison, I spent 950k+ on guys like Dusty. At the time, it looked like a good move but clearly in hindsight, trying to lock up a second genuine ruck with high scoring potential would’ve been a better investment. If I had my time again, even knowing these rule changes, I honestly would’ve pushed harder for a genuine high scorer at ruck 2 in the bidding stage.

Essentially, I doubt teams would’ve preferred to put value elsewhere instead of the rucks given how high scoring the ruck positions are. So I reckon the rucks still retain their value invested.

Do like the debate as well. Stats based game and can be interpreted in many different ways - always fun!

Will agree to disagree, I find it very hard to see how the ruck position isn't devalued. To what degree is obviously extremely debatable and subjective! The argument others have made that it is minimal, I can also see that side. I obviously see it as more.

We working on a trade based around Goldy for Martin then?

 

[lappinitup]

Agenda! Why do you have an "agenda"?

Are you sure you actually want to be a member of this league? You certainly have the other coaches unconvinced.

I want to be a member, I won't just simply nod and agree with everything you say. So if you and the "other coaches" want to debate my desire behind my back away from this forum, feel free to remove me. Would appreciate the multiple other coaches complaining about me behind my back letting me know, happy to address any concerns and move on!

@KLo30 I understand you took offence to me asking for data on your statement "There are 10+ less Ruck eligible players than last season in SC, and even less playing options ", however I believe this is fairly clear statement to confirm. I just couldn't see the 10+ less playing options that supported the rule change.

Regardless, I am moving on. No point commenting further on rucks, if the league votes to change it this year, next year or in 3 years I will play by those rules (if still playing).

 

[KLo30]

I want to be a member, I won't just simply nod and agree with everything you say. So if you and the "other coaches" want to debate my desire behind my back away from this forum, feel free to remove me. Would appreciate the multiple other coaches complaining about me behind my back letting me know, happy to address any concerns and move on!

@KLo30 I understand you took offence to me asking for data on your statement "There are 10+ less Ruck eligible players than last season in SC, and even less playing options ", however I believe this is fairly clear statement to confirm. I just couldn't see the 10+ less playing options that supported the rule change.

Regardless, I am moving on. No point commenting further on rucks, if the league votes to change it this year, next year or in 3 years I will play by those rules (if still playing).

I didn't take any offence.

As I've stated, I don't have time at present to take the lead on this discussion and I certainly don't have time to collect data/stats for the discussion.

I've tried to chime in when I can, however that is probably more detrimental than helpful.

 

[Deeman1]

Preseason Draft and Signing Period

This is how I see the preseason draft and signing period playing out, however this isn't set in stone and will need to fit with individual availability.

The order of drafting and signing will be as follows:

1. Free Agents

• There are 54 players who fit the criteria for the free agent auction draft.
• This will run in the same manner as the top 60 in the inaugural draft.
• Therefore, we will need up to 3 hours to complete.

2. Restricted Free Agents

• There are 3 players who are eligible for the restricted free agent auction draft.
• This will run in the same manner as the 2017 Rookie players in the inaugural draft.
• This won't take very long.

3. 2nd Contract

• Teams will need to determine whether eligible players will be retained.
• Retained players will need to be signed before the Rookie and Unlisted Player Draft.
• The signing process is the same as the 2017 Rookie players in the inaugural draft (i.e. predetermined contract table)
• This process doesn't require all to be available.
• There will be a set deadline

4. Trade and Delisting Deadline

• Deadline to enable Rookie and Unlisted Player Draft doc to be completed.

5. Rookie and Unlisted Player Draft.

• This will run in the same manner as rounds 19 onwards in the inaugural draft.
• Teams must ensure that they stay within the contract year and salary caps at all times.
• Up to 2 hours will be required.

Ideally, 3 - 5 are completed after the preseason games, so as to give us all as much information as can be garnered.

Has there been any further timelines set on the completion of the above stages?

Point 3, how is that going to work, do people enter bids on players and is is then up to the contract holder as to whether they match to retain?

Apologies if this has been covered, just point me in the right direction if it has 👍

 

[lappinitup]

Has there been any further timelines set on the completion of the above stages?

Point 3, how is that going to work, do people enter bids on players and is is then up to the contract holder as to whether they match to retain?

Apologies if this has been covered, just point me in the right direction if it has 👍

Interested in this too

Point 5 - anyone willing to share the current pool of players before I try and work backwards myself.

 

[Deeman1]

Interested in this too

Point 5 - anyone willing to share the current pool of players before I try and work backwards myself.

On the google sheet shared by @KLo30 on 07/02/2021 there are various tabs on the sheet after our team lists

One with the 54 auction players, one for the 2nd contract players and another for the un-drafted players

Hope this helps 👍

 

[Bomber18]

Do like the debate as well. Stats based game and can be interpreted in many different ways - always fun!

Will agree to disagree, I find it very hard to see how the ruck position isn't devalued. To what degree is obviously extremely debatable and subjective! The argument others have made that it is minimal, I can also see that side. I obviously see it as more.

We working on a trade based around Goldy for Martin then?

It’s more the remaining contract length of one year that would make me hesitant to consider this. It’s perfectly set up for you though as you have Goldy this year and then Preuss to step in next season.

 

[lappinitup]

Cheers @Deeman1