Session 10 orders deadline in 17 hours and 41 minutes
MSWL UNITEDMSWL U2 TMBL MSWL The Manager
Saturday, May 26th, 2018 - 12:18:05 AM (gmt)
 
ball MSWL UNITED ① - Landing
 
Home Auctions Blog Forum History Login Rules Scores Stats Tables Teams
 
Coaches Directory Donate Guest Rankings Schedule Updates Waitlist Wall
 

Join
MSWL
UNITED!

Recent Entries

Mike Parnaby
3 Comments
Brian Beerman
6 Comments
Tim Batth
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Rob Baptiste
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Brian Beerman
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
3 Comments
Paul Cockayne
3 Comments
Paul Cockayne
3 Comments
Dave Dowson
4 Comments
Roy Rolsten
2 Comments
Dave Dowson
4 Comments
Brian Beerman
1 Comment
Brian Beerman
1 Comment
Dave Dohm
2 Comments
Brian Beerman
3 Comments
Brian Beerman
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Brian Hayes
1 Comment
Brian Beerman
2 Comments
Brian Beerman
1 Comment
Brian Beerman
3 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Rob Baptiste
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Andy Bate
3 Comments
Rob Peterson
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Graham Wilkes
4 Comments
Brian Beerman
19 Comments
Brian Beerman
20 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Andy Bate
1 Comment
Kevin Martin
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
21 Comments
Allan Sellers
14 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Brian Beerman
9 Comments
Brian Beerman
3 Comments
Graham Wilkes
1 Comment
Jose Freitas
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Dave Dohm
10 Comments
Brian Beerman
2 Comments
Rob Baptiste
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Graham Wilkes
6 Comments
Graham Wilkes
5 Comments
Dave Dohm
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Rob Peterson
5 Comments
Brian Beerman
11 Comments
John Holden
3 Comments
Brian Beerman
13 Comments
Allan Sellers
13 Comments
Kevin Martin
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Kevin Martin
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
19 Comments
Allan Sellers
13 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Rob Baptiste
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
16 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
14 Comments
Rob Baptiste
5 Comments
Mark Stretch
5 Comments
Jake Hanny
1 Comment
Andy Bate
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
25 Comments
Graham Wilkes
2 Comments
Brian Beerman
6 Comments
Brian Beerman
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
10 Comments
Allan Sellers
13 Comments
Allan Sellers
16 Comments
Brian Beerman
7 Comments
David Blair
2 Comments
Brian Beerman
12 Comments
Brian Beerman
5 Comments
David Blair
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
18 Comments
Graham Wilkes
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
3 Comments
Mark Stretch
17 Comments
John Holden
16 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Rob Peterson
1 Comment
Brian Beerman
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
25 Comments
Allan Sellers
30 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Brian Beerman
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
10 Comments
Allan Sellers
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
15 Comments
Andy Bate
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
10 Comments
Mike Cabral
4 Comments
Andy Bate
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
14 Comments
Kevin Martin
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
26 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Brian Beerman
3 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
10 Comments
Allan Sellers
23 Comments
Kevin Martin
6 Comments
Dave Dohm
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Brian Beerman
4 Comments
Brian Beerman
14 Comments
Brian Beerman
2 Comments
Andy Bate
2 Comments
Andy Bate
2 Comments
Kevin Martin
3 Comments
Dave Dowson
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
14 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
John Holden
4 Comments
Mike Cabral
9 Comments
Andy Bate
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
23 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Simon Compton
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Abe Hamdali
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Roy Rolsten
6 Comments
Andy Bate
5 Comments
Roy Rolsten
2 Comments
Andy Bate
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
20 Comments
Andy Bate
3 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
3 Comments
Andy Bate
7 Comments
Andy Bate
3 Comments
Andy Bate
2 Comments
Andy Lewis
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Simon Compton
4 Comments
Kevin Martin
12 Comments
Simon Compton
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Simon Compton
1 Comment
Simon Compton
1 Comment
Dave Dowson
2 Comments
Kevin Martin
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Rene Wilkens
5 Comments
Trevor Taylor
3 Comments
Rob Peterson
17 Comments
Allan Sellers
16 Comments
Allan Sellers
9 Comments
Trevor Taylor
7 Comments
Trevor Taylor
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
3 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
27 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Dan Fitzgerald
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
13 Comments
Alon Atie
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
9 Comments
Rob Peterson
10 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
 
Youth Players for Youth Cup
Posted by Allan Sellers on Thursday, Nov. 26th, 2009 at 8:20 PM

While it hasn't happened yet, it will at some point...

What should be the penalty if a team can't field the 8 youth players they need to in a Youth Cup match?

With 6 SBYs available each season and if not used they carry over...in theory...a team has 12 available SBY/APPs at any given moment (unless they sold them).

Thus teams should have extras to use if a sudden injury popped up.

However, if a team had none available I propose:

a) A fine for each player under 8.  15k? 30k?  Higher?

b) A player is added to their team at SL 0 and FIT 0.

I'd like to get something put in place so its clear what the penalty is should this scenario occur.  

Thoughts?

Al

 

Readers Comments

Be harsh! - a fine & 0 SL 0 EL for me.

Dan Fitzgerald on Thursday, Nov. 26th, 2009 at 10:10 PM
 

 I like the idea of a fine + SL 0, Fit 0.

However, what about something completely outside the box as far as Olmec goes, but closer to reality... what about the notion of loaning players from other teams. Some teams are very good at maintaining a healthy set of youth players. But the way the Youth Cup is structured, it almost forces managers to limit their SBY call-ups each season. I have an issue with the Age II/III SL 15-16 players that we're allowed to play in the Youth Cup games, but beyond that, teams like mine often have excess Youth Players that we can't get into the Youth Cup games. Why not allow these teams to "loan" some of their SBYs to the teams that don't have enough. The player gets his QNL increased, which benefits the lessor. The lessee benefits from getting a Youth player for the Cup match. If you combine this with a fee that the lessee has to pay (25k per player per match sounds right), then I think you have a good system that rewards teams for planning their Youth advancements well, and punishes the teams that don't.

In order to manage something like this effectively, we would probably need to freeze rosters 48 hours before matches to identify the teams that need a loaner. There could be another section under Transactions for managers to identify players that are available for loan. The team putting players up for loan would have to have an excess of 8 SBY/APPs.

I know I always come up with the most complicated solutions, but I think this one would add a lot to the game..

Rob Peterson on Friday, Nov. 27th, 2009 at 8:38 PM
 

As much as I like Rob's idea about loaning players, unless it can be coordinated in a simple, straightforward fashion, I think it sounds a bit too complex.  

I do like the idea of a fine.  However, does that then mean if the team has only seven youths, they pay the fine and still get to play the match with four aged players?  If so, seems like a team could intentionally keep their squad under the eight minimum in hopes of paying a minor fine and yet advancing far in the YC because of a higher number of aged players.  What about forfeiture of the match? 

Brian Beerman on Friday, Nov. 27th, 2009 at 9:47 PM
 
Dont think we really want to open the LOAN PLAYER can of beans do we ? Will be very open to abuse & complicated to police. No I think you should get a 100k fine for each Non youth player(less than 8)that you field. That should be a sufficient deterrent
Dave Dowson on Saturday, Nov. 28th, 2009 at 2:08 AM
 
I agree that level 0 players will need to be played in order to keep up the 8 youth player policy and a fine to boot. As Brian states you cannot allow a team to put more than 3 older players, so the level 0 policy must be introduced first and i would assume that this is easy for Al to write into the program, but hey i am no programmer! Also a fine or automatic disqualification is another thought as suggested i believe by the great Beerman.
Simon Compton on Saturday, Nov. 28th, 2009 at 3:10 AM
 
The loan idea sounds great but brings to mind farm teams, and that surely isn't a route we want to go down. I don't know that the fine should be in play, since bad luck could play a part. Maybe a loss of a couple of levels at DF/MF/FW to reflect loss of morale for breaking the rules? And team to be padded with SL0 players to fill the gaps. Actually, is there anything preventing players from being traded to a team one session and then traded back again the following session? If not, loans are in the game already...
Andy Bate on Monday, Nov. 30th, 2009 at 4:18 AM
 
Andy has a good point there ...."Actually, is there anything preventing players from being traded to a team one session and then traded back again the following session? If not, loans are in the game already..."....I think that needs addressing ASAP
Dave Dowson on Monday, Nov. 30th, 2009 at 3:54 PM
 
I disagree with the assertion by Dave that loans would be unpolicable and the assertion by Andy that there would be farm teams. I'm talking about a system where ONLY SBYs and APPs would be available for loan, and only when it would not allow a team to violate the Youth Cup rules. A team who really moves forward with a youth movement would be afforded the opportunity to get their excess youth players into the Cup matches and teams who get knocked out of the Cup, may have the opportunity to get some of their players into remaining Cup matches. I'm proposing a system that would not have a lot of manager involvement other than for one manager to list players available for loan and another manager listing his team as accepting loan players. I am recommending that the actual loaning of players be done via programming. Forcing an SL 0 player on a team is a penalty, and seems to be a simple solution, I will grant that, however, I'm looking more to the managers who put a lot of planning into their teams and truly recognize the value of youth players. Look at Al and I - in the first 2 seasons, we took some lumps while building up very strong youth squads. Now we're both in D1 with pretty good teams, capable of competing. The way the Youth Cup is architected right now, it really discourages any team from having more than 8 SBY/APPs in any given season. I'd like to see that discouragement changed.
Rob Peterson on Monday, Nov. 30th, 2009 at 4:07 PM
 
Whilst I quite like Rob's idea, it is open to abuse. Team A decides that they'll go down the youth route. They agree with Teams B, C and D to sell their existing older players either to them or the non-league. They now take all of Teams B, C and D's youth players and play them alongside their own youth players. Except in the Youth Cup, when they loan them back to their parent club for the day.
Andy Bate on Monday, Nov. 30th, 2009 at 4:23 PM
 
No, because the managers wouldn't be able to make deals for loans. I'm sorry if I didn't make this clear in my last post.

Manager A marks off on the Transaction page that he is requesting a loan player. Managers B, C and D all mark off the Transaction page the player(s) they are offering for loan. There is no deal struck, and no chance for abuse because the system will come along and automatically make the loan deals based on an algorithm that we create.

I also recommend setting a max number of players that are allowed to be out on loan at any given time (I recommend 4).

Rob Peterson on Monday, Nov. 30th, 2009 at 7:10 PM
 
I'm sorry but I just don't like this Loan player idea at all but that's just my take...However it is interesting to note that no other OLMEC leagues allow Loan players ...I guess for the obvious reasons highlighted by Andy & me
Dave Dowson on Monday, Nov. 30th, 2009 at 8:26 PM
 
What type of compensation would the loaner receive? Money I presume? Would the loanee set a limit they were willing to pay for the borrowed player? I also agree (with some) that loaning is a part of the real game, so why not include it in our simulation. However, it does seem that a lot of thought and preparation would be required to include that functionality. There seem to be numerous scenarios and aspects that could/would work and would thus require a vote from the league (I imagine). Seems a bit much to institute for season four in my opinion. In the interim, I still think the best penalty for not fielding eight youth players in a YC match is disqualification. of the match.
Brian Beerman on Monday, Nov. 30th, 2009 at 8:51 PM
 
How do you decide which team gets rewarded for their Youth development and gets to loan a player? If we actually see a team need a player, and six of us have a possible extra youth player to loan, who gets the nod and the bonus QNL? And how is that fair to the other five teams who could have used that extra QNL just as much only they have to play the App or Sby in a league match now? I'm against the idea of inter-team loaners due far more to the potential injustices inflicted on the teams that are planning and developing well than on the gains/losses for the one team that is apparently lost on the development end.

On the other end, excessive fines probably won't help much. Managers that haven't figured out player development and the 8 youth minimum limit by session 6 also haven't figured out cash management in this league. A 25 or 30k fine gets the point across without killing a team's future chances. Especially if it's per player. Adding an SL 0, Fit 0 player (or an SL 2, Fit -2 permanent player to the roster to get the "0" a different way?) for the match is appropriate.

However, what happens if the roster is already at 30 players? Is this a 'one match only' player that is inserted and then disappears along with the cash from the fine (like a rental fee)? Or will we need to set parameters for retiring/selling a player or players in order to add the youth? If so, I propose:
1) Lowest SL Df, Mf, or Fw.
2) In case of tie on low SL, oldest gets retired first.
3) In case of tie on lowest SL and age, then the deepest of the Df, Mf, Fw areas (most players) loses the player.
4) If still tied, coin flip.
5) Replacement youth is then added to the area that just lost the player.

Kevin Martin on Monday, Nov. 30th, 2009 at 9:12 PM
 
I will also add that I oppose the idea of an automatic forfeit. Upsets and exciting results happen quite a bit in this league. Keeping that alive in every match is good for the league.
The lineup I would play if I was expecting a forfeit in a youth match is a lot different than what I would put out if I anticipated having to fight for a win (such as saving the top players for the league match and putting just scrubs or even all youth in the youth cup match). Make the other team still earn their reward - don't just give it away and bless the team with a 'luck of the draw' QNL and CP boost. If a team can save the top Gk or Fw for the league match instead and not lose Fitness, that potentially impacts an entire division, not just the team that can't be bothered to read and follow the rules.
Kevin Martin on Monday, Nov. 30th, 2009 at 9:20 PM
 
I still like my idea for player loans, but I clearly do not have enough people won over to put any more effort into it. So, I'll drop the notion.
Rob Peterson on Monday, Nov. 30th, 2009 at 10:24 PM
 
To answer Al's original question, and one that Kevin appears to be trying to get back to... =)

I think that if a team is not physically capable of getting to 8 Youth Players then the following should happen:
Repeat until team meets criteria to have a team for the Youth Cup

  1. 50k fine levied
  2. Retire lowest SL, non-youth player
  3. Add 0 SL 0 Fit SBY (start @ DF, then MF, then FW)

If we run in a situation where the team cannot afford such fines, then we probably want to look at removing the manager from the game as he's probably not paying enough attention.

Rob Peterson on Monday, Nov. 30th, 2009 at 10:36 PM
 
For some reason, lists don't like to show up well... My suggestion was this:

Repeat this process until the team meets criteria for Youth Cup: 1) 50k fine levied 2) Retire lowest SL, non-youth player 3) Add SL 0, Fit 0 SBY as a permanent player (start @ DF, then MF, then FW)

Rob Peterson on Monday, Nov. 30th, 2009 at 10:40 PM
 
Kevin...If a team can maintain a high SL level ant keep, let's say, only 5-7 youth players on the roster, what is to keep that coach from taking a one game hit on money and/or a low SL level player in order to throw a few high level aged players on the lineup in a YC match? Might that coach be able to win enough games (along with CP and money) to make it worth the penalties? I know I am only entering my second season in this type of league, so I will certainly defer to those of you with more experience and knowledge. If my scenario is impossible or unlikely due to existing rules, then I agree a fine or player retirement system seems reasonable. Please, anyone, let me know if I am way off target here.
Brian Beerman on Monday, Nov. 30th, 2009 at 11:11 PM
 

If I'm reading Brian's question right, it's why doesn't a manager just take the cash or player hit to play stronger players in a Youth Cup match?

For starters, you have to play at least 8 youth in the Youth Cup matches, so you can't play an extra older and higher SL'd player.  The program will stop you from saving your lineups until 8 youth are listed.  There is no advantage in only keeping 6 or 7 youth players developing to try and advance in the Youth
Cup.

If the question was more for why/how a manager would only have 7 youth players and keep higher level guys on the rest of the roster to win more matches, then the answer is that 23 players at a high SL is not possible to maintain given the CP levels that can be earned.  The most you'll typically see of CP during the season is the low 50's for a session.  And those are not common.  Typically only a few teams managing the three-win session with a 4th draw, and only 3 or 4 times in a season tops.  You'd have to advance deep in every single Cup to come close to that.  Even so, that 50-55 CP per session means at most 3 top line players getting SL in a session, with a bit left over for Fitness or to save up for a 4th in the next session.  If you have 3 age I players needing 5 points each, and the other 8 need +3 SL each, that's 15+24=39 total slots you'd need.  At an A-level star average of 14 SL over ages 1-3, that's 14 x 39 = 546 CP.  Last season, CRD went 25-5-4 and had 29 or 30 players on the roster all season, at least 20 of which were age I+.  Even with that ridiculous luck at winning and playing in 2 Cup finals and the Youth Semis, we only earned around 460-470 CP.  That's well short of the over 500 you'd need to keep a T11 fully SL'd each season, let alone any backup players.  If you spent any points on Fitness (as I had to thanks to the butchers affectionately known as the Second Division last season) then that's another player who can't get maxed out.  9 players on peak level appears to be the practical maximum at this time.

So at least half of a roster of older players will be low SL age IV and V players who have aged gracefully down from their glory days.  If a manager truly wanted to ignore the Youth Cup and focus only on maintaining a top line, he could in theory hoard a bunch of older players to bring in more CP each session.  However, because of the 3 SL limit on raising an age 2+ player each season, the top players are only sustainable through age IV before they fall off too fast to make investing CP in them worthwhile.  In order to restock, a manager either has to be bringing up youth players or buying auction players.  If trying to buy top auction players, you could probably get 2 per season - 3 if you're lucky.  Since you have to replace 3-4 players each year at the age I or II level to keep a team competing for the league title or Cup wins for the cash bonuses, a team has to develop at least 2 youth players each season to supplement what can be bought.

Now could a manager bring up only 2 Sbys and 2 Apps each season and get the rest of the replacements in auction or trades each year?  Right now, that looks possible.  They would lack depth though, which will hurt if injuries or suspensions rear up as the season progresses.  Still, if a manager wanted to do that they could keep old guys on the roster for 5 sessions and then sell off four to sign replacement Apps before the Youth Cup match in session 6.  Once the Youth Cup matches are done, those Apps get sold themselves for 15k each (for the 1 QNL) and if the manager is quick enough they might be able to buy another four old guys from other teams looking to dump space before the Non-League Sale deadline in session 8.

The proposed fine and loss of player (not sale, just loss for the double-whammy!) to make room for the needed youth players would be enough to deter all but the most stubborn managers.  Recall that the only way to earn money is through end-of-season awards.  The rest is pre-set based on division and stays the same regardless of win-loss record.  The little bonus for press/chatter isn't enough to make a dent in a manager's ability to buy a player at auction.  That means that if a team took a 3- or 4-player hit on the fines for the Youth Cup, they would lose money that session.  Managers who have planned out carefully enough to have 23 or 24 older players on the roster to harvest CP with won't be careless enough to throw away an entire session of cash.  It would just be simpler and more worthwhile to sell a player, sign an apprentice for the one match needed, and then dump the guy once out of the Cup.

Kevin Martin on Tuesday, Dec. 1st, 2009 at 11:58 AM
 

Wow, you know a lot more about this stuff than I do.  I think I will gladly accept your logic and press on like a lemming.  Cheers!

Brian Beerman on Tuesday, Dec. 1st, 2009 at 4:54 PM
 

I'd tweak the code to allow managers to add a schoolboy with an SL 0 at any time, but the player cannot ever get above an SL 0. Also, the players' fitness can never rise above or below 0.

John Holden on Tuesday, Dec. 1st, 2009 at 7:50 PM
 

Hi All,

Thanks for the feedback!  A lot of good discussion and some interesting tangents.  

For the aforementioned scenario to occur and require commish intervention...well...a manager would have to work hard to get themselves in this predicament.

Here's what we'll do:

If a team cannot bring up a SBY/APP to meet the requirements of 8 for the Youth Cup matches, the following occurs: 1) 40k fine levied, 2) a 0/0 SBY is added to their team.  This is "per offense", thus if a team needs two players to meet the minimums, their fine is 80k.  Should players need to be retired to get under roster limits, the manager should do that on their own (else the commissioner will do at his discretion).  In theory, this should NEVER happen. 

Section 15.6 in the rules has been updated and a new copy placed online.

Thanks,

Al

 


Allan Sellers on Saturday, Dec. 12th, 2009 at 6:42 PM
 
 
 
Terms and Conditions