What will happen to Dream Team in 2011?

[quirky]

I apologise if i'm not supposed to start a new thread, not sure of the rules....

but what's going to happen to dream team in 2011 when there's going to be a bye??

has there been any talk of this yet?

 

[RWnBluey]

A few theories are out there. I think the best so far is that whatever player misses due to a bye you should simply get their average

 

[Juddy88]

A few theories are out there. I think the best so far is that whatever player misses due to a bye you should simply get their average

So what, if Essendon had a bye this week you'd get 124 from Skipworth?

Don't think that would happen.

 

[Blue Dimension]

Perhaps an added player for each section on the bench. If a team has a bye, then the players simply don't score, so you're more or less forced to ensure that you pick only a few from each team so as to avoid 0's.

 

[Virgil]

A few theories are out there. I think the best so far is that whatever player misses due to a bye you should simply get their average

So what, if Essendon had a bye this week you'd get 124 from Skipworth?

Don't think that would happen.

Yep. Very easily exploitable.

Leave it as it is I say, and make the players from the new team non-selectable until they have played a season in the AFL (fairest way to work out their prices).

 

[favourites]

Mayb you could trade the player for someone of equal or lesser value just for that week.... like a "value sub" would add a lot more skill to the game.

 

[abs_of_STEELE]

IMO we should get an extra two bench players for each position.

 

[BarcaRulz]

Yep. Very easily exploitable.

Leave it as it is I say, and make the players from the new team non-selectable until they have played a season in the AFL (fairest way to work out their prices).

Your answer has nothing to do with the actual problem. If there are byes in the gamedays, whether or not you have players from the 'new team', some players from 'old teams' will also miss.

I think a larger (not by much) salary cap and a few extra places on the bench to bring in other subs. Would then be smart to try and limit the number of players you have playing from one team so that you don't get too affected by the 'bye'.

 

[William C]

They will give us extra trades.

Just look at NRL DT.

 

[force65]

IMO we should get an extra two bench players for each position.

that was my thoughts as well...

also so we can still keep whole picking the rookie to gain money thing which is a good part of dt...u can have 2 bench sections...one for the rookies as normal and then the rotation section of maybe 2 players

all this means is that u must not have more than two players from each team in a position

 

[Benno_900]

Fantasy Freako had some good theories last season, I'll look it up ...

From round 19, 2008 ...

The AFL has guaranteed the Gold Coast will be entering the AFL in 2011.

It’s a long way off but a 17-team competition could spell the end for DT so I just thought I’d make you aware of the potential problems that could arise. For the first time since 1994 there will be a bye every week in the AFL fixture and some weeks there will be more than one side with a week off. I have thought briefly about ways we can get around this and here are a few:

• BIGGER SQUADS – Instead of a 30-man roster for each DT the salary cap is increased and coaches can select an extra two players per position in their initial squads to cover the bye players.

• BYE PLAYERS SCORE THEIR AVERAGE – If Gary Ablett is averaging 100 per game, the week Geelong has the bye the sides with him simply get 100 points.

• WEEKLY REPLACEMENTS – If St Kilda has the bye and you have Nick Dal Santo in your side and he is worth $280,000 you can replace him for that week with any player worth the same or less than him.

• ADDITIONAL TRADES – The trade limit increases from 20 so that people can make more moves to cover the players out with the bye each week.

• BAD LUCK – It’s up to the coach to pick an even side which can cover players out with the bye each week.

It makes it tougher but will reward the shrewder coaches who can think ahead.

Of course these are just some options that I have come up with and each has its positives and negatives. There is basically 30 months to come up with a solution so it’ll be interesting to see what outcome is implemented.

 

[D0nk]

I think the big problem is, depending on how they go with the draw they are probably going to have weeks where there are three teams having a bye to even up the amount of games played.

 

[Jay-Z]

I think the big problem is, depending on how they go with the draw they are probably going to have weeks where there are three teams having a bye to even up the amount of games played.

Did they used to do this in 1994?

 

[Virgil]

Your answer has nothing to do with the actual problem.

What problem? If everyone is affected the same way by teams having a week off then I don't understand why it has to be a 'problem'. I personally like the 'Bad luck' option the best.

 

[Jorda5910]

So what, if Essendon had a bye this week you'd get 124 from Skipworth?

Don't think that would happen.

This would only happen in the first few rounds.

but anyway, what if instead of their average it goes off what their price is instead of the average.

also the GC rookies will be everywhere in 2011

 

[D0nk]

Did they used to do this in 1994?

In round 6 seven teams had a bye.

 

[bigburger]

Hahaha. This is some funny shit. I never even gave this a second thought.

 

[D0nk]

This would only happen in the first few rounds.

but anyway, what if instead of their average it goes off what their price is instead of the average.

also the GC rookies will be everywhere in 2011

I think that might be a better option, for instance, what do you give a player for round 1? Last years average? Ok, what about a first year player? Do they just get a base score?

 

[favourites]

Ive got it..... rather than the yearly average, why not give them the average according to the value of the player.

Every dollar value has a score attached to it. Therefore if a player is 250K they get 52 points ect.

Using the bad luck method:
I guess the only problem comes down to league GFs and co, say for instance Geelong have the bye rnd 22, you have Chappy, Bartel, Ablett, Corey. You then play your GF with your four best players not playing, seems pretty stupid to me.

 

[Virgil]

Using the bad luck method:
I guess the only problem comes down to league GFs and co, say for instance Geelong have the bye rnd 22, you have Chappy, Bartel, Ablett, Corey. You then play your GF with your four best players not playing, seems pretty stupid to me.

Selecting players who you know are going to have byes in the last round would be stupid, I agree.

The dollar value method seems fair to me (might have to alter the way the magc number is adjusted though).

 

[lifelike_]

From what the Freako said, I like these.

• BIGGER SQUADS – Instead of a 30-man roster for each DT the salary cap is increased and coaches can select an extra two players per position in their initial squads to cover the bye players.

• BAD LUCK – It’s up to the coach to pick an even side which can cover players out with the bye each week.

Mixing both wouldn't be bad. One extra player per position and the ability to name an emergency in each position.

Obviously means you'd be far less likely to have two players from the same team in the one position, but it'd create far more diversity in teams.

No more A/B/C/S midfields.

 

[frantelle]

Personally I like the temporary sub idea. Only option really that won't ruin those who play for their league. If they don't those who play for the league will basically crossing off 4 teams worth of players

 

[JSF24]

If a player Isn't playing that week he scores 0. That's why we have bench players as back ups. This will also make people think again before getting ABCS all in the centre. Just creates more strategy hence more fun.

 

[Wilso]

I really like the idea of the player value = points idea. I think in most cases it would work quite well, obviously rookie performances would be hindered but that's just something you'll have to deal with.

 

[JSF24]

I really like the idea of the player value = points idea. I think in most cases it would work quite well, obviously rookie performances would be hindered but that's just something you'll have to deal with.

I don't like this idea because everyone would pick ABC or cox as captain on a bye and get a guarenteed 120x2.