Roll Out The Barrell for 2009

[NK Arsenal]

How about starting games on a Friday and end them on Monday week?

It would give people 2 full weekends to write their article..

 

[madunit]

I don't think team numbers should be changed, nor do I think the length of the articles should change. Those two should always remain constants imo.

There should definitely be extra competition points for getting all 5 articles in.

A split round is not a bad idea, it worked well last season and I think that formula should be retained.

I suggest we start games on a Thursday and end them the Sunday on the following week, giving everyone 2 full weekends to get articles in, which in turn should lead to more articles being submitted.

The maximum number of players per team should be 10 for the time being (I think its 15 atm).

As a novelty thing, we could have a rookie BP list as well as the full BP list.

Other than that, not a great deal needs to be altered.

Once the teams are all confirmed, we should then start nutting out the draw. The 4 team finals set up should also stay as is.

 

[NK Arsenal]

The maximum number of players per team should be 10 for the time being (I think its 15 atm).

I like everything you said apart from this

I just think it's a bit harsh to teams like the us (Cougars) who have been pro-active in their recruitment. We've assigned a recuitment officer (myself) to ask LU members to play for us, I must of asked about 30+ in the last 2 weeks. 3 of them have agreed to sign up, and now we have a squad of 14 which is great depth.

I feel for teams like the Warriors who have about 4 players, but they need to get more active in their recruitment.

 

[Jesbass]

I like everything you said apart from this

I just think it's a bit harsh to teams like the us (Cougars) who have been pro-active in their recruitment. We've assigned a recuitment officer (myself) to ask LU members to play for us, I must of asked about 30+ in the last 2 weeks. 3 of them have agreed to sign up, and now we have a squad of 14 which is great depth.

I feel for teams like the Warriors who have about 4 players, but they need to get more active in their recruitment.

If only I could, NK. I've filled up my PM sent box more than once chasing potential or existing players. Most haven't replied, and the rest have politely declined. That, added with the loss of key Warrior personnel from 2008, and the impact of the disappearance and assumed drowning of Sonny Fai, is making things extremely difficult.

I agree with your first paragraph, though.

 

[NK Arsenal]

Thanks

And good luck in the recruitment

 

[Jesbass]

Cheers, mate. :thumn

 

[madunit]

I like everything you said apart from this

I just think it's a bit harsh to teams like the us (Cougars) who have been pro-active in their recruitment. We've assigned a recuitment officer (myself) to ask LU members to play for us, I must of asked about 30+ in the last 2 weeks. 3 of them have agreed to sign up, and now we have a squad of 14 which is great depth.

I feel for teams like the Warriors who have about 4 players, but they need to get more active in their recruitment.

Do you think its fun to beat a team purely because they only got 4 articles in due to a lack of players, or would you like a more even fair and stronger competition by spreading the players throughout all sides.

It's exactly the same as a salary cap. If it wasn't around you'd eventually end up with just two teams with all the players.

It's not a suggestion to attack people for not recruiting properly, nor is it an attack on people who have massive squads when there are a number of teams struggling to get enough players.

It's a suggestion made to help strengthen the F7's competition. The stronger the comp gets, the more players you will eventually find being drawn to the game.

I think it's a bit foolish to think the idea is silly, if anything it should be one of the first things implemented. Without even playing rosters you have an uneven competition, people becoming disheartened and leaving, making the comp smaller and the number of available players less.

By evening the numbers out, the games stand a much greater chance of being fully completed, meaning a much stronger competition, a lot of happier contributors and it will see an influx of new writers, which could lead to the number of players per squad increasing.

We need to think about the welfare of the competition first and foremost, without it you will have no use for your team and all your recruitment work will have been for nought.

 

[madunit]

And another thing, recruitment isn't easy, you even stated yourself you contacted about 30 people and only 3 said yes.
For some of the players who have been around for at least 4 seasons, they'll be fully aware of the massive dramas that occurred regularly between ParraMatt and Robster through recruitment.

It created a very sensitive environment about recruitment, which is why captains of the older teams will have retained almost identical squads the whole time they've been here.

I sure as hell don't want to be drawn into another situation like we used to have. Robster and ParraMatt would squabble over players when both had rosters of 15, yet other teams were struggling to get 3 articles in every week, and neither of them would let any of their players jump ship.

By limiting the number of players per squad to 10, you eliminate a lot of these issues.

Besides 10 is more than enough, thats enough to have 2 entirely different starting line up's. If every member made just 4 articles a season (ie, played once a month) you would make the 40 articles for the entire year.

I don't know about you, but I sure as hell want to see every team submit the full compliment of articles every week. It has only good about it and no bad.

It will improve the quality of the articles, it will give the refs more exposure to better quality articles which in turn will help their marking to be even more precise, and finally we'll have finalists decided entirely on quality and not on quality and quantity.

The fact we have to have a seperate discussion about rewarding teams for getting 5 posts in is truly sad, when some teams have 14 or 15 players and won't shed 3-4 of them to other sides who are struggling for numbers.

Thats greedy, selfish and very unsportsmanlike in my opinion.

 

[NK Arsenal]

I'm not trying to be selfish, greedy or unsportsmanlike mate, sorry if it came out that way.

You do make a good point with the 10 player rule, teams should be able to post the 5 articles each week, in theory. However, quite a lot of F7s players do have work, school and/or tertiary commitments so it could be hard with 10. Maybe something like 12?

If we really want to protect the concept of F7s, then why don't we do as what I suggested to griffo a month or so ago - have a player draft?

We could also have a salary cap where players are ranked by their average score from their last season. Teams could have a maximum 1000 or so points to "spend".

And we could also have loan deals like they do in Soccer, where a player is contracted to a side but plays for a specific amount of time for another team..

Thoughts??

 

[madunit]

I think it's complicating things way too much and is liable to conjecture over a players worth etc.

A number of players cap is all thats required. If you start a draft thing where players have no say which team they will be playing for is not going to lead to a happier, better run comp in practice.

 

[Titanic]

The shaded one is right (isn't he always) ... to "cap" each squad, to say ten, and not reduce the playing team numbers is a by far better solution.

I add that if players haven't had a run (or not turned up) by some arbitrary time in the season, say halfway, then they should automatically become free-agents (they can always re-confirm their commitment).