SCS Supercoach Ultimate League
- Thread starter KLo30
- Start date
You hold the rights to those players. No one else can bid on them. You will decide on what length of contract to offer them and whether that will be back ended, average or front ended.
I'll be setting up a table with drop down lists within the Preseason Signing and Draft doc, probably within team pages. Very similar to the 2017 draftees.
Players who you don't choose to sign will go back into the draft pool.
I'll be setting up a table with drop down lists within the Preseason Signing and Draft doc, probably within team pages. Very similar to the 2017 draftees.
Players who you don't choose to sign will go back into the draft pool.
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2014
- Messages
- 9,934
- Likes
- 39,639
- AFL Club
- Essendon
I have been stewing on this ruck change discussion for a few weeks, and I am still not totally convinced either way.
My immediate thought in reading the proposed change was that it wasn’t fair because of the contract nature of this comp, and some teams would have focussed on rucks more than others. I then looked at my team and realised the five ruck eligible players I had last year were now only three. I was expecting one to lose ruck status, but surprised it was two. I then thought about the suggestion and thought it would be OK. I would still need to trade in a ruck to get up to four on my list, and the way I understand it I can only put a tall forward at R3, so if I have two rucks playing they have to take precedence on field. Therefore the only benefit is that an F7 comes into play, say 50-60 points to cover an otherwise donut. Even though I had reservations about the speed of the change, I was OK if this went ahead if it is what the majority want.
My concern is that given the contract nature of this comp, decisions can’t be made in haste. I think rules should be voted on to take effect in two years, not immediately. However, having thought about that more, a change could take effect next year and we will have two drafts and plenty of trading opportunity to restructure our team, so I would be fine for a change to be voted on now to take effect next year.
I have a suggestion. If the change has to be made immediately, maybe there needs to be a compromise? Perhaps if a coach feels that it is a harsh decision they could be offered the opportunity to delist one of their best two rucks. Therefore freeing up cash and a locked in contract which will help them to restructure. Just a thought, but I think it would have to be one of best two only to stop ‘sneaky’ offloading of deadwood. I suspect very few would take up the offer given the scoring of rucks.
Whichever way this goes I do like the requirement to have four ruck eligible players on a list.
If the game is changing are there any other 22 on field position changes we should be considering now? Maybe this type of discussion should be had at the end of each season, and if we agree to a change it takes effect in two seasons time - once again allowing plenty of trade opportunities and two drafts to restructure before the change takes effect.
Anyhow, that is where my head is at present!
My immediate thought in reading the proposed change was that it wasn’t fair because of the contract nature of this comp, and some teams would have focussed on rucks more than others. I then looked at my team and realised the five ruck eligible players I had last year were now only three. I was expecting one to lose ruck status, but surprised it was two. I then thought about the suggestion and thought it would be OK. I would still need to trade in a ruck to get up to four on my list, and the way I understand it I can only put a tall forward at R3, so if I have two rucks playing they have to take precedence on field. Therefore the only benefit is that an F7 comes into play, say 50-60 points to cover an otherwise donut. Even though I had reservations about the speed of the change, I was OK if this went ahead if it is what the majority want.
My concern is that given the contract nature of this comp, decisions can’t be made in haste. I think rules should be voted on to take effect in two years, not immediately. However, having thought about that more, a change could take effect next year and we will have two drafts and plenty of trading opportunity to restructure our team, so I would be fine for a change to be voted on now to take effect next year.
I have a suggestion. If the change has to be made immediately, maybe there needs to be a compromise? Perhaps if a coach feels that it is a harsh decision they could be offered the opportunity to delist one of their best two rucks. Therefore freeing up cash and a locked in contract which will help them to restructure. Just a thought, but I think it would have to be one of best two only to stop ‘sneaky’ offloading of deadwood. I suspect very few would take up the offer given the scoring of rucks.
Whichever way this goes I do like the requirement to have four ruck eligible players on a list.
If the game is changing are there any other 22 on field position changes we should be considering now? Maybe this type of discussion should be had at the end of each season, and if we agree to a change it takes effect in two seasons time - once again allowing plenty of trade opportunities and two drafts to restructure before the change takes effect.
Anyhow, that is where my head is at present!
- Joined
- 21 May 2012
- Messages
- 22,366
- Likes
- 31,319
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Evening coaches,
After the discussions over the last week or so regarding the implementation of the adjusted RUC rule, we are now at a point where everyone has had their say, or chance to have their say. And we will continue to be going around in circles if we don't settle things soon enough.
So with that in mind, I will be compiling a short survey/vote on Google Forms, which will include a few questions in regards to the rule and its implementation and integration into the competition.
It will be an anonymous vote/survey as it is possible to do such through Google Forms.
I will likely send this out Sunday morning, so please endeavour to complete it as soon as you can, as the sooner we finalise this the sooner we can all move on with the preseason. One of the best times of the year for a keepers coach!
Thanks all,
Goodie.
This is what I'm working on now for the signing of 2nd Contracts.
I'm using the template of the 2017 Draft Class to feed into the team pages.
Each team will have it's own row. Select the player from the drop down list at the top, and then select the length of the contract and your name.
This will then feed into your team page, where you will select the structure of the contract.
NB. The middle table is redundant.
I'm using the template of the 2017 Draft Class to feed into the team pages.
Each team will have it's own row. Select the player from the drop down list at the top, and then select the length of the contract and your name.
This will then feed into your team page, where you will select the structure of the contract.
NB. The middle table is redundant.
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2014
- Messages
- 9,934
- Likes
- 39,639
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 39,504
- Likes
- 128,560
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
After being finally released from Goodman Headquarters, we can share the first images of the newest recruits at Creme De La Creme- Damon Greaves and Will Hamill. Mr Hamill is already a favourite of the Creme De La Creme hierarchy, thanks to honouring the tradition of supplying their own ball to pressers and training.
