Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'tanking'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Demonland
    • Melbourne Demons
    • 2017 Trade and Draft Leverage Board
    • AFL National Women's League
    • Match Previews, Reports, Articles and Special Features
    • Fantasy Footy
    • Other Sports
    • General Discussion
  • Forum Help & Guidelines
    • Forum Help

Calendars

  • Demons Event Calendar

Found 4 results

  1. Ok, we have all had our fill of tanking have we not? The answer to stop tanking for picks is not a weighted lottery - it will just result in teams posiitoning for a better 'chance' of a better pick and won't stop tanking. I have a straightforward way to incentivise being competitive in the games in which a team is ineligible to make the finals. I call it the The Competitive Percentage Determinator. Once a team is mathematically no chance to make the finals - their percentage is recorded. When the season is finished the teams will be ranked from highest relative percentage increase to lowest, and the team that has increased it's percentage the most will be awarded the top pick. The increase in percentage is relative, so poor teams that get slighlty better but still lose are not put out by having wins and losses determine picks. Essentially: Team A 60% increases to 63.5%. Relative increase of 5.83%. Team B 100% increases to 105%. Relative increase of 5% Team A gets the better pick. The results for 2012 would have seen the Lions rewarded for their competitiveness at the end of the season when the 'season was lost' by giving them Pick 2, and it would have punished the Bulldogs for blatantly letting the arse fall out of their season by giving them Pick 10. 2012 1. GWS +10% 2. BL +6.9% 3. Melb +5.1% 4. GC +3.7% 5. Rich +1.3% 6. St K -0.3% 7. Carl -1.2% 8. Ess -1.7% 9. PA -2.3% 10.WB -5.8% (The increase is relative to the percentage when finals become mathematically impossible. Eg. GWS went from 42 to 46.2: an increase of 10%) There is an element of luck when it comes to this; if a team plays a far better team during this run they will be worse off. But I feel it will give the team (and those selecting the team) something to play for, and keep in mind that the lowest pick they will recieve is still a top 10 pick. Thoughts?
  2. Let's lighten the mood

    There are lots of threads about tanking and all taking a serious look at a very serious issue. But I think we should also have a thread which allows a humorous take on the issues. if I'm wrong, feel free to delete this post. The idea of this thread is not to debate the serious issues but just look at it with a wry smile. In other words, don't use this thread to argue whether the tanking existed or it didn't. Or whether Caroline Wilson has a grudge or she doesn't. There are plenty of other places to post those views. So, to get things started, I've got a proposal which the MFC could put to the AFL as an appropriate punishment. Let's accept a similar punishment as handed out to Melbourne Storm for their salary cap breaches and have all our premiership points for 2009 and 2010 taken away. And why not go one step further and offer up all our premiership points for 2011 and 2012 as well. Then we can ask the AFL for a priority pick in this year's draft on the basis that we haven't won a game for four years and need the help that the priority pick was first designed for.
  3. AFL investigation

    Hearing rumours that the AFL will officially charge the club, Connolly, Bailey & Schwab with tanking. Don't shoot the messanger but my sources are usually pretty good.
  4. 2009 vs. 2012

    Why wouldn't the media accuse us of tanking this year? One of our compensatory picks is determined by our ladder position. It's not too dissimilar to the priority pick. Experimenting with player positioning; numerous, unexpected "outs" in Thursday's team sheet; long-term injuries announced on Monday. And the big one: how does a team, almost identical to the one last year, go from winning 8.5 games (10 or 11 if circumstances were a little different) to 4 at best? All I want is consistency on this. If 2009 is being treated as suspicious then this year's performances must be brought into question as well. No? Then [censored] THE [censored] OFF.
×