SCS Supercoach Ultimate League

[Diabolical]

Given we have just been hit with a unique situation and we have the ability to transcend the official Supercoach rules, what do teams think in terms of injuries to Captains, in particular, and players in general?

Should we have our own rules in regards to early injuries?
e.g.

• Injuries incurred to players in the first half which end their game and result in them scoring below 50 result in the emergency score being taken if it is above 50.
• If the player is a Captain then the Vice Captain score is doubled and the emergency is taken for the captain as a single score.
• Should this only pertain for a Captain.

I was thinking about this last night after your unfortunate Whitfield (C) incident. We do not have to be the same as SC, so there is an opportunity to create a difference.

The ideas racing through my head are:
Captain: We pick a C & VC - maybe we could take the higher of the two to get doubled? Evens it out if one is a late out or gets injured early in a game.
Bench player: If a player gets less than 50% game time (easy stat to look up), then sub score counts if greater than on field player score.

 

[Diabolical]

I’m not a fan personally.

If a real AFL player cops an injury, there are no subs.

We should keep it as is. But thanks for raising!

True, but an AFL player doesn’t get their input doubled. I would totally agree if we didn’t have the captain doubled rule.

 

[Darkie]

Given we have just been hit with a unique situation and we have the ability to transcend the official Supercoach rules, what do teams think in terms of injuries to Captains, in particular, and players in general?

Should we have our own rules in regards to early injuries?
e.g.

• Injuries incurred to players in the first half which end their game and result in them scoring below 50 result in the emergency score being taken if it is above 50.
• If the player is a Captain then the Vice Captain score is doubled and the emergency is taken for the captain as a single score.
• Should this only pertain for a Captain.

I would be for this, preferably across the board, for two reasons:

- When an AFL player goes down, someone comes off the bench in their place. They don’t play with 17 for the match. So this approach is closer to mimicking real life.

- Ultimately this is a game we are playing for mutual enjoyment. The pain of losing a player or captain early in a match is much greater than the enjoyment an opponent gets from benefiting from this (and I wouldn’t encourage schadenfraude in any case). So this approach also leads to greater enjoyment over time.

 

[Goodie's Guns]

Given we have just been hit with a unique situation and we have the ability to transcend the official Supercoach rules, what do teams think in terms of injuries to Captains, in particular, and players in general?

Should we have our own rules in regards to early injuries?
e.g.

• Injuries incurred to players in the first half which end their game and result in them scoring below 50 result in the emergency score being taken if it is above 50.
• If the player is a Captain then the Vice Captain score is doubled and the emergency is taken for the captain as a single score.
• Should this only pertain for a Captain.

An interesting one this. Personally I think I’m against the idea of replacing injured players. I know it’s annoying, and trust me, I’ve copped my fair share of injuries and injury impacted C scores over the years having had Fyfe as my C in my other keeper league.

My worry is, where do you draw the line on injuries? There’s times when Danger has got injured early in games, clearly impacted, but sees the game out playing at FF. It just becomes too murky in my eyes.

Happy to see what other opinions and thoughts are.

 

[Bomber18]

True, but an AFL player doesn’t get their input doubled. I would totally agree if we didn’t have the captain doubled rule.

That is a fair point.

I might be open to something like the VC counting when your C has less than 50% TOG.

But an emergency shouldn’t replace the injured C’s score.

 

[KLo30]

An interesting one this. Personally I think I’m against the idea of replacing injured players. I know it’s annoying, and trust me, I’ve copped my fair share of injuries and injury impacted C scores over the years having had Fyfe as my C in my other keeper league.

My worry is, where do you draw the line on injuries? There’s times when Danger has got injured early in games, clearly impacted, but sees the game out playing at FF. It just becomes too murky in my eyes.

Happy to see what other opinions and thoughts are.

The proposal is around a player being injured in the first half and not returning to play, and thus scoring less than 50. Whitfield is the recent example.

A player is who is out of the game due to injury early. Not a player impacted by injury early who continues to play.

It's meant as a smoothing of poor outcomes not a complete mitigation.


I've often seen this argument expressed in regards to Supercoach rules for the next season. So, I'm throwing this out there. And if there are other rules which eliminate bad luck, let's express them and see if they make sense in our unique league. It's our first season, and this is a unusual season, so it gives us a chance to explore different rules for coming seasons.

We have no looping in Ultimate, so that is a consideration.


Consider this as the Rules Committee of the SCS Ultimate League. Change your hats.

 

[Diabolical]

That is a fair point.

I might be open to something like the VC counting when your C has less than 50% TOG.

But an emergency shouldn’t replace the injured C’s score.

So thinking on the run ...

What if captain plays less than 50% TOG, then add half VC score. Eg if 50% VC score is greater than captain score (when C plays <50%), then that is added to the 22 scores instead of doubling captain.

In your thinking, that shows importance of a leader on the ground but recognises that the 2IC has less value, but can step up when needed.

 

[Diabolical]

So looking at @KLo30 team this week and demonstrating the above.

Whitfield C scored 8 points with 22% time on ground.

That is less than 50% TOG so we look at his VC Simpkin who scored 140. 50% of 140 = 70 which is greater than 8, so that becomes his captain bonus.

It is not so devastating, but still not great. My captain Danger had a stinker and scored 75, so It would be extremely rare for the person requiring a VC score to gain an advantage, but it doesn’t kill their interest in the round in game 2!

 

[KLo30]

Bringing the loopholing for C/VC concept into the game without the rolling lock out, we could have the best of the C/VC score count.

Therefore, if you have the bad luck to have a Captain injured early you cop his bad score, however the Vice Captain takes over the reigns to win the game (more real life) and scores double.

Week to week, you get two cracks at your Captain.


This I'm not minding.
Throw a spec at VC and still have your Captain, or proper VC backing up your Captain.
We have unique players, so it's not like we are all VCing Grundy into our Captain.

 

[KLo30]

In terms of preparedness for a game being postponed, SCS Ultimate was prepared for a solution due to the foundation based on the Keeper League bye situation co-opted by Ultimate. @Goodie's Guns has prepared us well.

 

[Jordan's Jets]

Bringing the loopholing for C/VC concept into the game without the rolling lock out, we could have the best of the C/VC score count.

Therefore, if you have the bad luck to have a Captain injured early you cop his bad score, however the Vice Captain takes over the reigns to win the game (more real life) and scores double.

Week to week, you get two cracks at your Captain.


This I'm not minding.
Throw a spec at VC and still have your Captain, or proper VC backing up your Captain.
We have unique players, so it's not like we are all VCing Grundy into our Captain.

If we were making a change I don’t hate this one.

Another option could be be removing Captains altogether. I know a lot of SC Draft leagues run without Captains. Levels out the playing field by reducing the advantage of, for example, a Grundy type knocking out 130 every week.

 

[Goodie's Guns]

If we were making a change I don’t hate this one.

Another option could be be removing Captains altogether. I know a lot of SC Draft leagues run without Captains. Levels out the playing field by reducing the advantage of, for example, a Grundy type knocking out 130 every week.

Not sure no captains could be an option given we have had the draft/auction process, and coaches have planned strategies based around captains scoring double.

If the majority do like the idea of having a fallback C option when your C goes down injured in the first half etc., my preference would be to try not to over complicate things and have the parameters that you revert to the selected VCs score (if your C is under 50% TOG and injured, etc. in the situation outlined by Klo last night). Personally I'm not a huge fan of just getting the highest score from your C or VC each week, as it takes out the skill/research of looking into matchups of your players that round, etc. But yes, coming around to the idea of VC replacing C if injured in first half, etc.


Anyway on another note, @Jordan's Jets and I are in a very tight Round 2 battle that is unfortunately going to be halted until a later date. I think low scores from some of my MID premiums and Himmelberg will cost me though.

 

[Darkie]

As much as it would be to my advantage to change the way we are doing captain’s scores (given I have poor C/VC options as mentioned previously), I tend to agree that removing captain’s scores now would be unfair to those who have recruited and potentially paid a premium for better scorers like Neale, Gawn and Grundy.

Personally I don’t mind the idea of getting the highest of your C and VC scores doubled, but if the idea is to avoid those very annoying low TOG injury scores, then I’d suggest just setting a TOG threshold below which the C score reverts to the VC score. I would suggest 50%.

 

[Bomber18]

We can do a poll and I’m happy to follow the majority, but sorry I’d vote against the highest of C and VC.

I recognise the Whitfield C situations and to prevent those, I think my suggestion earlier is pretty fair (ie VC becomes C if original C has less than 50% TOG). But original C’s final score should still count towards the 22.

 

[Goodie's Guns]

We can do a poll and I’m happy to follow the majority, but sorry I’d vote against the highest of C and VC.

I recognise the Whitfield C situations and to prevent those, I think my suggestion earlier is pretty fair (ie VC becomes C if original C has less than 50% TOG). But original C’s final score should still count towards the 22.

Yeah that'd be my vote also per my post earlier this afternoon. Keeps the skill of picking your C, but helps eliminate injury impacted C's if that's what people view as the way to go.

 

[Tails]

We can do a poll and I’m happy to follow the majority, but sorry I’d vote against the highest of C and VC.

I recognise the Whitfield C situations and to prevent those, I think my suggestion earlier is pretty fair (ie VC becomes C if original C has less than 50% TOG). But original C’s final score should still count towards the 22.

Have thought about this for two days and would even be prepared to enact it this round .... right from the start so no further implications ...

- Sure Ken gets an advantage this round but to me we are all probably going to experience this issue at some point in time ... a very deflating experience ..
- Seems like a well considered option to me with long term benefits ...
- Always like concepts that take us forward of other game formats ....

 

[Diabolical]

I just noticed the private message feature in Tapatalk. Oops - One was sent to me 11 days ago! You know the saying re old dog new tricks ...

 

[Darkie]

Not sure if it is just me/a coincidence, but it looks like trade talk is ramping up - good to see!

As I’ve mentioned to a couple of people, unfortunately my weekdays are very busy at the moment. If you want to talk trades, a PM here will be the best way to get my attention, and if it’s time sensitive for you, please just let me know. I’m much more likely to be in a position to say “yes”, or give a meaningful counter, on the weekend, but am always happy to consider a trade if I can.

C candidates, top end mids and top young talent are my main areas of interest. Depth and contract years appear to be the things I have that might appeal to others.

 

[Goodie's Guns]

​

 

[KLo30]

HOW TO ENTER A TRADE IN TRADE CENTRAL

STEP ONE
Team A enters all the details of the agreed trade. For example, GoodiesGiantsFC.

Firstly, here


and secondly here


STEP TWO
Team B checks that all the details are correct. If they are correct then select YES. If there is an issue then select NO. For example, TailsPower



STEP THREE
When all details are correct and agreed, the commissioner(s) will double check the details and then confirm the trade or contact the teams if there is an issue.