Thanks Jackattack, picked my Keepers:

Marc Murphy

Jordan Lewis

Rookie Keepers:

Jeremy Cameron

Stephen Conigilio

Agonsied over Lewis or Sloane, I have a feeling I'm going to regret letting Sloane go but I went with Lewis' versatility

RPFC and DL7 make some good points.

The pre draft trading thing is complicated. If there is anyone who wants to do it I think I can assist in making sure it is fair given what rpfc identified. I get the felling no-one will do it anyway.

As for Waivers for people whom don't have rookies, it really only applies to STINGA, because he is the only one with no rookies.

I will simply assign STINGA a couple of RKs that were from the 2 teams that got retired:

I'll give you Hannebery (144) and Sam Reid (192).

Edited February 26, 201312 yr by JACKATTACK

Well, what about those that tried to think ahead and have a couple of kids to choose from?

Do I get to 'cut' my kid and pick another? Do we all get to?

I say those new to the league can pick from the waivers but the rest have to stick with what they have.

Cool?

Yep exactly what I meant, I was meaning only the new ones who didn't have keepers would do that. Would be unfair on Stinga if he started short due to the previous owner. Think your most recent post covers it perfectly!

DRAFT ORDER

So I found last year's order of finishing. And I'm creating the draft order based on the following:

First few picks will be the reverse ladder order taken after the regular season.

Last few picks will be the reverse ladder order taken after the finals.

Resulting in:

pick 1: Jackattack

Pick 2: HT

Pick 3: DL7

Pick 4: RR

Pick 5: Jarka (You got Jackliveshere's pick)

Pick 6: Scarlett

Pick 7: Jackovich Lives

Pick 8: Robbo

Pick 9: rpfc

Pick 10: OMR

Pick 11: SnomeD

Pick 12: JCB

Pick 13: MM

Pick 14: STINGA (previously Deevoted)

Pick 15: 45HG

Pick 16: Hollywood

Edited February 26, 201312 yr by JACKATTACK

I should have tanked...

I should have tanked...

list management

Thanks for the consideration, I wasn't going to make a fuss being the new guy Jack I did have one rookie Mitch Duncan. Id be happy with either of the other of the guys you picked but prefer Hannelbry.

Edited February 26, 201312 yr by s-t-i-n-g-a

Right you are.

I'll switch Mitch Duncan with Sam Reid.

That's so annoying haha! I made so many trades for hannebery and now he didn't even front up and I have stupid bastinac

Haha!

Does the draft stay in that order or does it reverse?

Reverse order for second round and so on, same as usual.

Reverse order for second round and so on, same as usual.

Please note I have wrong keepers listed .Please change- I think someone else's are wrong as well.

Take care.

Yeah, when you update your keepers I have to approve them by logging in and setting them.

Obviously I can't do this all the time, but I will do it from time to time, and then i'll do it finally after the keeper list lodgement date. Which is a week before the draft.

Yeah, when you update your keepers I have to approve them by logging in and setting them.

Obviously I can't do this all the time, but I will do it from time to time, and then i'll do it finally after the keeper list lodgement date. Which is a week before the draft.

Thanks

Hey, before we get started I have a proposal that I believe will see the end of tanking.

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 percentage increase to lowest, and the team that has increased it's percentage the most will be awarded the top pick.

It makes an incentive of being competitive and I would like The Norm Smith League in Ultimate Footy to trial it!

What do we say?

I like it, is that you volunteering to do the calcs and inform everyone of the rules rpfc?

I like it, is that you volunteering to do the calcs and inform everyone of the rules rpfc?

Yeah, I am happy to.

Hell, I'll probably do it for the AFL too...

Yeah, I am happy to.

Hell, I'll probably do it for the AFL too...

I heard a fellow call up SEN last week stating he had worked on something like this in 3 or 4 sports in the USA and completed the formula based on AFL 2009 results, given the topic was on tanking.

It worked out that North Melbourne ended up with the first pick of the Draft. Melbourne got pick two.

It wasn't you by any chance, rpfc?

I heard a fellow call up SEN last week stating he had worked on something like this in 3 or 4 sports in the USA and completed the formula based on AFL 2009 results, given the topic was on tanking.

It worked out that North Melbourne ended up with the first pick of the Draft. Melbourne got pick two.

It wasn't you by any chance, rpfc?

No.

Damn.

I thought it was an original idea...

Was it exactly the same?

No.

Damn.

I thought it was an original idea...

Was it exactly the same?

I think it was based on win-loss and percentage once its determined they are no longer in contention for finals. (Ie. mathematically out of contention). So on that year he determined that North were the best performed in the last several games of the season having not made the finals. Hence the 1st pick. There may have been some other components I can't recall.

I think it was based on win-loss and percentage once its determined they are no longer in contention for finals. (Ie. mathematically out of contention). So on that year he determined that North were the best performed in the last several games of the season having not made the finals. Hence the 1st pick. There may have been some other components I can't recall.

This shows why the system doesn't work though. Give the Kangaroos Lachie Whitfield and they're suddenly awesome in 2 years. It needs to be done only with bottom 5 or 6 teams because chances are the 9th team will win their games after they can't make finals cos they're just better teams so thus will always get best picks..

This shows why the system doesn't work though. Give the Kangaroos Lachie Whitfield and they're suddenly awesome in 2 years. It needs to be done only with bottom 5 or 6 teams because chances are the 9th team will win their games after they can't make finals cos they're just better teams so thus will always get best picks..

Yeah, wins isn't the go.

My would reward a team that continues to fight out the year even if they lose.

A team with a 60% percentage when the are mathematically disqualified will get the pick if they are able to improve their percentage the most relative to where it was so if a team with 100% is out of contention with two games to go and improves to 105%, all the team with 60% has to do is improve their percentate by 5.01% to 'beat' that team to the last pick.

And that would mean only increasing it by 3.01% percent as theirs is lower.

Wins shouldn't come into it. If you are not good enough to win, you shouldn't be penalised.

I am trying to reward competitiveness, not punish awfulness.

And sorry about the math...

Basically:

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.

Yeah, wins isn't the go.

My would reward a team that continues to fight out the year even if they lose.

A team with a 60% percentage when the are mathematically disqualified will get the pick if they are able to improve their percentage the most relative to where it was so if a team with 100% is out of contention with two games to go and improves to 105%, all the team with 60% has to do is improve their percentate by 5.01% to 'beat' that team to the last pick.

And that would mean only increasing it by 3.01% percent as theirs is lower.

Wins shouldn't come into it. be penalised.

I am trying to reward competitiveness, not punish awfulness.

No I agree with the concept and I like many of it merits don't get me wrong. However if the last round comes around I'm 9th you're 16th, you're the worst team in the comp if you're percentage has gone up 1% since you missed finals and this is my first game since missing out, there's a far chance you'll cop a spanking ill gain a few % you'll lose a few and suddenly ill have pick 1 or 2 and you'll have pick 5 or 6. Will that motivate you to come back next year given you were the worst team I was 9th and ill get the better player... I'm not sure it will

No I agree with the concept and I like many of it merits don't get me wrong. However if the last round comes around I'm 9th you're 16th, you're the worst team in the comp if you're percentage has gone up 1% since you missed finals and this is my first game since missing out, there's a far chance you'll cop a spanking ill gain a few % you'll lose a few and suddenly ill have pick 1 or 2 and you'll have pick 5 or 6. Will that motivate you to come back next year given you were the worst team I was 9th and ill get the better player... I'm not sure it will

I am not certain you are following how this would work. It is relative to your percentage when you missed finals and rewards the relative improvement of a team since it is disqulaified from the finals.

It is a deterrent from those who just leave their team 'idle' as there will be something to play for, and those that trade away half their team to get one 'keeper' for the next season. It gives winning/performing better as an incentive over losing.

As an example the AFL Draft would have rewarded the Lions with Pick 2 in 2012 for trying to win games after all hope was lost, and it punished the Bulldogs for letting the arse fall out of their year so they could get Pick 5 and 6.

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%

Does luck come into it? I could be last through poor drafting and then play the top 5 teams in the final five games. I've given my all but had a shizen team and kept dropping. Now I get pick 6 because others head an easier draw?