Roll Out The Barrell for 2009

[Pistol]

Okay peeps, now that I've got your attention, its time to talk some shop.

2009 is upon us and what does that mean?

Another glorious season for the F7s. And as such, the floor is open to some suggestions as to how we can improve on this wonderful product of ours.

Some changes implemented last year was the reduction of numbers in rep teams from 7 starts to 5.

Is the current club format right? Do we need to reduce that to 4 to allow for a more even game structure so we dont have as many blowouts and teams struggling for numbers?

The PvP tournament as well needs to grace the screens soon as well. The Roosters are looking at making a comeback, but it cant be a one horse race.

The Draw... We need a draw and someone to make one.

The rep schedule, how do we structure it?

The suggestion box is open for business

 

[Willow]

Re the PVPs, the Bluebags will be happy to blood any new recruits. Would be great to play against Easts again.

One suggestion is that we create a minimum word amount of 500 words, making it 500-750 words.

Another suggestion is that the structure of the ladder can always do with some tweaking. IMO, it seems wrong that team with more articles over the season should miss out on the semis. The glaring example being the Cougars last year. I really think teams that get all five posts in should be rewarded - after all, that is playing the game in the spirit it was intended.

I recall a suggestion for a bonus competition point when a team gets all five articles in. That sounds like a great incentive to me.

 

[Non Terminator]

It'd be good for Easts (known as the Ozzie Roosters) to comeback. This is our current squad:

1. THE TEACH
3. MONK (c)
4. MELON
7. HENRIETE
14. NON TERMINATOR
BUBBLES
CONDOCHOOK

 

[griffo346]

Cougars might be able to have a run in PVP whens it start?

also i agree with Willow on the minimum of article length sometimes its hard to get 700+ especially when were close to the end of the seasn

Draw?? i will have a crack if ya want pete

 

[Pistol]

Have at it Nathan

Feel free to forward me any ideas or any questions in regards to it.

Anyone else is also free to give it a go.

Its only preliminary at this stage but there may be some contingencies so you may have to make one or two or possibly 3 draws.

 

[bartman]

I'm a big supporter of tweaking the ladder priorities so that teams that manage their full complement of posts per match are rewarded, despite being in a team that benefitted from the opposite last season.

To me that's what it's all about - doing your best as a team unit toward what you can control, not so much about just getting lucky with key wins or the for and against margins at the right time, which depends more upon the shape or otherwise of your opponents.

Having said that, obviously winning enough matches is a pre-requistite to being able to make the semis, and shouldn't be lessened in importance - otherwise the whole "match" concept of the 7s writing competition could be lost.

The suggestion is made above to reduce starting line-ups from 5 to 4. I think given the amount of teams who did not fulfil their obligations in making all their posts over the whole season (>50%) this would be a very sensible change. Having 4 in the starting line up for each match and 3 reserves still keeps the "7s" concept - just have to confirm that having 4 starting line-up and 4 reserves is enough of a home ground advantage?

if the decision is taken to cut starting line-ups to 4 - or even if it's not - then you oculd basically say that teams cannot gain entry to the F7s season unless they can submit a squad of at least 8 active writers - who are proven active by having posted in the previous season, or in the PvP (through the inclusion of a Barbarians team - to give new players recruited to an existing team a hit out, if their team as a whole is not entering the PvP).

I think this minimum active player criteria will give teams (new and existing) a benchmark of how many minimum players a squad needs to seriously fulfil obligations for the season. Like the in NRL it may result in mergers to get above this "criteria", or in teams deciding to fold and then some of their remaining keen players making up the spaces in other teams for that season.

Just my opinion but I think that would be healthier for the competitionto have less (and perhaps different) teams that are more competitive and fill their obligations, than have more teams stretching their history and the F7s pool thin and having >50% of teams not turning up with full sides as a result.

Either way, I think some demonstrated threshold of player activity (from the previous season and PvP) is a good idea for the committee to use as their criteria for judgement on which teams are invited each season? Rather than the old way of just accepting team captain's word for it that they'll be right and have enough players, when the truth in the majority of cases last year is the opposite.

 

[bartman]

Another suggestion is that the structure of the ladder can always do with some tweaking. IMO, it seems wrong that team with more articles over the season should miss out on the semis. The glaring example being the Cougars last year. I really think teams that get all five posts in should be rewarded - after all, that is playing the game in the spirit it was intended.

I recall a suggestion for a bonus competition point when a team gets all five articles in. That sounds like a great incentive to me.

Actually, I just re-read that last senetence... That's a great idea in my opinion too. Promotes what F7s is all about, which is getting thoughts down onto paper (or keyboard and screen) for punters to read, rather than petty debates about refereeing interpretations or relying on fortunate victories against unpredictably weakened teams.

 

[Titanic]

Hi all - all the best for the coming season. The Titans would like to confirm our intent to defend our hard-won 2008 Premiership. However, we would prefer not to play in the PvP (Ossie Cup?) as many of us will be on holidays over the next month or so (Chinese New Year).

There is another thread on this theme but will consider this now as the official one.

As we had a series of off-season soirees, the Titans would like the following to be considered for 2009, and are following Willow’s format from the other thread:

1. Agree with changing the PVP name to the Ozzie Cup.

2. We mildly support shortening the game playing period to one week with no preference of days.

3. We strongly support having a full bye weekend or two during the rep season, especially if we have an even number of teams. Split rounds seem to draw the interest away from rep games.

4. City v Country, okay and mildly support byes and trials before rep games.

5. Heritage round, okay but would need clear parameters.

6. Don't agree with making it 4 players per team. 5 players + 3 reserves is the game. Judicious selection of team members and good communication is all that's needed to boost team performances. Players who constantly put their hands up and don't follow-up should be eliminated from the competition.

7. Support Power rankings and any other initiative to promote good competition.

8. Points Against should not enter the rankings debate as they do not have any meaning in this competition except to give an unreasonable yet largely undeserved advantage to the team they are playing against. We recognize that Points for and against are already lower on the scale when determining ladder position but feel strongly that Points Against are superfluous.

9. We would like the community to consider selecting rep teams on a "positions" basis, whereby the make-up of each team can be selected by genre to add a more competitive climate. Marking would then not just be team against team but player against player e.g. historical anecdote writers pitted against each other, and so on.

10. Marking should have a definitive deadline, posted in the game announcement. There could be a standby referee each week who wasn't drawn for any game but who is available if any other referee is incapacitated.

11. We recognize that even number of teams is not essential but feel an even number of teams would be better. Similarly, we support the inclusion of the Roosters if they can provide a committed team (after the rigors of a PvP comp).

12. F7s WC being the ultimate challenge should be supported by the entire community and further to Point 9, we suggest that teams should be restricted to themes pertinent to their nationalities e.g. the Alaskan Eskimos should not be able to write from the perspective of the Bogota Smack Freaks.

13. We strongly support re-visiting the scoring options but point out that the differences between a 500 word and a 750 word essay are too extreme to have the same value. Scoring should be optimum at 700-750 and shorter essays should penalised, on a sliding scale, similar to the "too many words" rule.

14. We support an extra point for 5 timely posts per game. This would add a reasonable incentive for those teams on the edge.

 

[Willow]

2. We mildly support shortening the game playing period to one week with no preference of days.

I can see the merits in such as an idea but I'm actually opposed to this. It'll probably have to go to committee and perhaps a vote.

13. We strongly support re-visiting the scoring options but point out that the differences between a 500 word and a 750 word essay are too extreme to have the same value. Scoring should be optimum at 700-750 and shorter essays should penalised, on a sliding scale, similar to the "too many words" rule.

Perhaps I'm a stickler for the old ways and the core reason why the F7s exist, ie so everyone gets a go.

Some of the best articles I've read have been under 650 words. I recall there was one under 600 words which actually won the article of the year award once.

The only reason I suggested 500 word minimum was so there was at least some effort put in, that is discourage 50 word articles just to get that fifth player on the board.

Also, originally the F7s had a 500 word maximum which was later increased to 750 words, so in my opinion 500-750 words is a good range.

 

[Titanic]

I was more concerned about the marking issue. Subjective marking is always going to be difficult but then if the general parameters are too wide then the argument for perceived inequality is open for increased speculation ... and I have witnessed some unnecessary barbs about that, even in my very short experience. A marking matrix allowing for players to clearly understand what is required was my thinking.

This is purely as an example:

Length: <550 unacceptable; 550-649 5 points penalty; 649-699 3 point penalty; 700-750 words 0 penalty; 751-799 3 point penalty; 800-899 5 point penalty 900> unacceptable.
Grammar/Spelling: up to 20% of the total (spell check should make that a gimme)
Originality: up to 30% of the mark
Relevance: up to 30% of the mark
Structure: up to 30% of the mark

 

[Jesbass]

1. I'm actually going to buck the trend here and oppose the PVP Cup being named after Ozzie. My reason for this is that I think we can do better. The PVP Cup is not watched or partaken of by the majority of the F7s community. As such, I think renaming one of the rounds as an Ozzie Heritage Round would be more appropriate, particularly Round 1 as Ozzie was a foudnation ploayer (i.e. there from the beginning). Or perhaps both? I just think that an Ozzie PVP Cup will go largely unnoticed, which would be so sad. A Roosters-Panthers trophy, (assuming the Roosters join the competition), would be a nice addition, too.

2. I'm strongly opposed to the shortening of matches. I think it would ultimately mean that the competition would lose players. As an example, when the season is in full swing, I'm working full time, I'm writing a weekly blog for a sponsor of an NRL team, and I'm trying to get a few articles published every once in a while. Throw in the added workload of an F7s captaincy and my regular life, and I've just about run out of time to write for this competition.

3. I'm on the fence with the split rounds. As long as there's some kind of mid-season bye to give players a rest, I'm all for it.

4. A good idea, and I'll watch it with keen interest. As long as there's at least one Kiwis test each year, though, I'll be a happy man.

5. One potential problem with this is the officiating. What happens if the referee doesn't follow the sport written about? Personally, league is the sport that I know and the one I follow more than any other, (although I do enjoy football), so I'd be hard pressed to think of something non-league to write about, and wary that writing about league in such a round would cause me to lose points for a lack of originality.

6. I would lilke the teams to remain at 5 a side, with 3 reserves for the home team, and 2 for the visiting team. I think the bonus competition point for a full complement is a good motivator with regards to this. However, I'd support this if matches were shortened to a week.

7. Ahem...what are Power Rankings?

8. I would want the Points Against included, but demoted from 3rd to 4th in the scheme of things. So I'd go: Most wins -> Most posts -> Most points for -> Best F/A.

9. I like this idea in concept, but in practice, it'd be hard to manage. I'm not sure that there's enough depth to go through with it, but I'd love to see it happen.

10. I think the main issue here, again, is depth. We have very few referees, but again, a great idea in concept. It doesn't affect all that much in the regular season, but when it comes to the finals series, knowing which team is in and which is out will be crucial. To that end, I'd like to put my hand up as a stand in referee if the competition deems it necessary and me worthwhile.

11. I'm not too worried about how many teams there are, as long as they're not all running on the smell of an oily rag. I quite like an odd number of teams because it guarantees teams a bye. But then, a split round with an even number of teams would provide the same much needed break.

12. How do you propose the World Cup gets supported by the wider community? (I like the idea, but I want to know how you perceive this to work out on a practical level.) I don't like the idea of articles having to be specific to geography. It severely limits creativity and ultimately means that the think tank will run dry sooner.

13. I like the idea of a minimum word limit. It would prevent lazy efforts from players to boost appearance numbers. Any pieces less than 500 words would ultimately result in a DNF for that writer. I also think, though, that for a 500 word article to be able to score the same as another piece which is 50% longer is a bit on the nose. Rather than penalising word limits as strictly as possible, is it worth initiating a % limit? For example, all articles must be 700 words +/- 10%? That'd be a 630-word to 770-word range for people to land in before losing marks for too few or too many words.

14. I completely support this idea, as hinted at in my rseponse to Point 6.

Additional:

15. In the wake of the passing of foundation F7er Ozzie, what say we have a roll of honour on the F7s website? If we have a blurb for the likes of BP, Ozzie, and that old seadog Willow, (;-)), with overall career stats, career highlight, and so on, just to pay tribute to those without whom I'd have a lot more time on my hands!

 

[Willow]

In my opinion, the word count should not be a gauge of how 'good' an article is. Should be a case of feel the quality, not the width.

500-750 words is a simple way of keeping it honest, and a lot easier for referees.

Not a fan of getting out the slide rule and making the F7s overly complicated, kind of devalues the enjoyment and may put people off... imho.

P.S. Nothing wrong with having some additional refereeing guidelines as to the marking criteria.

 

[Titanic]

I certainly don't support the word count as being a gauge of how good an article is, however, every competition playing field has tight maximum and minimum guidelines and if those guidelines are too diverse then so is the type of game that can be played on the field.

In fact, the Jesbass solution has merit.

 

[Jesbass]

I certainly don't support the word count as being a gauge of how good an article is, however, every competition playing field has tight maximum and minimum guidelines and if those guidelines are too diverse then so is the type of game that can be played on the field.

In fact, the Jesbass solution has merit.

Don't sound so surprised! :lol:

 

[Pistol]

flabbergasted :?

 

[griffo346]

1. I'm actually going to buck the trend here and oppose the PVP Cup being named after Ozzie. My reason for this is that I think we can do better. The PVP Cup is not watched or partaken of by the majority of the F7s community. As such, I think renaming one of the rounds as an Ozzie Heritage Round would be more appropriate, particularly Round 1 as Ozzie was a foudnation ploayer (i.e. there from the beginning). Or perhaps both? I just think that an Ozzie PVP Cup will go largely unnoticed, which would be so sad. A Roosters-Panthers trophy, (assuming the Roosters join the competition), would be a nice addition, too.

2. I'm strongly opposed to the shortening of matches. I think it would ultimately mean that the competition would lose players. As an example, when the season is in full swing, I'm working full time, I'm writing a weekly blog for a sponsor of an NRL team, and I'm trying to get a few articles published every once in a while. Throw in the added workload of an F7s captaincy and my regular life, and I've just about run out of time to write for this competition.

3. I'm on the fence with the split rounds. As long as there's some kind of mid-season bye to give players a rest, I'm all for it.

4. A good idea, and I'll watch it with keen interest. As long as there's at least one Kiwis test each year, though, I'll be a happy man.

5. One potential problem with this is the officiating. What happens if the referee doesn't follow the sport written about? Personally, league is the sport that I know and the one I follow more than any other, (although I do enjoy football), so I'd be hard pressed to think of something non-league to write about, and wary that writing about league in such a round would cause me to lose points for a lack of originality.

6. I would lilke the teams to remain at 5 a side, with 3 reserves for the home team, and 2 for the visiting team. I think the bonus competition point for a full complement is a good motivator with regards to this. However, I'd support this if matches were shortened to a week.

7. Ahem...what are Power Rankings?

8. I would want the Points Against included, but demoted from 3rd to 4th in the scheme of things. So I'd go: Most wins -> Most posts -> Most points for -> Best F/A.

9. I like this idea in concept, but in practice, it'd be hard to manage. I'm not sure that there's enough depth to go through with it, but I'd love to see it happen.

10. I think the main issue here, again, is depth. We have very few referees, but again, a great idea in concept. It doesn't affect all that much in the regular season, but when it comes to the finals series, knowing which team is in and which is out will be crucial. To that end, I'd like to put my hand up as a stand in referee if the competition deems it necessary and me worthwhile.

11. I'm not too worried about how many teams there are, as long as they're not all running on the smell of an oily rag. I quite like an odd number of teams because it guarantees teams a bye. But then, a split round with an even number of teams would provide the same much needed break.

12. How do you propose the World Cup gets supported by the wider community? (I like the idea, but I want to know how you perceive this to work out on a practical level.) I don't like the idea of articles having to be specific to geography. It severely limits creativity and ultimately means that the think tank will run dry sooner.

13. I like the idea of a minimum word limit. It would prevent lazy efforts from players to boost appearance numbers. Any pieces less than 500 words would ultimately result in a DNF for that writer. I also think, though, that for a 500 word article to be able to score the same as another piece which is 50% longer is a bit on the nose. Rather than penalising word limits as strictly as possible, is it worth initiating a % limit? For example, all articles must be 700 words +/- 10%? That'd be a 630-word to 770-word range for people to land in before losing marks for too few or too many words.

14. I completely support this idea, as hinted at in my rseponse to Point 6.

Additional:

15. In the wake of the passing of foundation F7er Ozzie, what say we have a roll of honour on the F7s website? If we have a blurb for the likes of BP, Ozzie, and that old seadog Willow, (;-)), with overall career stats, career highlight, and so on, just to pay tribute to those without whom I'd have a lot more time on my hands!

i like the thought of this idea it has merit

 

[griffo346]

pete when i have a crack at the draw should i include roosters?

 

[_Johnsy]

In relation to the issue of rewarding a team who submits all 5 articles, maybe a bonus point for that side each time they can submit 5. This would ensure enough of a reward for a team to get all 5 in, it could prove the difference in making the semis, or not.

 

[rabs]

Pistol and I were chewing thew fat the other day and I had an out there idea that may spark up the sevens a bit - adding a second comp akin to the cricket 20/20s

- 3 players per team, 400 word themed articles

- home captain gets to choose the theme that both sides write on, can only choose a theme once per season but may end up playing the same theme several times if their opponents choose it. Grand Final theme chosen at random

- themes could include player profile, team profile, current affairs (serious issues), rules of the game, league expansion, history of the game, weird and wacky etc etc.

- innovative scoring system: ref marks articles out of 100, then the scores from each team verse each other in scoring order. Example Team 1 scores 90, 85, 82 - Team 2 scores 87, 86, 83 - scenario is Team 2 wins 2-1 despite Team 1 having a total of 257 to 256. 90 vs 87, 85 vs 86, 82 vs 83. A team is penalised a point for each article not submitted so a team scoring 2 90's vs a team with 3 88's will results in a 1-1 draw.

- finals: have a final of the top 2 teams as in domestic limited overs cricket, use number of posts and points aggregate as a separator if teams on equal points

- scheduling the big problem: playing a 5 a side game as per now but do not start the next 5 a side round until 10 days after, playing the 3 a side game from Thursday to Thursday starting the Thursday immediately after fulltime in the 5 a side game. This gives the serious 5 a side game 3 weeks per game with a full 10 days rest time, coming up with 3 x 400 worders in a fun less serious comp in the interluding week should not pose a problem. Based on 10 teams with 9 rounds it means 27 weeks of competition rounds plus finals. I reckon finals matches should be cut to one week saving you 4 weeks off the schedule right there. Teams in the finals are likely to be the serious committed ones anyway. Play Origin and Test matches in conjunction with the limited overs game week to fit them in again saving weeks off the current schedule and also have them played in one week. It would mean a season with no gaps but the 3 weeks per serious 5 a side 750 word article matches would be quite comfortable IMO. The rep games involve the keener types so one week for those games should be enough.

 

[Titanic]

Is the community wide enough to deal with 2 comps and what would it bring to the table?

positive: refreshingly new concept; perhaps attracts new players who see 750 words as the block to compete.

negative: distracts from the main comp; gives players in teams not performing well in the main comp an out;