Yep, I'm a fan of using the prospectus for our KPP classification. Easy and impartial.
AFL Team Manager Rules - OLD
- Thread starter Russian
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Yep, I'm a fan of using the prospectus for our KPP classification. Easy and impartial.
sante
Emu
I'm just happy we are going on for another season at least 
All good with those, can I add upgrading a rookie using a draft spot and it counts as a live selection (i.e if you have 4 draft selections he will be 4th DP, 3 - 3rd and so on and he gets the corresponding salary to go with it).
Forcing payouts for players who delisted players who still have multiple years on their TM contracts - hopefully no retrospectively on this one !
Danoz
Dananananananana Statman (òÓ,)_\,,/
And perhaps have a thread where managers can request a positional addition during the season. Josh Bruce started as a KPD, but you'd have a difficult time arguing he's still a KPD now.
Marklar_33
Brownlow Medallist
I used to run a league where we would debate position at the draft. As we drafted face to face it was very easy, and majority took rule. I guess what I'm suggesting is a similar setup here...
sausageroll
Brownlow Medallist
On another long term SC game it's done on SC positioning and prespectus.
It removes any doubt over who can play where, but it's based purely on historical data and doesn't allow any flexibility when players take new roles in the current season.
In this game I've generally tried to follow DT positioning and blended it with actual AFL team sheets to reflect new roles
It removes any doubt over who can play where, but it's based purely on historical data and doesn't allow any flexibility when players take new roles in the current season.
In this game I've generally tried to follow DT positioning and blended it with actual AFL team sheets to reflect new roles
- Thread starter
- #507
The rule is more about having at least some forwards to fill forward spots instead of using midfielders and HBFs who played there once than it is about tall/small structure, but if there's a number of talls people want to see I'm happy to look at that sort of rule too
Problems I have with this
1) We only have an average of 22 players each to pick from each week, and we don't have week-to-week trades like Dreamteam to fill holes.
2) Those things usually aren't available until February.
3) Specifying positions will either result in more teams playing short, which may be through poor management or bad luck. If we allow teams who are short to break the position rule, then that's potentially advantaging poor managers over good managers who have the depth.
4) Week-to-week enforcement is going to be painful.
What are you trying to achieve with this one? Reducing the number of picks you have to take or getting rookie promotions cheaper?
Probably will start that next year so it will impact contacts offered this year
I was thinking the number of picks you have to take and did not consider the $ aspect, but I think it should be some reward for taking a punt/investing in rookie picks.
Marklar_33
Brownlow Medallist
I'm going to back over my suggestion again
Front ending contracts if you end up with cap space after the off-season/drafts
Front ending contracts if you end up with cap space after the off-season/drafts
Danoz
Dananananananana Statman (òÓ,)_\,,/
Wondering how the scores will be worked out with no sub now?
Will it just be your starting 18, with 4 I/C who will replace anyone who doesn't play?
Will it just be your starting 18, with 4 I/C who will replace anyone who doesn't play?
Usually a larger bench but yes that's how it was before subs.
ShaunDuggan
🤎 🦍 🤎
Are veterans classed as 1 of your 40 players?
ShaunDuggan
🤎 🦍 🤎
Sweet. Cheers
sausageroll
Brownlow Medallist
What are the age requirements for veterans and how long do they need to have been on your list?
I can't find this in the rules
I can't find this in the rules
sausageroll
Brownlow Medallist
cheers
This is the part which answers both of your questions btw.
- Thread starter
- #519
That time of year to talk about rule changes. Off season thread might go up in around 2 weeks so if you want to suggest any changes make sure it's in long enough before that for people to discuss it.
Probably will drop back to 16 teams since we've struggled to fill the last couple of spots for a few years now. Haven't worked out the details of that yet, feel free to make suggestions.
Probably will drop back to 16 teams since we've struggled to fill the last couple of spots for a few years now. Haven't worked out the details of that yet, feel free to make suggestions.
Marklar_33
Brownlow Medallist
16 teams sounds brilliant tbh
Too many teams come up short on players any given week
Rule change, yet again, that you can use excess salary cap space to front end a contract or 2 at the end of the off season
Too many teams come up short on players any given week
Rule change, yet again, that you can use excess salary cap space to front end a contract or 2 at the end of the off season
Danoz
Dananananananana Statman (òÓ,)_\,,/
I reckon more strict rules around team structure. Have to have 2 stoppers, 2 goal kickers and at least one ruck in your team. If you don't have them you can't play someone else.
Danoz
Dananananananana Statman (òÓ,)_\,,/
And I also like 16 teams.
ShaunDuggan
🤎 🦍 🤎
16 teams would be great
fightingfury_88
Community Leader
- Moderator
- #524
16 teams sounds OK to me but because of that are we also increasing list sizes and or salary caps for each team? If not do we need to introduce some sort of amnesty for teams to reflect the new player pool and allow movement? How will the cut team's players be allocated to teams? Through the draft or some other method?
I don't mind the idea behind the stopper, goalkicker and tapper categories that were introduced last season but I think it needs a bit of tweaking. Since midfielders in the modern AFL pretty much play all over the ground (and almost everyone gets a run through the midfield at some point too) I would rather see it reflect key position players (ie tall defender, forward and ruckman). I also wouldn't limit or have a minimum amount of these players on your list but instead direct each team to select 2 KPD, 2 KPF and 1 ruckman categorised player each game. Then apply a penalty on game day scores (eg. 10% reduced overall team score) for each player under the required selection (ie 10% penalty if 1 of those players aren't selected on gameday, 20% if 2 players aren't selected and so on). Not sure how you categorise players in each position but that's the sort of rule tweak I'd be looking at.
I don't mind the idea behind the stopper, goalkicker and tapper categories that were introduced last season but I think it needs a bit of tweaking. Since midfielders in the modern AFL pretty much play all over the ground (and almost everyone gets a run through the midfield at some point too) I would rather see it reflect key position players (ie tall defender, forward and ruckman). I also wouldn't limit or have a minimum amount of these players on your list but instead direct each team to select 2 KPD, 2 KPF and 1 ruckman categorised player each game. Then apply a penalty on game day scores (eg. 10% reduced overall team score) for each player under the required selection (ie 10% penalty if 1 of those players aren't selected on gameday, 20% if 2 players aren't selected and so on). Not sure how you categorise players in each position but that's the sort of rule tweak I'd be looking at.
Last edited:
100% agree about bringing it back to 16 teams.
I do also like the idea of having rules on naming certain KPP in your weekly team. But no number restrictions on your list.
I do also like the idea of having rules on naming certain KPP in your weekly team. But no number restrictions on your list.
