SCSUL RULE CHANGES - Discussion

[KLo30]

This unlocked thread is dedicated to the discussion of rule changes that arise during the season:

• Officially proposed
• Unofficially proposed
• ideas to be fleshed out from discussions
• brain storming collections
• other

All rule changes will be discussed and voted on by all teams before implementation.

By discussing in this manner, teams can be fully informed when making list decisions throughout the season.

These rules may begin with a notion, a simple idea or thought bubble, which will be fleshed out over time. When the rule is in a form ready for discussion, it will be posted here as a (draft or final) proposal.

 

[KLo30]

These three rules go together in many ways, though you can do the Mid Season Draft with only one of the two scenarios.

The idea is to give teams more flexibility in list management, and to allow a mechanism to cover for season ending injuries.

For clarification, teams would not be able to trade themselves to an open roster spot for Mid Season Draft purposes.


PRESEASON DRAFT - LIST SIZE

Teams will be permitted leave up to two positions on their 44 player list unfilled at the completion of the Pre Season Draft. Teams must leave a minimum of $150,000 of salary per player available in their salary cap for drafting of top up players in the Mid Season Draft. These positions can only, and must, be filled via the Mid Season Draft.

DRAFT

LONG TERM INJURY LIST

The SCSUL Long Term Injury (LTI) list would work in the same manner as the AFL. Teams would be able to place players on the LTI list who won't play, and/or take any further part, in the current season.

Teams will be responsible for the full payment of the players salary in that season, however the contract year won't be counted.

Teams will be able to replace the player through either the Pre Season or Mid Season Drafts.

A maximum of two players from a team will be eligible to be replaced through this process.

DRAFT

MID SEASON DRAFT

A Mid Season Draft will be held before the commencement of round 7. Teams with available salary and contract space will be eligible to participate in the Md Season Draft. Teams are able to draft up to three players to fill spaces on their list caused by LTI and/or held back from the Pre Season Draft.

Teams may offer players up to 2 years (pro rata) in contract length. Rookie eligible players must be drafted to a 2 year (pro rata) contract.

DRAFT

 

[Bomber18]

Like the ideas @KLo30!

Just a few ideas/initial thoughts on the mid season draft:
- would it make sense to have it after the AFL mid season draft so that those players are also available?
- presume prices for existing undrafted players would be based on preseason prices for that year (not recalculated based on their season avg to date?)
- is the option of trading salary cap space still under consideration?

 

[KLo30]

Like the ideas @KLo30!

Just a few ideas/initial thoughts on the mid season draft:
- would it make sense to have it after the AFL mid season draft so that those players are also available?
- presume prices for existing undrafted players would be based on preseason prices for that year (not recalculated based on their season avg to date?)
- is the option of trading salary cap space still under consideration?

1. Up for debate. After 6 games is a third of the season. That was the basis of the draft proposal. Waiting for the AFL would mean doing so after 11 games.
2. Prices would remain the same as pre season.
3. Teams would be able to trade prior to the Mid Season Draft as per normal, and thus freeing up salary cap space to help in the Mid Season Draft.

 

[KLo30]

Any further thoughts and/or questions on these rule changes? If not, I'll put them up for vote and then move to the next rule(s) for discussion.

 

[Bomber18]

Any further thoughts and/or questions on these rule changes? If not, I'll put them up for vote and then move to the next rule(s) for discussion.

Just a few quick ones:

Would the pick order for the mid season draft just be based on ladder order right before the draft?

Can mid season draft picks be traded? (presume not)

 

[Goodie's Guns]

2ND CONTRACT PRICING - GAMES PLAYED DISCOUNT

A review of the average/pricing discounts for players who didn't play a match in year one of their rookie deal, and play minimal matches in the second year of their rookie deal, should (possibly) receive a further/larger discount on their 2YC pricing.

Looking at the discount brackets, my thoughts would be focused on 1-3 game bracket.

1 Game = 50% Discount
2 Games = 40% Discount
3 Games = 30% Discount

... and then per the current brackets
4-5 Games = 20% Discount
6-7 Games = 10% Discount

The baseline would obviously be the price at which the player was priced to average as a rookie.

You could even go 60%, 45%, 30%, I don't know. Just thoughts.


In terms of the reasoning, I just think that if you've researched a player in their junior years, drafted them, followed them for the best part of two years and they get only one or two games in that time, that the risk is already there if you were to go forward and offer a long term deal, even at the current 2YC premium. Realistically, for majority of players at AFL level it takes more than 1-3 games to determine their long term worth, that a shift a little further towards the 0 games played mark for those in that 1-3 games bracket particularly seems reasonable.

Additionally, it rewards good drafting and patience if the player turns out to be useful (for want of a better term) across their 2YC contract. And adds weight to the preseason draft element of UL and the value of picks vs. players vs. salary/contract terms at the trade table and draft.

I think we should be keen and excited to see our rookies debut (late in the year), rather than having that strange feeling of hoping they don't necessarily debut (or do super well) and see their price hike as they go off their rookie deal, especially for those who debut late in the year and would fall into that lowest bracket of games.

 

[KLo30]

Just a few quick ones:

Would the pick order for the mid season draft just be based on ladder order right before the draft?

Can mid season draft picks be traded? (presume not)

In the Keeper League, the draft order is based on the reverse order of the ladder at the time of the drafts, and those draft picks are able to be traded.

 

[Darkie]

These three rules go together in many ways, though you can do the Mid Season Draft with only one of the two scenarios.

The idea is to give teams more flexibility in list management, and to allow a mechanism to cover for season ending injuries.

For clarification, teams would not be able to trade themselves to an open roster spot for Mid Season Draft purposes.


PRESEASON DRAFT - LIST SIZE

Teams will be permitted leave up to two positions on their 44 player list unfilled at the completion of the Pre Season Draft. Teams must leave a minimum of $150,000 of salary per player available in their salary cap for drafting of top up players in the Mid Season Draft. These positions can only, and must, be filled via the Mid Season Draft.

DRAFT

LONG TERM INJURY LIST

The SCSUL Long Term Injury (LTI) list would work in the same manner as the AFL. Teams would be able to place players on the LTI list who won't play, and/or take any further part, in the current season.

Teams will be responsible for the full payment of the players salary in that season, however the contract year won't be counted.

Teams will be able to replace the player through either the Pre Season or Mid Season Drafts.

A maximum of two players from a team will be eligible to be replaced through this process.

DRAFT

MID SEASON DRAFT

A Mid Season Draft will be held before the commencement of round 7. Teams with available salary and contract space will be eligible to participate in the Md Season Draft. Teams are able to draft up to three players to fill spaces on their list caused by LTI and/or held back from the Pre Season Draft.

Teams may offer players up to 2 years (pro rata) in contract length. Rookie eligible players must be drafted to a 2 year (pro rata) contract.

DRAFT

Thanks gents.

A couple of questions:

(1) Am I right in thinking that only the current contract year is excluded from the cap for a player on the LTI list? Eg if I put Toby McLean on the list, that’s -1 years (rather than -6 years), given he’s back on my normal list the following year?

(2) Does the comment above about pro rata contracts mean that players are selected for 2/3 or 1 2/3 years, with salary adjusted accordingly? Eg a $126k player selected in the MSD for 1 2/3 years is on $84k in the first year and $126k after that?

I don’t have a strong preference tor the timing of the MSD, but suspect that the popular options (a Mundy/Hall type?) will largely reveal themselves pretty quickly, although the AFL MSD would presumably deepen the pool.

I think reverse ladder order, and tradeable picks, are both sensible for the MSD.

Also, can I please suggest/request that we include a vote on both whether the rule(s) should be adopted, as well as the timing of adoption - similar to last time?

 

[Darkie]

2ND CONTRACT PRICING - GAMES PLAYED DISCOUNT

A review of the average/pricing discounts for players who didn't play a match in year one of their rookie deal, and play minimal matches in the second year of their rookie deal, should (possibly) receive a further/larger discount on their 2YC pricing.

Looking at the discount brackets, my thoughts would be focused on 1-3 game bracket.

1 Game = 50% Discount
2 Games = 40% Discount
3 Games = 30% Discount

... and then per the current brackets
4-5 Games = 20% Discount
6-7 Games = 10% Discount

The baseline would obviously be the price at which the player was priced to average as a rookie.

You could even go 60%, 45%, 30%, I don't know. Just thoughts.


In terms of the reasoning, I just think that if you've researched a player in their junior years, drafted them, followed them for the best part of two years and they get only one or two games in that time, that the risk is already there if you were to go forward and offer a long term deal, even at the current 2YC premium. Realistically, for majority of players at AFL level it takes more than 1-3 games to determine their long term worth, that a shift a little further towards the 0 games played mark for those in that 1-3 games bracket particularly seems reasonable.

Additionally, it rewards good drafting and patience if the player turns out to be useful (for want of a better term) across their 2YC contract. And adds weight to the preseason draft element of UL and the value of picks vs. players vs. salary/contract terms at the trade table and draft.

I think we should be keen and excited to see our rookies debut (late in the year), rather than having that strange feeling of hoping they don't necessarily debut (or do super well) and see their price hike as they go off their rookie deal, especially for those who debut late in the year and would fall into that lowest bracket of games.

I agree with the logic here, and like this idea.

There can definitely be mixed feelings around a late second year debut, and I think in general we should be nudging coaches towards keeping players they’ve drafted, rather than potentially making the pricing prohibitive if they have 1 or 2 great games.

I don’t have a strong view on the level of discounts, but the ones outlined in the “table” seem reasonable to me.

 

[Bomber18]

2ND CONTRACT PRICING - GAMES PLAYED DISCOUNT

A review of the average/pricing discounts for players who didn't play a match in year one of their rookie deal, and play minimal matches in the second year of their rookie deal, should (possibly) receive a further/larger discount on their 2YC pricing.

Looking at the discount brackets, my thoughts would be focused on 1-3 game bracket.

1 Game = 50% Discount
2 Games = 40% Discount
3 Games = 30% Discount

... and then per the current brackets
4-5 Games = 20% Discount
6-7 Games = 10% Discount

The baseline would obviously be the price at which the player was priced to average as a rookie.

You could even go 60%, 45%, 30%, I don't know. Just thoughts.


In terms of the reasoning, I just think that if you've researched a player in their junior years, drafted them, followed them for the best part of two years and they get only one or two games in that time, that the risk is already there if you were to go forward and offer a long term deal, even at the current 2YC premium. Realistically, for majority of players at AFL level it takes more than 1-3 games to determine their long term worth, that a shift a little further towards the 0 games played mark for those in that 1-3 games bracket particularly seems reasonable.

Additionally, it rewards good drafting and patience if the player turns out to be useful (for want of a better term) across their 2YC contract. And adds weight to the preseason draft element of UL and the value of picks vs. players vs. salary/contract terms at the trade table and draft.

I think we should be keen and excited to see our rookies debut (late in the year), rather than having that strange feeling of hoping they don't necessarily debut (or do super well) and see their price hike as they go off their rookie deal, especially for those who debut late in the year and would fall into that lowest bracket of games.

Interesting proposal but my initial thoughts are that this rule change is perhaps a bit too narrow in its operation (ie must play 0 games in their first year) and may benefit only a handful of people who might have players that meet the specific conditions.

The current approach for rookies who play 1-3 games in their second year is that they get a 30% discount (which is in line with classic SC rules) - proposal is that this would get bumped maybe to 40-50% if the player doesn’t play a game in their first year? This would mean that if the player played even one game in their first year, they would no longer be eligible which somewhat defeats the purpose of the rule in any case to try create some more positive feelings about rookies debuting.

Personally think the current approach to somewhat mimic the SC way on the discounts makes most sense but keen to hear other’s thoughts as well and open to be convinced.

 

[Bomber18]

In the Keeper League, the draft order is based on the reverse order of the ladder at the time of the drafts, and those draft picks are able to be traded.

Thanks for that, interesting dynamic if the mid season draft picks can also be traded.

Sorry just one more question given the mid season draft picks can be traded, from what point in time would these be able to be traded? Would it only be when that particular season has started? Or would these be assigned to teams for two seasons (similar to the preseason draft picks)?

 

[Goodie's Guns]

The current approach for rookies who play 1-3 games in their second year is that they get a 30% discount (which is in line with classic SC rules) - proposal is that this would get bumped maybe to 40-50% if the player doesn’t play a game in their first year? This would mean that if the player played even one game in their first year, they would no longer be eligible which somewhat defeats the purpose of the rule in any case to try create some more positive feelings about rookies debuting

Yeah I should’ve adjusted my wording of things a touch to include it in my writeup (was originally written a few weeks back), but you could/would have the reverse also play out. Where 1-3 games in first year, and zero in second, then you also come under the adjusted discount.

 

[KLo30]

Thanks gents.

A couple of questions:

(1) Am I right in thinking that only the current contract year is excluded from the cap for a player on the LTI list? Eg if I put Toby McLean on the list, that’s -1 years (rather than -6 years), given he’s back on my normal list the following year?

(2) Does the comment above about pro rata contracts mean that players are selected for 2/3 or 1 2/3 years, with salary adjusted accordingly? Eg a $126k player selected in the MSD for 1 2/3 years is on $84k in the first year and $126k after that?

I don’t have a strong preference tor the timing of the MSD, but suspect that the popular options (a Mundy/Hall type?) will largely reveal themselves pretty quickly, although the AFL MSD would presumably deepen the pool.

I think reverse ladder order, and tradeable picks, are both sensible for the MSD.

Also, can I please suggest/request that we include a vote on both whether the rule(s) should be adopted, as well as the timing of adoption - similar to last time?

1. Only for the current year.

2. Was really only trying to portray the fact you are missing part of the year when drafting in the MSD. There is no prorating of salary in the proposal.

3. The three current proposals are intended for implementation in the coming season. There appeared to be a general feeling LTI lists and MSD were a positive when flagged during the season just completed.

I'd like to keep things as simple as possible, as what seems a simple in concept from the outside is more difficult in the execution with Google Sheets and time to implement.

 

[KLo30]

Thanks for that, interesting dynamic if the mid season draft picks can also be traded.

Sorry just one more question given the mid season draft picks can be traded, from what point in time would these be able to be traded? Would it only be when that particular season has started? Or would these be assigned to teams for two seasons (similar to the preseason draft picks)?

In the Keeper League they are assigned to teams for two seasons, and are able to be traded along with PSD picks once trading is open.

 

[Bomber18]

Yeah I should’ve include it in my writeup, but you could/would have the reverse also play out. Where 1-3 games in first year, and zero in second, then you also come under the adjusted discount.

I see! In this case, what average would we be discounting from?

I think this scenario where the player plays games in their first year but none in their second year is definitely one where we could have a clearer discount. I think my vague understanding is that in this situation, the players 2YC price would be based on whatever price SC assign? Eg I think in 2020, Marty Hore played 0 games so his 2YC contract price was based on the price that SC set (which seemed to be at a 20% discount to his 2019 price). Essentially then Hore’s 2YC price was only 20% discounted on his 2019 price in the end although he played 0 games in 2020.

Not sure we will have a similar scenario this season but if say S Hill and A Smith didnt retire, their 2YC prices would kind of be arbitrarily decided by SC depending on whether they got a 20% or 30% or 50% discount on their 2020 avg.

 

[Bomber18]

In the Keeper League they are assigned to teams for two seasons, and are able to be traded along with PSD picks once trading is open.

Excellent - that’s very clear and does add some good flexibility.

 

[Darkie]

1. Only for the current year.

2. Was really only trying to portray the fact you are missing part of the year when drafting in the MSD. There is no prorating of salary in the proposal.

3. The three current proposals are intended for implementation in the coming season. There appeared to be a general feeling LTI lists and MSD were a positive when flagged during the season just completed.

I'd like to keep things as simple as possible, as what seems a simple in concept from the outside is more difficult in the execution with Google Sheets and time to implement.

Thanks for clarifying Ken, that’s helpful. On your points:

1. That makes sense.

2. No problem - I agree that that keeps things simple (and pro rating probably adds a fair bit of complexity for little or no gain). I just wanted to make sure I understood the proposed rule.

3. Fair enough, I’ll work on that basis.

More broadly, my sense is that sometimes a coach will be on board with a rule change, but not with immediate effect (I think this view was expressed by a few coaches last o***eason).

If desired, one simple way to address that outcome could be to include two questions: (a) do you support rule change X? (b) if the rule change is implemented, when do you believe that should occur (eg for the 2022 season/2023/2024)? If there’s a majority in support on (a), the rule change is then implemented, with the timing determined by the median timing based on (b).

 

[KLo30]

Thanks for clarifying Ken, that’s helpful. On your points:

1. That makes sense.

2. No problem - I agree that that keeps things simple (and pro rating probably adds a fair bit of complexity for little or no gain). I just wanted to make sure I understood the proposed rule.

3. Fair enough, I’ll work on that basis.

More broadly, my sense is that sometimes a coach will be on board with a rule change, but not with immediate effect (I think this view was expressed by a few coaches last o***eason).

If desired, one simple way to address that outcome could be to include two questions: (a) do you support rule change X? (b) if the rule change is implemented, when do you believe that should occur (eg for the 2022 season/2023/2024)? If there’s a majority in support on (a), the rule change is then implemented, with the timing determined by the median timing based on (b).

I do get the delaying of rule implementation. I feel that would ordinarily be when a shift in roster construction is required which can't be undertaken between seasons, and it would have been voiced during the discussion period.

Last season was for a specific position of which there were limited players, which is difficult to immediately alter. The current rules being discussed are across all positions, and everyone would be aware before the trade period opens and before the PSD. Therefore, teams have time prepare their strategy, and hopefully there aren't too many players who end up on LTI lists (especially for their sake).

 

[Darkie]

I do get the delaying of rule implementation. I feel that would ordinarily be when a shift in roster construction is required which can't be undertaken between seasons, and it would have been voiced during the discussion period.

Last season was for a specific position of which there were limited players, which is difficult to immediately alter. The current rules being discussed are across all positions, and everyone would be aware before the trade period opens and before the PSD. Therefore, teams have time prepare their strategy, and hopefully there aren't too players who end up on LTI lists (especially for their sake).

Thanks, this makes sense. I agree that the MSD/LTI/list size rule changes aren’t particularly “time sensitive” in that way.

I was thinking that the approach I mentioned might be an option for other changes more akin to the ruck rule … it could deliver a definitive outcome to hopefully simplify things for you/give everyone clarity on future changes. I am relaxed about it though, if the idea doesn’t appeal or only suited particular proposed changes 🙂