SCSUL RULE CHANGES - Discussion

[Darkie]

One potential tweak below, based on a good observation raised by an interested UL observer (thanks @Wolffy84!):

Perhaps the MSD order should be determined by points for, rather than wins/losses?

The luck element of the draw over the first 6 rounds could be quite significant (both in the quality of opponents each of us faces, but also the impact of an out of the box score in a particular matchup).

Using points for should give a more representative gauge of the quality of each side.

 

[Goodie's Guns]

One potential tweak below, based on a good observation raised by an interested UL observer (thanks @Wolffy84!):

Perhaps the MSD order should be determined by points for, rather than wins/losses?

The luck element of the draw over the first 6 rounds could be quite significant (both in the quality of opponents each of us faces, but also the impact of an out of the box score in a particular matchup).

Using points for should give a more representative gauge of the quality of each side.

Another alternative to this, while keeping inline with the AFLs system for determining the mid season draft order, could be to hold the mid season draft after round 9. At this stage each team will have then played each other once.

 

[lappinitup]

All making sense to me so far. Interesting rule changes.

I know I traded Jeremey Sharpe, as didn't want a 75 averaging rookie with no discount in 2YC.

Didn't predict the sub score 5 to bring it back in last round, however still a 66 average and an interesting price point.

Would the league consider a smaller discount for all 2YC's, to try and encourage people holding their draft picks?

 

[KLo30]

All making sense to me so far. Interesting rule changes.

I know I traded Jeremey Sharpe, as didn't want a 75 averaging rookie with no discount in 2YC.

Didn't predict the sub score 5 to bring it back in last round, however still a 66 average and an interesting price point.

Would the league consider a smaller discount for all 2YC's, to try and encourage people holding their draft picks?

This is a discussion, so feel free to offer up a proposal.

The 2YC pricing hasn't been refined via other discussions before landing here.

 

[lappinitup]

Apologies, I thought it had been refined previously. I vaguely remembered seeing different options put out there, but didn't understand the whole concept well enough to fully digest. Must have confused it with another topic.

I guess now I sort of view 2YC as a bit of a poison pill, some coaches may not agree with that at all, so all about strategy.

Two potential methods to reward a coach who has drafted a player, and keep relatively consistent with current methodology.

1) Apply discount to first year of contract- say 20%.
Would mean the player is theoretically priced at a 20% discount to "market". This potentially provides significant upside to coaches who also see an increased output in year 3 onwards as a possibility. This would then mean the annual loading is applied to a lower value, so the benefit is compounding for length of contract.

2) Reduce loading
Allow the coach to lock in the player at their current price for say 2 years, with the 40% loading kicking in Year 3. In theory, this allows the coach to access two years at rookie price and a further 2 years based on Yr 2 output. Year 5 would then cop the loading instead of year 4.

Noah Anderson for example would then cost $459 for Yr 1 and 2 of his 2YC, approx $920k, instead of $1.1m.

Would also save approx. $100k per year on Years 3 and 4 as loading kicks in one year later.

On a cheaper type - means locking in for third and fourth year at $180k each, not $180 then $250k.

Think it is good incentive to stay in draft and recruit players, but doesn't completely skew the salary cap.


*******************************************************************************************************************

Think I like the idea of the loading reduction, however I certainly haven't had the experience of any of you when playing around with 2YC's. I have also traded out most of mine, so this wouldn't help me in the short term. Long term, for the benefit of the comp, I do like the idea of rewarding coaches who pick good young kids. (potentially current system does - I just haven't seen it yet)

 

[KLo30]

Apologies, I thought it had been refined previously. I vaguely remembered seeing different options put out there, but didn't understand the whole concept well enough to fully digest. Must have confused it with another topic.

I guess now I sort of view 2YC as a bit of a poison pill, some coaches may not agree with that at all, so all about strategy.

Two potential methods to reward a coach who has drafted a player, and keep relatively consistent with current methodology.

1) Apply discount to first year of contract- say 20%.
Would mean the player is theoretically priced at a 20% discount to "market". This potentially provides significant upside to coaches who also see an increased output in year 3 onwards as a possibility. This would then mean the annual loading is applied to a lower value, so the benefit is compounding for length of contract.

2) Reduce loading
Allow the coach to lock in the player at their current price for say 2 years, with the 40% loading kicking in Year 3. In theory, this allows the coach to access two years at rookie price and a further 2 years based on Yr 2 output. Year 5 would then cop the loading instead of year 4.

Noah Anderson for example would then cost $459 for Yr 1 and 2 of his 2YC, approx $920k, instead of $1.1m.

Would also save approx. $100k per year on Years 3 and 4 as loading kicks in one year later.

On a cheaper type - means locking in for third and fourth year at $180k each, not $180 then $250k.

Think it is good incentive to stay in draft and recruit players, but doesn't completely skew the salary cap.


*******************************************************************************************************************

Think I like the idea of the loading reduction, however I certainly haven't had the experience of any of you when playing around with 2YC's. I have also traded out most of mine, so this wouldn't help me in the short term. Long term, for the benefit of the comp, I do like the idea of rewarding coaches who pick good young kids. (potentially current system does - I just haven't seen it yet)

Row:
1. Initial loading
2. Current loading
3. 20% discount year one with current loading
4. Year 1 current price, Year 2 current price, Year 3 - 5 (1.4, 1.6, 1.8)




Full tables can be found in the 2020 Teams sheet > 2YC Comparison.

 

[Bomber18]

Seeing my salary cap constraints year on year, I may need to selfishly vote in favour of the reductions in 2YC salaries

Although I think as per the prior approach, would hope that the reductions are backdated (to the extent possible of course).

 

[Darkie]

I would generally be in favour of coaches being more incentivized (or less disincentivized) to retain players they have drafted, so I think a change to the loading could be positive.

I see this as quite a significant change, and one that I think would warrant only being implemented after a couple of seasons (if it was a meaningful % change in the loading structure).

One other option (not to try to complicate things) could be to reduce the % loading as the second year average increases.

At the moment someone like Walsh and RCD (who is bottom priced because he didn’t debut until after year 2) essentially have the same natural progression “curve” built in, even though RCD was a debutant and Walsh was basically a premium already. Realistically Walsh doesn’t have the same upside to his scoring because he’s precocious, whereas a later bloomer could easily outperform the 2YC curve because they’re starting from a much lower base.

 

[lappinitup]

I would generally be in favour of coaches being more incentivized (or less disincentivized) to retain players they have drafted, so I think a change to the loading could be positive.

I see this as quite a significant change, and one that I think would warrant only being implemented after a couple of seasons (if it was a meaningful % change in the loading structure).

One other option (not to try to complicate things) could be to reduce the % loading as the second year average increases.

At the moment someone like Walsh and RCD (who is bottom priced because he didn’t debut until after year 2) essentially have the same natural progression “curve” built in, even though RCD was a debutant and Walsh was basically a premium already. Realistically Walsh doesn’t have the same upside to his scoring because he’s precocious, whereas a later bloomer could easily outperform the 2YC curve because they’re starting from a much lower base.

Agree Darkie, is a significant change, so wasn't really contemplating it for this season. However, I know each and every coach will have their own opinion/agenda on that.

Was more a conversation starter on adding incentive to player retention. My draft hand and 2YC players isn't exactly enticing, so not intended to benefit me in any way.

I did originally have a third suggestion that staggered the loading or capped loading at certain levels, however it became extremely complicated. Ultimately, it is hard to plan for a Sam Walsh as opposed to someone who is injured in their second season. Didn't want to make it overly burdensome to the admin or coaches.

Looking at the tables @KLo30 put together (thank you!), my view is option 4 does help find that balance. The biggest free kick is the 4th year of a drafted player who is producing at elite levels, however they are few and far between and potentially add more substance to a first round draft pick in this comp. Something I have heavily discounted due to the current structure I must admit.

 

[Darkie]

Agree Darkie, is a significant change, so wasn't really contemplating it for this season. However, I know each and every coach will have their own opinion/agenda on that.

Was more a conversation starter on adding incentive to player retention. My draft hand and 2YC players isn't exactly enticing, so not intended to benefit me in any way.

I did originally have a third suggestion that staggered the loading or capped loading at certain levels, however it became extremely complicated. Ultimately, it is hard to plan for a Sam Walsh as opposed to someone who is injured in their second season. Didn't want to make it overly burdensome to the admin or coaches.

Looking at the tables @KLo30 put together (thank you!), my view is option 4 does help find that balance. The biggest free kick is the 4th year of a drafted player who is producing at elite levels, however they are few and far between and potentially add more substance to a first round draft pick in this comp. Something I have heavily discounted due to the current structure I must admit.

All good, and I wasn’t suggesting that it was proposed to benefit you or anything like that 🙂

In general I am keen to see significant changes to be implemented with a delay - more for reasons of fairness/planning purposes/engagement than anything else. I’m obviously quite engaged in the comp, which I think we definitely want to encourage, and if there are significant rule changes made on short timeframes, I think it could disincentivize the planning effort that we all put in, and reduce engagement, which obviously wouldn’t be a good outcome (even if the rule change itself was an improvement).

I think it’s quite encouraging that several coaches have already proposed/supported potential rule changes that disadvantage their sides. I’d be keen to see a bit more retention through that 2YC stage if we can encourage that in a way that’s manageable from an admin perspective - I think it’s more in the spirit of a keeper league.

 

[KLo30]

If any change is going to be made to the 2YC then it should be done for this season. Then last years 2YC players can be retrospectively altered as a fairness measure. Then the structure should be left alone for good.

It's interesting that teams find the loading too harsh, when this time last year there was resistance to downgrading the loading from the original.

 

[Diabolical]

I am ok with the change if that is what people prefer.

I actually didn’t mind the high loading because it made for a good challenge trying to balance premiums with talent coming through. It was almost made for a decision between having current premiums versus having the next generation of guns coming through, which in my view makes for a bigger difference in team strategies and harder to stay up for longer periods.

Given we haven’t had the draft yet, I am fine with the change coming in now for those going onto 2YCs this year but would prefer to not see previous contracts from last year and the year before altered accordingly as that would have been factored into strategies at the time of putting contracts in place.

 

[lappinitup]

I am ok with the change if that is what people prefer.

I actually didn’t mind the high loading because it made for a good challenge trying to balance premiums with talent coming through. It was almost made for a decision between having current premiums versus having the next generation of guns coming through, which in my view makes for a bigger difference in team strategies and harder to stay up for longer periods.

Given we haven’t had the draft yet, I am fine with the change coming in now for those going onto 2YCs this year but would prefer to not see previous contracts from last year and the year before altered accordingly as that would have been factored into strategies at the time of putting contracts in place.

I agree with the second point here, the backdating for me didn't make much sense, as the decisions made in prior years would not be altered (in the positive), if anything it is the borderline ones you let go that you would want back.

I do 100% see Darkie's perspective that implementing straight up does discredit a lot of hard work, strategy and planning many have done.

I wasn't across the previous conversation on this topic in any detail - actually now a little confused because I thought you said it hadn't been refined, by the sounds of it, it has?

To be honest, I think the comp is amazing as it is, was just a little area I thought could help the keeper nature of the league, but certainly doesn't need changing. Will just keep death riding my second year players! haha

 

[KLo30]

The hasn't been refined statement was in reference to Tim's proposal, not 2YC as a whole concept.

I'm more concerned whether we've got the RFA and FA contracts right in terms of keeping players we have drafted and kept.

 

[Bomber18]

The hasn't been refined statement was in reference to Tim's proposal, not 2YC as a whole concept.

I'm more concerned whether we've got the RFA and FA contracts right in terms of keeping players we have drafted and kept.

Agree with the RFA point, I think that’s probably the key rule in these 2YC discussions.

Not necessarily the case that you have to take 2YC players on 4-5 yr contracts to lock them in. It’s possible to opt for a 1-3 yr deal and then re-sign the player via RFA rights for a potentially cheaper deal.

On the topic of RFAs, one change for discussion I’d love to see is the ability for the original coach to match the salary and then offer a longer deal to the player if they wish (but not a shorter deal). I think the current rules require the original coach to bid $1 more and then increase the contract length if they are happy with the salary but want a longer deal, which seems a bit of a tedious process.

 

[Philzsay]

I haven't had a lot of time to ponder this, I have however generally thought the contract price to hold on a 2YC that has had a couple of good games early means they become too expensive to recommit for 4 or 5 years. And have found myself hoping that a couple of my kids don't get a token game or two at the end of their second year.

So am probably leaning towards agreeing with the changes.

 

[Jordan's Jets]

I’d be on board with a 2YC loading reduction. I think the current loading makes it very difficult for teams to hold players they draft

 

[KLo30]

Agree with the RFA point, I think that’s probably the key rule in these 2YC discussions.

Not necessarily the case that you have to take 2YC players on 4-5 yr contracts to lock them in. It’s possible to opt for a 1-3 yr deal and then re-sign the player via RFA rights for a potentially cheaper deal.

On the topic of RFAs, one change for discussion I’d love to see is the ability for the original coach to match the salary and then offer a longer deal to the player if they wish (but not a shorter deal). I think the current rules require the original coach to bid $1 more and then increase the contract length if they are happy with the salary but want a longer deal, which seems a bit of a tedious process.

If the salary is the same, the contract length prevails.

 

[Bomber18]

Very happy to follow the majority/commissioner view on the 2YCs - few mixed views on timing of introducing the change but I tended to agree with Klo’s suggested approach, do it immediately (if any adjustment is to be made, adjust for last year’s lot) and then agree that it is set in stone for good after that!

 

[KLo30]

I'm expecting that salaries for FA will not be at the level seen in the original draft. Much like in the AFL where there are only a handful at $1M and then it's maybe a few at $800K and then the rest under $700K. We will see.