DT/SC boss says more trades/emgs for 2011

[fergus_watts]

In reply to bilza069 comments...

If VS wanted to change the emergency system - next year would be the year to do it.

We run a DT comp on ultimate footy where we get to nominate our first and second emergencies for each position.

Say if one of my backs misses, the first named emergency plays. If another back misses, the second named emergency also plays.

It's simple to understand and rewards teams for depth.

Such an emergency system would help people accomodate for the byes that are about to become part of the DT landscape from 2011 on.

I don't think VS will alter the 7-6-2-7 structure (even if a 6-8-2-6 structure does make more sense).

 

[54Dogs]

I really do think VS have to make sure they look after league side of the DT/SC competitions. A lot of punters place a lot of emphasis on their weekly battles against their mates.


So let's assume the AFL goes with

• 22 standard weeks with a standard 8 matches, with one team having a bye for each of those 22 rounds
• One round with 5 games and 7 teams having byes
• One round with 6 matches and 5 teams having byes

The easiest thing for the VS sports to do in this situation would be to have no DT/SC league matches on the two weeks with 5/6 games.

Points scored during these weeks would still count to overall rankings and players avearges - however there would be no league games played during these two weeks. A kind of 'DT/SC' bye.

It makes things a bit easier to understand and a lot fairer for the punters who place a big emphasis on the league competition.

In regards to the concessions DT/SC punters will be given to help accomodate for the bye during the other 22 weeks of the competition - it'd have to be simple stuff.

You'd assume if VS went down the extra emergencies path, they might have to adjust the 'magic number' to accomdate for 3/4 extra players within the salary cap. Either that, or people are going to be filling their benches full of Gold Coast players (they'll be doing it anyway).

I'm guessing that the extra trades is the easier of the options for VS - which punter doesn't enjoy clicking the 'T' button? Does 4 extra trades make that much of a difference? Not as much as having 3/4 extra emergencies - but it does help keep people engaged and its a simple change.

Either way - Fixtuing is going to play a huge part next year.

First Post - Nice to be here

Great 1st post Fergus and welcome.

Agree 100% on the league games. If they run down the road of 5/7 and 5/6 these would have to be a bye. You'd imagine it would have to be the same for eliminator.

Extra trades (as you say) is probably the easy route but extra emergencies would be great for those on this board who love their DT. That said, the decision will be made based on whatever is best for attracting more players to the game and keeping it simple.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

I would certainly prefer extra emergencies to extra trades. It would reward teams that build depth, and also make it not too confusing (I can imagine how difficult it will become otherwise because team selection will have to be all based on the fixture otherwise and that will be nightmarish for a lot of coaches). I also agree with allowing the emergencies across all 4 lines.

 

[Kid A]

i would like VS to get rid of the rule that if you nominate 2 emg's the lower score counts. though i understand the intent of the rule, simply put i think reversing the rule would encourage teams to have good depth.

 

[Lakey91]

Too much room for exploitation I reckon Kid A.

Saw Goddard doesnt play, I just make both Webberley/Hams emergency and thus take the highest - makes it too easy a loophole to exploit. Don't think VS will be up for that...

 

[Crow-mo]

the average punter is not interested in more emergencies versus trades. that's an anorak thing.

the rank n file is not going to take pride in having good depth, they're just not.

 

[Kid A]

Too much room for exploitation I reckon Kid A.

Saw Goddard doesnt play, I just make both Webberley/Hams emergency and thus take the highest - makes it too easy a loophole to exploit. Don't think VS will be up for that...

i see what you're saying Lakey, but this would rely on you having two good emg's and also being willing to sacrifice an emg in another position (which will be tricky with the byes next year). if this leads to people stacking up their benches, that's a good thing imo - they are spreading their money thinner, looking for more legitimate value.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

i see what you're saying Lakey, but this would rely on you having two good emg's and also being willing to sacrifice an emg in another position (which will be tricky with the byes next year). if this leads to people stacking up their benches, that's a good thing imo - they are spreading their money thinner, looking for more legitimate value.

Nah - just one good emergency.

Let's say you have Goodes, Rockliff and McNeil as your last 3 forwards. Goodes is having a poor patch, but is a premium and you can't decide who to start.

You start McNeil and have Goodes and Rocky as your EMG's - problem solvered and the rorting begins.

The loss of an EMG probably isn't going to become an issue this far into the comp with plenty of people pretty thin on.

The start of the comp has a thread - which Rookie to start - this opens it up to rort completely.

I don't mind the option of being able to nominate the order of EMG's though

 

[Kid A]

actually, you are right, it would be exploitable. I take it back.

 

[Magic33]

Haven't read every post so apologies if somebody beat me to this, but...

What if they reverted back to the emergency system of 3-4 years ago, whereby emergencies can count for any position? I know that people can exploit this by having an "extra" midfielder and using them to replace an intentional zero in another position, but so what? (That's just another strategy, plus it comes with its own risk anyway, i.e. a late withdrawal = a donut).

That's one way that wouldn't require a different team structure or extra trades.
Plus, as it stands, it's a bit silly that there are four different positions and you can only select three emergencies. You could have 8 bench players playing but still get a donut because you got a late withdrawal in a certain position which isn't covered (rucks for most people).

 

[Benno_900]

Nah - just one good emergency.

Let's say you have Goodes, Rockliff and McNeil as your last 3 forwards. Goodes is having a poor patch, but is a premium and you can't decide who to start.

You start McNeil and have Goodes and Rocky as your EMG's - problem solvered and the rorting begins.

The loss of an EMG probably isn't going to become an issue this far into the comp with plenty of people pretty thin on.

The start of the comp has a thread - which Rookie to start - this opens it up to rort completely.

I don't mind the option of being able to nominate the order of EMG's though

Haha ... did anyone play DT back when emgs cover any position (it's probably only 4 yrs ago)?

Everybody just loaded their mids with 8 guns and purposely had two zeroes elsewhere with the two mid emg replacing them.

Late withdrawals killed it though ... ****ing Sheedy!