The 'how to improve the F7s' thread

[Willow]

Yes but essentially we still have 7 players on the ready. Those two unused essays can be used later, you're quite right. I was in agreement with Dilmah (and yourself) in pointing that the current set up works fine while still embracing the 7s ideal.

 

[griffo346]

this is to do with the player recruitment side of things

maybe we can introduce somthing simlar to what the NRL did have before scraping it

June 30 deadline where the player can chose to stay with the club or go else where

also we could have a player draft out of the teams that dont make it in the pvp comp

insted of a player cap maybe somehow we can introduce a salery cap

 

[Pistol]

this is to do with the player recruitment side of things

maybe we can introduce somthing simlar to what the NRL did have before scraping it

June 30 deadline where the player can chose to stay with the club or go else where

also we could have a player draft out of the teams that dont make it in the pvp comp

insted of a player cap maybe somehow we can introduce a salery cap

how would you determine how much a player is worth

how would you police the anti tampering deadline

the reason the NRL got rid of the June 30 deadline was because it was a farce

 

[griffo346]

true pete well honestly it would have to have some thought into the cap idea of mine lol

as for the june 30 deadline well this doesnt have to happen it could just be a draft of some sort like the afl has

 

[Willow]

Current rules stipulate that players should simply play where they feel most comfortable and that captains are not allowed to approach players who are currently with another team. This is relaxed AFTER the grand final.

This seems to be working fairly well.

From the rules and regulations: http://f7s.leagueunlimited.com/rules.asp

The Forum Sevens will look out for the interests of the player first and foremost. That is, he/she should feel free to play for the team where they feel most comfortable.

No one should be placed under pressure to join another team, especially when this pressure creates indecision and/or divisions.

Equally, captains should be kept informed of any such movements. Naturally, captains cannot veto a player's genuine desire to move on; however, the polite thing is for the player to let the captain know what's happening.

The purpose of the above was to put an end to certain captains approaching players in other teams.

Player Cap
Squads shall not exceed 15 players in total at any given time throughout the season. This player cap is relaxed during off-season recruitment drives, but the team roster must be no more than 15 when the new season kicks off.

The idea of the player cap was stop captains signing up dozens of players, most of whom would never get a run. Players left hanging all year would ultimately get disillusioned and be lost to the F7s.

 

[griffo346]

okay then it was just an idea thats all

anyway back to the drawing board i guess

 

[Willow]

And it was a great idea Griffo. Keep them coming :thumn

 

[eloquentEEL]

I hadn't been keeping up with this thread and was coming on to post a suggestion. Having had a read through, it looks like Crusher has covered some of it already and it's been criticised, but I'd still like to put forward my own suggestion and argument:

Suggestion:

All 7 or 8 players get a chance to post and the best 5 scores are taken.
If a team has less than 5 posts, then the lowest score is counted twice.

Advantages:

1. More 5 vs 5 matches
2. Still penalises a team with 4 posts as it's the LOWEST score that's taken twice, but still gives them a chance
3. Still leaves a team with 3 or less posts losing the match (and frankly, if they're THAT disorganised then they deserve to lose)
4. Allows more players to participate if they want to and gives a bit of advantage to those teams while still keeping it 5 vs 5
5. Lowest scoring players are more likely to be given a run as one or two low scores won't affect the outcome of the match, but will give them much needed practice, experience and feedback to learn from
6. An unexpected low score from an otherwise reliable player won't necessarily cost their team the match, and therefore won't make them feel like crap that they've cost their team the match
7. More variety and creativity in articles as players will be able to take more risks without worrying about it costing their team the match

Disadvantages:

1. Little bit more work for refs
2. Increased risk of player "burnout" if they try to play too many matches and "run out of ideas" (this seems to affect some players more than others and at the end of the day, it's the individual player's decision whether or not to put their hand up each round)
3. Increased risk of players becoming disillusioned if their posts continually score too low to be counted (again, it's a personal thing which depends on the attitude and pesonality of the player)

 

[eloquentEEL]

Also, here's a suggestion I floated as part of the mid-season player poll:

http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showpost.php?p=2482620&postcount=17

There were also a bunch of other suggestions in that thread

 

[Jesbass]

this is to do with the player recruitment side of things

maybe we can introduce somthing simlar to what the NRL did have before scraping it

June 30 deadline where the player can chose to stay with the club or go else where

also we could have a player draft out of the teams that dont make it in the pvp comp

insted of a player cap maybe somehow we can introduce a salery cap

Apart from the June 30 deadline aspect, I really like the idea of a salary cap. But rather than have a salary cap instead of a player cap, why not have both? The NRL has a salary cap and a player cap of 25 performers, so I can't see why F7s couldn't adopt a similar philosophy.

Also, as Pistol pointed out, this raises the question of how players are valued. I have no idea! :lol: Perhaps based on their performance the previous season? (Either by BP points or, more likely, on their points averages?) And rookies could have a base salary until the season following their debut.

Just a thought - I'm not too sure how it would work, and it could lead to players being ejected from teams against their will, unless it was policed properly, but I like the basic concept.

 

[Jesbass]

I hadn't been keeping up with this thread and was coming on to post a suggestion. Having had a read through, it looks like Crusher has covered some of it already and it's been criticised, but I'd still like to put forward my own suggestion and argument:

Suggestion:

All 7 or 8 players get a chance to post and the best 5 scores are taken.
If a team has less than 5 posts, then the lowest score is counted twice.

Advantages:

1. More 5 vs 5 matches
2. Still penalises a team with 4 posts as it's the LOWEST score that's taken twice, but still gives them a chance
3. Still leaves a team with 3 or less posts losing the match (and frankly, if they're THAT disorganised then they deserve to lose)
4. Allows more players to participate if they want to and gives a bit of advantage to those teams while still keeping it 5 vs 5
5. Lowest scoring players are more likely to be given a run as one or two low scores won't affect the outcome of the match, but will give them much needed practice, experience and feedback to learn from
6. An unexpected low score from an otherwise reliable player won't necessarily cost their team the match, and therefore won't make them feel like crap that they've cost their team the match

Disadvantages:

1. Little bit more work for refs
2. Increased risk of player "burnout" if they try to play too many matches and "run out of ideas" (this seems to affect some players more than others and at the end of the day, it's the individual player's decision whether or not to put their hand up each round)
3. Increased risk of players becoming disillusioned if their posts continually score too low to be counted (again, it's a personal thing which depends on the attitude and pesonality of the player)

The problem with this idea, (and you've listed the most obvious ones already), is the same policy would have to be transferred to internationals, as well, meaning referees have to mark twenty articles in one sitting. :shock:

I alos don't like the idea of a weaker player missing out on the team score because his mark wasn't high enough. I think every article deserves a mark, for the writer's sake, especially considering the amount of effort some people put into their work.

 

[eloquentEEL]

I alos don't like the idea of a weaker player missing out on the team score because his mark wasn't high enough. I think every article deserves a mark, for the writer's sake, especially considering the amount of effort some people put into their work.

Every article should definitely be given a mark (it's just that only the top 5 marks would be taken when adding up the team score)... and I'd encourage more feedback for the lower scoring ones so that those players can learn and develop, but that would be up to the individual ref.

I strongly believe that for a player's development, it's much better to get a low mark which doesn't get counted towards a team score; rather than get a low mark which they believe has cost their team the match; or even worse: not be selected to post an article at all.

 

[eloquentEEL]

I hadn't been keeping up with this thread and was coming on to post a suggestion. Having had a read through, it looks like Crusher has covered some of it already and it's been criticised, but I'd still like to put forward my own suggestion and argument:

Suggestion:

All 7 or 8 players get a chance to post and the best 5 scores are taken.
If a team has less than 5 posts, then the lowest score is counted twice.

Advantages:

1. More 5 vs 5 matches
2. Still penalises a team with 4 posts as it's the LOWEST score that's taken twice, but still gives them a chance
3. Still leaves a team with 3 or less posts losing the match (and frankly, if they're THAT disorganised then they deserve to lose)
4. Allows more players to participate if they want to and gives a bit of advantage to those teams while still keeping it 5 vs 5
5. Lowest scoring players are more likely to be given a run as one or two low scores won't affect the outcome of the match, but will give them much needed practice, experience and feedback to learn from
6. An unexpected low score from an otherwise reliable player won't necessarily cost their team the match, and therefore won't make them feel like crap that they've cost their team the match

Disadvantages:

1. Little bit more work for refs
2. Increased risk of player "burnout" if they try to play too many matches and "run out of ideas" (this seems to affect some players more than others and at the end of the day, it's the individual player's decision whether or not to put their hand up each round)
3. Increased risk of players becoming disillusioned if their posts continually score too low to be counted (again, it's a personal thing which depends on the attitude and pesonality of the player)

I've just realised another massive advantage:

There would be a greater variety in style and content. There is a fine line between genius and lunacy, and it's up to the ref to decide. Players would be able to take more risks knowing that if their article is judged to be lunacy as opposed to genius, it won't necessarily cost their team the match.

I know that when I started, I allowed myself far more creativity in my articles and probably had some of my best posts back then. Since then, I've been burnt on a couple of occasions (and seen many others go the same way) and have therefore tended more and more towards "safer" articles, especially in bigger matches. I would love to be able to get back to the more risky/creative pieces... some will end up being my best work while others will flop... but that'll be okay because they won't cost my team the match.

In the player poll thread, it's been noted by a couple of the refs that there isn't a lot of variety in style and content... well here's a chance to get some more variety into F7's.

 

[TiTTieS_[CNTDN]]

To improve the problem of not getting 5 v 5, perhaps in the case of 5 v 4, then the team with 4 players gets to count their lowest scoring article twice while the 5 player team may scrap its lowest scoring article and count its second lowest scoring article twice. If there are two or more equally lowest scoring articles, then the one directly above that gets counted twice.

So, for example, a set of scores like 82, 85, 88, 82, and 89 would mean that one of the 82s is scrapped and replaced by an 85. So the new set of scores would be 85, 85, 88, 82, and 89.

 

[griffo346]

jessbass

i liked my idea and ur idea but further on that

i wanna say how i think we can work the cap idea

take the a-league fantasy sports they gave us 100 points

and we had to feild a team with that the team featured 12 players

highest player being 11.5
and lowest being 5

and all the players have too add up to the 100

 

[gorilla]

Part of the rigour of F7s is getting your team up and running, and over the line each week. It's a bit like a country club or kiddies leagues. If you don't have enough players, I reckon you play short (and probably lose).

As for the more than 5 posters and the highest scores counting - I think it has some merit but there's a lot of work in getting posts up and in, and there could be some burn out. In addition, what happens to the posts that don't count - they would still get scored and so they would have to be not available in the future. That's a lot of wasted words !

 

[Jesbass]

Part of the rigour of F7s is getting your team up and running, and over the line each week. It's a bit like a country club or kiddies leagues. If you don't have enough players, I reckon you play short (and probably lose).

As for the more than 5 posters and the highest scores counting - I think it has some merit but there's a lot of work in getting posts up and in, and there could be some burn out. In addition, what happens to the posts that don't count - they would still get scored and so they would have to be not available in the future. That's a lot of wasted words !

That's my major concern. I wouldn't want to putin a heap of effort, only for my article to not be used, and effectively be put to waste.

 

[griffo346]

How I would implicate the salary cap in forum 7s

At the moment we have a players cap in forum 7s as it was suggested by Jessbass that we could have both well we will with the player cap remaining at 15

The salary cap will work on a point’s base as the fantasy comps work that way with the team getting 150 points.

The referees are the one obvious pick to rank the players there points 6-10 with 6 being the lowest and 10 being the highest.

As I did say in the above thread that I am in a a-league fantasy comp and I have had to pick my team of 12 based on 100 points I managed to get a competitive team for that the lowest was 5 and the highest was 11.5

• Captains come under the points (ranked the highest as they are captains) also they come under the player cap
• When players want to leave during the season there lays anther idea of mine which I will also cover in this.
• When the player leaves the club the club captain can chose to play down a player for the rest of the season and or the player can be traded to anther club for anther player of the same value. That team is obversely of the players choice.

 

[Jesbass]

How I would implicate the salary cap in forum 7s

At the moment we have a players cap in forum 7s as it was suggested by Jessbass that we could have both well we will with the player cap remaining at 15

The salary cap will work on a point’s base as the fantasy comps work that way with the team getting 150 points.

The referees are the one obvious pick to rank the players there points 6-10 with 6 being the lowest and 10 being the highest.

As I did say in the above thread that I am in a a-league fantasy comp and I have had to pick my team of 12 based on 100 points I managed to get a competitive team for that the lowest was 5 and the highest was 11.5

• Captains come under the points (ranked the highest as they are captains) also they come under the player cap
• When players want to leave during the season there lays anther idea of mine which I will also cover in this.
• When the player leaves the club the club captain can chose to play down a player for the rest of the season and or the player can be traded to anther club for anther player of the same value. That team is obversely of the players choice.

For the rankings, I agree that the referees, (or forum sevens committee?), should decide, but I think the specific method of ranking individual players would have to be set up in the rules, so as to maintain an objective approach. That's why I suggested to base it on points average instead of BP points, as the latter could be misleading, as some people played more matches than others. And then have rookies start on a base salary until after their debut season.

But I still feel that this could result in players being forced out of clubs between seasons against their will, unless rules are put in place to somehow police that and prevent it happening. There would be no gain in making the sevens more realistic at the expense of inclusiveness and enjoyment.

 

[Crusher]

Here's an idea to keep the comp interesting

If we had a ten team comp, split it into two conferences say A and B. Conferences decided by how teams finished the year before Ie; 1,3,5,7,9 - 2,4,6,8,10.

new teams could go either way.

For finals it would be the top 3 from each.

Team 1 has week off. 2 plays three.

Winner of 2 v 3 plays 1 to get conference winner.

Then, winner of each conference plays off in the GF