SCSUL RULE CHANGES - Discussion
- Thread starter KLo30
- Start date
Nice work on this Ken, very slick.
It’s probably a good time to flag that I’ve been thinking that the LTI threshold might be a bit tight for a little while.
The way I think about it is that we are trying to guard against a coach no longer being competitive due to injury. Essentially guarding against bad luck - which makes sense for a comp that is designed to be fun.
To me, getting a player back one week before finals doesn’t really help you if you’ve played much (or even most) of the season without that player. You probably don’t make the finals if they’re a big out, so getting them back for the final home and away game may be a bit academic.
I think the rule that a player put on the LTI list can’t return for the SCSUL season also pretty much eliminates any “gaming” element, which I understood to be the initial concern (happy to be corrected if this is not the case).
I’ve had the benefit of replacing Mclean this season, but am very much on board with the idea that I shouldn’t have a second swing at him if he returns. I had to consider this possibility in putting him on the LTI list, as well as the fact that I couldn’t trade him this season if I did so. There’s a genuine trade-off - even for a player who looked set to miss the whole season.
I would be open to any player who is out for some shorter period - maybe 8 weeks or 12 weeks - being placed on the LTI list, given that this is long enough to represent a significant impact to their coach’s chances, which is what we are trying to address with the rule.
The fact that that player is inaccessible for the season is a significant tradeoff for their owner, so there is a genuine decision to be made if the injury timeline suggests a return just before finals (assessing the benefit of a replacement to help secure a finals spot or easier finals run vs the benefit of having the injured player for finals if/when they do return).
This is just my view, of course, but it’s something I’ve been thinking for a while. I think we can ease the impact on unlucky coaches - making the comp more competitive and more fun - with still very modest downside as I see it.
It’s probably a good time to flag that I’ve been thinking that the LTI threshold might be a bit tight for a little while.
The way I think about it is that we are trying to guard against a coach no longer being competitive due to injury. Essentially guarding against bad luck - which makes sense for a comp that is designed to be fun.
To me, getting a player back one week before finals doesn’t really help you if you’ve played much (or even most) of the season without that player. You probably don’t make the finals if they’re a big out, so getting them back for the final home and away game may be a bit academic.
I think the rule that a player put on the LTI list can’t return for the SCSUL season also pretty much eliminates any “gaming” element, which I understood to be the initial concern (happy to be corrected if this is not the case).
I’ve had the benefit of replacing Mclean this season, but am very much on board with the idea that I shouldn’t have a second swing at him if he returns. I had to consider this possibility in putting him on the LTI list, as well as the fact that I couldn’t trade him this season if I did so. There’s a genuine trade-off - even for a player who looked set to miss the whole season.
I would be open to any player who is out for some shorter period - maybe 8 weeks or 12 weeks - being placed on the LTI list, given that this is long enough to represent a significant impact to their coach’s chances, which is what we are trying to address with the rule.
The fact that that player is inaccessible for the season is a significant tradeoff for their owner, so there is a genuine decision to be made if the injury timeline suggests a return just before finals (assessing the benefit of a replacement to help secure a finals spot or easier finals run vs the benefit of having the injured player for finals if/when they do return).
This is just my view, of course, but it’s something I’ve been thinking for a while. I think we can ease the impact on unlucky coaches - making the comp more competitive and more fun - with still very modest downside as I see it.
Proposal
If the middle of the return period is 10 weeks or greater, before round 9, then the player is eligible for the LTI list.
The player could be back and available for a few weeks before the SCSUL finals, and finals. This puts an onus on the team to decide how valuable he is to making the finals and/or premiership glory.
This would add McGovern, Howes and Lycett, but not Grundy, McEvoy or Pittonet.
Thoughts.
If the middle of the return period is 10 weeks or greater, before round 9, then the player is eligible for the LTI list.
The player could be back and available for a few weeks before the SCSUL finals, and finals. This puts an onus on the team to decide how valuable he is to making the finals and/or premiership glory.
This would add McGovern, Howes and Lycett, but not Grundy, McEvoy or Pittonet.
Thoughts.
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2014
- Messages
- 9,934
- Likes
- 39,639
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Like anything, I think a black and white rule will throw up the grey!
The intention of this rule is cover for those who have bad luck on the injury front. However I don’t think it should reward those who take a risk knowing they have the LTI rule as a backup.
For example, it was looking very likely that Hurley was a very low chance of playing this year. I was offered him as part of a potential trade deal, but the risk was too great to take on. However, a team chose to recruit him and take that risk on. I am concerned that coaches could try and seek advantage In these type of trade situations. (Seller & Buyer) Should the LTI injury list be available in these situations when a player is traded whilst carrying an LTI?
For me, this sits in the grey area where a long term holder should be compensated but someone choosing to take on the risk perhaps should not. However, I can see how this isn’t so simple given a coach could recruit a first year player who has an injury prone junior record.
I’m not sure of the answer, but wanted to share my thinking.
The intention of this rule is cover for those who have bad luck on the injury front. However I don’t think it should reward those who take a risk knowing they have the LTI rule as a backup.
For example, it was looking very likely that Hurley was a very low chance of playing this year. I was offered him as part of a potential trade deal, but the risk was too great to take on. However, a team chose to recruit him and take that risk on. I am concerned that coaches could try and seek advantage In these type of trade situations. (Seller & Buyer) Should the LTI injury list be available in these situations when a player is traded whilst carrying an LTI?
For me, this sits in the grey area where a long term holder should be compensated but someone choosing to take on the risk perhaps should not. However, I can see how this isn’t so simple given a coach could recruit a first year player who has an injury prone junior record.
I’m not sure of the answer, but wanted to share my thinking.
- Joined
- 24 May 2020
- Messages
- 142
- Likes
- 568
- AFL Club
- Bulldogs
I think this is just one of the complexities of a salary cap system. There are many ways to put your cap to use.
In that Hurley example, the coach is still sacrificing a list spot and cap space initially at least to have him on board. Sure they can move him later but only up to $410k, and only for a pick of whoever is left on the mid season board.
Like you say there will always be grey, but as long as it’s a level field for all I think it’s fine to allow coaches to get creative with cap management - that’s what this league is all about!
In that Hurley example, the coach is still sacrificing a list spot and cap space initially at least to have him on board. Sure they can move him later but only up to $410k, and only for a pick of whoever is left on the mid season board.
Like you say there will always be grey, but as long as it’s a level field for all I think it’s fine to allow coaches to get creative with cap management - that’s what this league is all about!
Poll added.
A decision needs to be made today.
@Bomber18 @Darkie @Goodie's Guns @Connoisseur @Jordan's Jets @Deeman1 @lappinitup @Philzsay @Diabolical
A decision needs to be made today.
@Bomber18 @Darkie @Goodie's Guns @Connoisseur @Jordan's Jets @Deeman1 @lappinitup @Philzsay @Diabolical
- Joined
- 16 Apr 2014
- Messages
- 1,014
- Likes
- 2,102
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Missed it, wasn't on the site last night.
Seems everyone was for it anyway. I was against. Can we try and set these at the start of the season? That is why I tried to clarify pretty clearly what I thought was the rule, AFL website and "season".
Be interesting to see how many use it.
Can I please put Sloane on it Ken
Seems everyone was for it anyway. I was against. Can we try and set these at the start of the season? That is why I tried to clarify pretty clearly what I thought was the rule, AFL website and "season".
Be interesting to see how many use it.
Can I please put Sloane on it Ken
The discussion around this tigthening/clarification of eligibility has been running since Wednesday, including listing borderline players. The proposal drawn up Thursday night was from the feedback I'd received at the time.
"Season" has been based around the SCSUL season, which is why Toby McLean was eligible preseason for the LTI list given he may have been back for only the finals of SCSUL (or 3-4 rounds of the AFL regular season).
Any rule changes we've discussed and/or implemented, the feedback has generally been around teams being encourged to maintain engagement throughout the season. Not having teams lose interest by not actively participating each week. i.e. not selecting their team each round.
The way the vote has gone on this proposal, falls in line with the engagement teams are seeking.
Personally, I'd have preferred the more onerous qualification, but an extra two listed players to the small pool of players has added some trading possibilities and a dilemma for Jordan's Jets FC. Who's coming for my number 1 pick and/or supplemental selection, which are available for the right offer? The extra quality player could be the difference when SCSUL finals come around. With list sizes being flexible between 40-48, even teams without a supplemental selection can take advantage in the MSD.
The Team List doc has all supplemental selections added and players moved to the LTI list, expect for Scott Lycett. 7 players in total added mid season not including Lycett.
"Season" has been based around the SCSUL season, which is why Toby McLean was eligible preseason for the LTI list given he may have been back for only the finals of SCSUL (or 3-4 rounds of the AFL regular season).
Any rule changes we've discussed and/or implemented, the feedback has generally been around teams being encourged to maintain engagement throughout the season. Not having teams lose interest by not actively participating each week. i.e. not selecting their team each round.
The way the vote has gone on this proposal, falls in line with the engagement teams are seeking.
Personally, I'd have preferred the more onerous qualification, but an extra two listed players to the small pool of players has added some trading possibilities and a dilemma for Jordan's Jets FC. Who's coming for my number 1 pick and/or supplemental selection, which are available for the right offer? The extra quality player could be the difference when SCSUL finals come around. With list sizes being flexible between 40-48, even teams without a supplemental selection can take advantage in the MSD.
The Team List doc has all supplemental selections added and players moved to the LTI list, expect for Scott Lycett. 7 players in total added mid season not including Lycett.