Discussion NAFL/Reserves Feedback and Suggestions

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Dylan8 said:
It's just pointless and hinders the fun of a close grand final

Stop trying to fine tune everything when it works perfectly fine. Let FIRA be the uber difficult elite comp that you want.
Click to expand...

This is really nothing to do with FIRA and that's a dumb comment. FIRA doesn't have finals and guernsey clashes aren't enforced in the cup.

My clash kit won more than my home this season. If you're going to bother with clash kits, the rules should be applied. Ultimately it doesn't matter either way
 
I think the team that comes second last should not be relegated but should instead be guaranteed a finals berth.

But really, I don't think relegations and promotions should be determined from the previous season results (besides reserves premier). There's what, 9 months between seasons. Designers on this board have seen massive turn around in ability and polish in that time.
 
St Mark said:
I think the team that comes second last should not be relegated but should instead be guaranteed a finals berth.

But really, I don't think relegations and promotions should be determined from the previous season results (besides reserves premier). There's what, 9 months between seasons. Designers on this board have seen massive turn around in ability and polish in that time.
Click to expand...

...guaranteed a finals berth?
 
I like the current system, but after seeing the NZ round robin idea, I think that this could be done with every state/territory/NZ at the start of each season with an all in one poll to vote for the top 2 from each area and that decides the who is in division 1 and division 2, however the current system is still fine.
 
muggsy26 said:
I like the current system, but after seeing the NZ round robin idea, I think that this could be done with every state/territory/NZ at the start of each season with an all in one poll to vote for the top 2 from each area and that decides the who is in division 1 and division 2, however the current system is still fine.
Click to expand...
I'd be up for any preseason competition to decide leagues.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

stormy2 said:
1 or 2 chances for teams to wear it in any round they want for whatever reason they want.
Click to expand...

The issue with this, is that it's a lot more difficult for E92 to keep track of if everyone has a special round at a different time for a different reason.

It's doable, it's just more work for him. He'd need to note them all out in his fixture before the season etc.
 
I think there should be a week break half way through the season, where each entrant has the option to adjust their designs, obviously you can have restrictions to what they can and cannot change.
This way if you are getting beaten every round you have a chance to fix that.
 
EagleOz said:
I think there should be a week break half way through the season, where each entrant has the option to adjust their designs, obviously you can have restrictions to what they can and cannot change.
This way if you are getting beaten every round you have a chance to fix that.
Click to expand...
What you are suggesting already exists, I think. It's called the off-season. Except it's more than a week, it's like 9 months. Which means you have roughly literally 4000% more time to fix what's broken and, then, have a clean slate to start the new season with.

Giving people the option to redo mid-way through the year is outrageously unfair to those who produced quality entries the first time round.
 
stormy2 said:
What you are suggesting already exists, I think. It's called the off-season. Except it's more than a week, it's like 9 months. Which means you have roughly literally 4000% more time to fix what's broken and, then, have a clean slate to start the new season with.

Giving people the option to redo mid-way through the year is outrageously unfair to those who produced quality entries the first time round.
Click to expand...
Just a suggestion as what was asked in this thread! no need to be a smartass about it.

And that's why I said there would be restrictions on what can be edited.
 
EagleOz said:
Just a suggestion as what was asked in this thread! no need to be a smartass about it.
Click to expand...
Haha, sorry. I didn't mean for it to come off so rudely. That wasn't my intention.
 
NAFL Playoffs:

It's no doubt that some teams have been defeated simply by finals performance than by actual quality of their entry.

If we keep it simple, let's grant all 4 semi-finalists in the NAFL Rs a chance at promotion.

To give the top leaguers a little bit of what I call an "inertial" advantage (an object at rest stays at rest), how about this.

Seed the bottom 4 teams the NAFL and then the semi-finalists in the NAFL Rs. NAFL teams are given home advantage, NAFL Rs have to deal with clash.

NAFL(1) v NAFLR(4)
NAFL(2) v NAFLR(3)
NAFL(3) v NAFLR(2)
NAFL(4) v NAFLR(1)

NAFLR winners take the place of NAFL losers. Easy, simple and relatively fair. For full fairness, make it an All in One round.

Alternatively, the bottom 2 in the NAFL and the top 2 in NAFLR switch, with the next 4 teams seeded into a semi-finals type bracket where the winner of that gets promoted, like the English football system.
 
My two cents...

I've mentioned this before, but I feel there needs to be a relaxation of the rules surrounding team locations - particularly in respect to teams being promoted from the reserves. Having no more than two teams in each state/territory/NZ (herein referred to a "zones") is far too restrictive IMO. If somebody builds their team through the reserves, they should have the chance to continue that into the seniors if and when promoted, not be forced to change to a location vacated by a relegated team.

And its not like its without precedent, considering the fact that in the three seasons of the NAFL, precisely zero have stuck to the 2 teams per zone rule.

13-14: 3 x VIC, 1 x NSW
14-15: 3 x ACT, 1 x SA
15-16: 3 x TAS, 1 x NT

Now OK, sure there has been extenuating circumstances for these things, whether its a case of fill-in teams being called in at the last minute or teams being promoted early because they are clearly too good for the reserves. Thats fine. But imagine being promoted, told to change your team to a new location (and perhaps this means changing the team entirely - the whole image/brand of your club might be tied to the location and moving it would make no sense), only to find a new team take up a spot at the last second in the very place you originally wanted, and as a third team to boot - the very reason you weren't allowed that location in the first place.

Basically, the NAFL hasn't suffered in any way by not having exactly two teams in each zone. Once the competition starts, I'd bet nobody even notices how many teams are in each zone. All teams in the reserves should be actively encouraged to develop their teams/concepts/brands with the carrot of promotion to the "premier" seniors comp. If this means the numbers aren't completely even, who cares? It hasn't mattered in any of the previous seasons, and it won't matter into the future.

*****************

I'm also an advocate for being more open-minded with regards to promotion into the seniors, though this has been raised already. If there is 3, 4 or 5 players in the reserves who can compete in the seniors, they should be allowed to. If some players in the seniors continually languish mid-range bottom 10 - that is, never challenging for finals but never so bad they get relegated (and I haven't looked to see if this is the case) - and the reserves players are at a higher level, they should be in there. Just because someone has been in seniors since season one shouldn't guarantee them a lifetime place just because they don't finish on the bottom. We keep saying this is the premier competition of the board, so lets not be so restrictive for no particular reason, and let the best of the best compete.
 
crow28 said:
My two cents...

I've mentioned this before, but I feel there needs to be a relaxation of the rules surrounding team locations - particularly in respect to teams being promoted from the reserves. Having no more than two teams in each state/territory/NZ (herein referred to a "zones") is far too restrictive IMO. If somebody builds their team through the reserves, they should have the chance to continue that into the seniors if and when promoted, not be forced to change to a location vacated by a relegated team.

And its not like its without precedent, considering the fact that in the three seasons of the NAFL, precisely zero have stuck to the 2 teams per zone rule.

13-14: 3 x VIC, 1 x NSW
14-15: 3 x ACT, 1 x SA
15-16: 3 x TAS, 1 x NT

Now OK, sure there has been extenuating circumstances for these things, whether its a case of fill-in teams being called in at the last minute or teams being promoted early because they are clearly too good for the reserves. Thats fine. But imagine being promoted, told to change your team to a new location (and perhaps this means changing the team entirely - the whole image/brand of your club might be tied to the location and moving it would make no sense), only to find a new team take up a spot at the last second in the very place you originally wanted, and as a third team to boot - the very reason you weren't allowed that location in the first place.

Basically, the NAFL hasn't suffered in any way by not having exactly two teams in each zone. Once the competition starts, I'd bet nobody even notices how many teams are in each zone. All teams in the reserves should be actively encouraged to develop their teams/concepts/brands with the carrot of promotion to the "premier" seniors comp. If this means the numbers aren't completely even, who cares? It hasn't mattered in any of the previous seasons, and it won't matter into the future.

*****************

I'm also an advocate for being more open-minded with regards to promotion into the seniors, though this has been raised already. If there is 3, 4 or 5 players in the reserves who can compete in the seniors, they should be allowed to. If some players in the seniors continually languish mid-range bottom 10 - that is, never challenging for finals but never so bad they get relegated (and I haven't looked to see if this is the case) - and the reserves players are at a higher level, they should be in there. Just because someone has been in seniors since season one shouldn't guarantee them a lifetime place just because they don't finish on the bottom. We keep saying this is the premier competition of the board, so lets not be so restrictive for no particular reason, and let the best of the best compete.
Click to expand...

I agree with part of this but not all.

I do agree with the point that promoted teams should probably be given the opportunity to remain in their location even if it goes against the region rules. I for one would like to see Auckland hang around as the team was deserving of promotion and a third NZ team in the top division would spice up the rivalry that already exists between Wellington and Waikato.

However I only believe that 2 and at max 3 teams should ever be promoted/relegated. The top leave is there for a reason and even if there are 5 people in the reserves who may be worthy of promotion they should not just be given a free ticket because some teams do not make the finals each year. The level of these competitions are rising rapidly and everyone is improving to a level where there
will be easily enough people deserving to feature in the top division that we could have 1 1/2 top divisions (and hopefully in the near future the two divisions will be so competitive that absolutely anyone could be promoted or relegated). The top teams are there for a reason and unless they fall into the bottom 2 or 3 then they should be safe as they are still strong enough to compete. Logic states that if a team just stagnates then it will eventually be relegated as everyone else will overtake them and they will go down. But if they are surviving then there must be a reason for this and as such they still deserve to be there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

El_Scorcho
Competition NAFL 2024 - Preseason Thread
Replies
10
Views
538
TY24
TY24
El_Scorcho
  • Poll
Poll NAFL 2023 - Round 14 - NAFLW
Replies
0
Views
510
El_Scorcho
El_Scorcho
El_Scorcho
  • Poll
Poll NAFL 2023 - Round 13 - NAFLW
Replies
0
Views
406
El_Scorcho
El_Scorcho
El_Scorcho
  • Poll
Poll NAFL 2023 - GRAND FINAL
Replies
12
Views
953
Craegus
Craegus
El_Scorcho
  • Poll
Poll NAFL 2023 - Preliminary Finals
Replies
1
Views
473
El_Scorcho
El_Scorcho
El_Scorcho
  • Poll
Poll NAFL 2023 - Semi Finals
Replies
1
Views
484
El_Scorcho
El_Scorcho
El_Scorcho
  • Poll
Poll NAFL 2023 - Round 12
Replies
0
Views
593
El_Scorcho
El_Scorcho

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top