1.5X points for Vice Captain.

[Outside Sledge]

Wondering what people think of this idea...
So often it seems pointless having a captain at all in League games as most people pick the same guy.
For those who dislike decimal points, the score could be rounded down

 

[dlanod]

So for those of us who dislike decimals points, it'd be 1.0X points for the vice captain? That sounds good to me!

I don't really care for extra points for the vice captain, to be honest. A vice captain at the moment is basically a safety net against a captain's late withdrawal. You give the vice captain points and suddenly a late withdrawal of the captain or vice captain screws you over, unless you add a vice vice captain or two to cover against late withdrawals in the point scoring positions. Gets pretty silly at that point.

 

[Pocket_Pears]

How about at the start of the season you pick your Captain and Vice Captain and don't change for the rest of the season, just like a real AFL club?

Someone with the balls to go against the group-think (ie, not lock in Swan) could come out well ahead.

 

[Outside Sledge]

How about at the start of the season you pick your Captain and Vice Captain and don't change for the rest of the season, just like a real AFL club?

Someone with the balls to go against the group-think (ie, not lock in Swan) could come out well ahead.

That IS a ballsy idea, would cause lots of premium captains to be traded out in order to get a new captain. I like it.

Re: Vice vice and vice vice captain, seems pretty silly for you to take it that far. If you like safety nets how about the ultimate one....No captain at all.

I just think that the picking of a captain is one thing that sets teams apart and can mark the difference between a good Coach and a great one, so why not take it one step further and allow the cream of coaching world to rise to the top?
If your Capt didnt play then your VC would be Capt. and you miss out on the VC points...pretty simple.

 

[Evil Toucan]

How about at the start of the season you pick your Captain and Vice Captain and don't change for the rest of the season, just like a real AFL club?

Someone with the balls to go against the group-think (ie, not lock in Swan) could come out well ahead.

This game is already enough about luck as it is. You can put in research in the pre season to see who will have a good year, but if your perma lock captain goes down early, it's season over for you!

 

[dlanod]

I just think that the picking of a captain is one thing that sets teams apart and can mark the difference between a good Coach and a great one, so why not take it one step further and allow the cream of coaching world to rise to the top?
If your Capt didnt play then your VC would be Capt. and you miss out on the VC points...pretty simple.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. At the moment, if your captain doesn't play you have a vice captain and aren't disadvantaged by 100-150 points for one piece of bad luck. Under your system, if either your captain or vice captain doesn't play you just lost 50-75 points for one piece of bad luck. The whole reason for a vice captain is to mitigate that bad luck. Your suggestion is removing the whole reason vice captains were added in the first place.

 

[Outside Sledge]

That's exactly what I'm talking about. At the moment, if your captain doesn't play you have a vice captain and aren't disadvantaged by 100-150 points for one piece of bad luck. Under your system, if either your captain or vice captain doesn't play you just lost 50-75 points for one piece of bad luck. The whole reason for a vice captain is to mitigate that bad luck. Your suggestion is removing the whole reason vice captains were added in the first place.

I take your point, but the VC would still be there to mitigate the bad luck of your captain not playing (so not removing the whole reason VC's are there at all), if both were missing it would be an UN-mitigated disaster...
But thats footy.
Would it cause more frustration: Yes
Would it be unfair to players who chose poorly or were just unlucky? Yes
Would it give players more control over their team? Yes
Would it give you that warm fuzzy feeling when you chuck the VC on a player you would never choose as captain and it pays off BIG time? Oh Yes

Pretty much nothing would change in that we are subject to the vagaries of footy, but in a game type that presents such little POD compared to other fantasy games (see NFL) I reckon it would spice things up a bit.
I also reckon I would still pretty much stink it up as a coach but thats beside the point.

 

[Daniels]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it

 

[Axe]

The game is too easy as it is.
The VC role lessens the luck (or bad luck in this case) factor of a Captain withdrawing as mentioned earlier.
I understand they need to cater for the masses but I look forward to them taking away the 4 extra trades & three extra bench players next year (hopefully anyway).

 

[Daniels]

I understand they need to cater for the masses but I look forward to them taking away the 4 extra trades & three extra bench players next year (hopefully anyway).

My guess would be they leave the extra trades and take away extra bench players

 

[dlanod]

Would it give you that warm fuzzy feeling when you chuck the VC on a player you would never choose as captain and it pays off BIG time? Oh Yes

Wouldn't happen - people will just pick the second best captain option on their team and bank the extra points, exactly the same as they do with the captaincy. The same people who gamble with the captaincy would gamble with the vice captaincy, but they're a massive minority.

 

[SoupAStars]

I think it'll stay with 1 trade/round (which is the way it ALWAYS should have been), so we'll have 22 trades next year.
And we will almost certainly go back to the standard 7/6/2/7 with 4 x 2 bench players = 30.

 

[Outside Sledge]

Wouldn't happen - people will just pick the second best captain option on their team and bank the extra points, exactly the same as they do with the captaincy. The same people who gamble with the captaincy would gamble with the vice captaincy, but they're a massive minority.

I wouldn't gamble with my Captain, but my vice? For sure I would.
rather than taking the safe option of a 100 point player getting you (50 extra points), I would be happy taking a Franklin type would may get an 80 (40 extra) but may just pull out a 160 (80 extra).
to me that is a good risk/reward ratio.
I can't see it happening and can't see any support for the idea (must be the damn silent majority). So best leave it at that I suppose.

 

[ThePezDispenser]

Why not employ a leadership group while we are at it?

 

[Big Sledge #32]

The game is too easy as it is.
The VC role lessens the luck (or bad luck in this case) factor of a Captain withdrawing as mentioned earlier.
I understand they need to cater for the masses but I look forward to them taking away the 4 extra trades & three extra bench players next year (hopefully anyway).

I understand the thought process behind this, with the way the magic number is set this year people are finishing their teams off by now, which is even quicker than last year IIRC. One of the reasons I am loving this year is the bye. I wish it was around every year & we only had 20 trades. The sheer amount of thought required to successfully navigate them, especially the multi byes & the run home will take its toll on teams & it will see some teams which are very high up plummet quickly.

Next year will be even easier IMO as I'm not sure how much VS will take off of us next year. But I hope it goes back to the old system as well.

My guess would be they leave the extra trades and take away extra bench players

I actually think the opposite, I think we will lose some of the trades but keep 3 on each line (bar rucks) to help compensate for the sub rule.

 

[Axe]

My guess would be they leave the extra trades and take away extra bench players

I think it'll stay with 1 trade/round (which is the way it ALWAYS should have been), so we'll have 22 trades next year.
And we will almost certainly go back to the standard 7/6/2/7 with 4 x 2 bench players = 30.

My gut feeling is that the bench will go and that the trades will be returned to 20.
Low and behold- three comments- three different thoughts!

 

[Axe]

I understand the thought process behind this, with the way the magic number is set this year people are finishing their teams off by now, which is even quicker than last year IIRC. One of the reasons I am loving this year is the bye. I wish it was around every year & we only had 20 trades. The sheer amount of thought required to successfully navigate them, especially the multi byes & the run home will take its toll on teams & it will see some teams which are very high up plummet quickly.

That is very true. It will be a good indication of who has prepared properly from around the Coll & StK byes to Round 24.

 

[Big Sledge #32]

My gut feeling is that the bench will go and that the trades will be returned to 20.
Low and behold- three comments- three different thoughts!

That is probably my preferred option but I'm not sure I trust VS to go back to the old system completely. They want the please the masses & I am worried that they'll do something stupid like give us 20+ trades next year when they really shouldn't. Just because everyone wants to load their teams up with Goddard, Pendles & co.

Next year the two big issues will be avoiding the bad trading habits people have gotten into this year & fatigue. No bye & a continuing sub rule will see teams rest players more often through out a season.

 

[Big Sledge #32]

That is very true. It will be a good indication of who has prepared properly from around the Coll & StK byes to Round 24.

The multi-byes along with rounds 22 & 23 will be the killers for most sides (Geelong & Carlton). Most teams have a good 3 or more from both of those sides & will struggle without good cover & adept planning in the last few rounds. Because looking at the current patterns people won't have many (if any) trades left come finals.

 

[dlanod]

I understand the thought process behind this, with the way the magic number is set this year people are finishing their teams off by now, which is even quicker than last year IIRC.

Isn't that a virtue of GC coming in this year, resulting in more rookies raising in price so the magic number is lower... so keepers are $400k and thereabouts, instead of the $500k of previous years? We'll probably see it again next year with GWS, but after that it should revert back to ye olde days.

 

[Pocket_Pears]

This game is already enough about luck as it is. You can put in research in the pre season to see who will have a good year, but if your perma lock captain goes down early, it's season over for you!

Isn't that what a Vice Captain is for? Most AFL teams seem to have 2 or 3 VC's anyway, so maybe multiple VCs are the way to go?

 

[Jobe Watson]

Stupid idea.

123 x 1.5 = 184.5. Should the scoring system include decible numbers? Hell no. So scoring should be rounded up or down if a score equals .5? Unfair, what if you lost your league match by a single point because your vice's score was rounded down? Could play a huge part in overall rankings too.

It's an interesting concept but it would never work.

 

[ThePezDispenser]

Stupid idea.

123 x 1.5 = 184.5. Should the scoring system include decible numbers? Hell no. So scoring should be rounded up or down if a score equals .5? Unfair, what if you lost your league match by a single point because your vice's score was rounded down? Could play a huge part in overall rankings too.

It's an interesting concept but it would never work.

Not too good with the math?

Each team would be rounded up or down in the same manner. Effectively you could never lose a game from rounding. You could however draw a game if your captain got say 126, so plus .5 equals 63 and the opponent got 151 so plus .5 equals 75.5.

If you were winning by half a point overall and his VC's score rounded up it would then be a draw.

There could never be a way where one score could be rounded up and one rounded down to lose a game.

 

[ThePezDispenser]

I personally don't even like the Captain system, it places even more emphasis on luck during the game.

Team who has the best scoring 22 players should win.

 

[Jobe Watson]

So basically, unnecessary rounding can still cost you wins? I'd be just as disappointed drawing a match because of rounding down as I would losing one because of it.

If you were winning by half a point overall and his VC's score rounded up it would then be a draw.

And that's the problem. If score's were rounded down it COULD be fine (especially for league matches) but maths teaches us that anything that ends in .5 has to be rounded up; therefore every VC with an odd score would be rounded up while even scores stayed the same. Unfair 1 point advantage if your vice gets an odd number.

Let's say every single person in SuperCoach has Dane Swan VC, while I have Dean Cox VC. If Swan scores 150, x1.5 would equal 225. If Cox scores 151, x1.5 would equal 226.5, which would then have to be rounded up to 227. Therefore, I've gained an extra 1 point advantage (on top of my already 1 point advantage because Cox scored higher) over the rest of the competition simply because my vice scored an odd number which had to be rounded up. If it was rounded down, no advantage to me.

But anyway, I was shit at Year 12 maths so I hope I'm not talking trash and making myself look like a fool here.