MSWL UNITEDMSWL U2 TMBL MSWL The Manager
Saturday, February 24th, 2018 - 08:22:41 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
2 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 Cup Penalty Revisited
Posted by Allan Sellers on Friday, Jan. 15th, 2010 at 2:57 AM

 

Moving the comments over here based on the initial thoughts from Brian on the forum (and Mr. Holden's followup):

1) To be blunt, in MSWL UNITED, its not a smart move to not want to be in a Youth Cup game where you can, well, play your Youth Cup team.  I make fun of people from time to time in the match comments about that in 'normal games'.  

But the reality is, no youth program = bad team.  There's no way around that in this league.  So I see the Youth Cup as something everyone wants a game out of, if not more.  There may be nuances on "more than 1 game", but again I'm hard pressed to find them.  It means that 'your best players' who hopefully aren't your SBY/APPs can play the other 2 (or more) games.

2) Forfeits and disqualifications.  In principle its not a bad idea.  In practice, its not a workable one for me.  What happens if one team forfeits?  Does the other team get/not get credit for an SBY/APP appearance?  Do the non-playing teams get an advantage with the lack of potential injuries/bookings?

3) So following along with point 2...if we did introduce a "forfeit rule" its actually a lot more work for me to integrate including all the basic what-ifs in number 2 above FIT, injuries, suspensions, QNL credit...in addition to those I haven't thought of.  So we can't do that.  

To sum up.  The rule is simply in place as a consequence of what might happen if a team sold off all their SBY/APP players and didn't plan for the Youth Cup.  Per my comment in the rules: "In theory this should NEVER happen".  And it shouldn't.  It didn't the first three seasons...and with the rule/penalty in place it shouldn't in the future either.  But, at times, the rules need to reflect what would happen if someone didn't comply so that someone wouldn't get some sort of advantage.

I know Dave Dowson, BRE is running foul of the rules right now.  Well, we'll be adding two Youth to resolve that.  Unfortunately it won't be enough as we face MSWL UNITED's best Youth Cup manager this week in the form of Sir Rob Peterson.  

 
Although is it just me or should Dancin' Dave be throwing in a 200k gift card with the APP/6 player to get to the 475 purchase price?  
 
Al
 
PS: This post is not to close discussion (so Brian, if you have follow-ups, please make them)...just wanted to clarify where I'm at on this issue.

Readers Comments

Al...

Thanks for the response to my posting.  I am glad I put my thoughts out there because I truly believed it would be easier to code the forfeiture than what is currently in place.  Once I read your points on why that is actually more difficult, I can see the current penalty system seems the best and least complex approach at this time.

I personally enjoy building the youth players as much as, if not more than, the aged players; there is a sense of accomplishment you don't get with the I-V players.

Thanks to the league for humoring my follow up on this issue.

Prost,

Brian

Brian Beerman on Friday, Jan. 15th, 2010 at 12:19 PM
 

I agree with Brian about  #2. The disqualification approach is more realistic. So how about if the team with less than 8 youth players is disqualified and its opponent team immediately gets a win. We can choose an arbitrary score of 1-0 plus the credit for SBYs and APPs.  The disqualified team doesn't get any injuries or bookings.

But if this seems more complicated to code for Allan, we'll settle for the current rule.

Abe Hamdali on Friday, Jan. 15th, 2010 at 12:48 PM
 

Abe...

I think you and I are in the minority when it comes to this subject.  Still, just to talk it through in theory only:

  • Score of the game would have to be 0-0
  • SBY/APP's for the "winning" team would get credit for playing in a match (e.g. QNL, FIT)
  • SBY'APP's for disqualified team would get no credit for that match

Still just talking theory, especially since I understand you have to code this Al and it's more work than it is probably worth.

Brian Beerman on Friday, Jan. 15th, 2010 at 1:23 PM
 

When considering what is 'realistic,' you'd have to also consider that any team who played in a real league and failed to field an acceptable team for a Cup match would face monster fines from the league offices and severe penalties elsewhere in terms of lost gate and concession revenue from that match, possible loss of sponsorships, massive media backlash, reduced sales in merchandise for all but the most die-hard fans (who already have all the stuff they need anyway), etc. etc.  So any simple forfeit by itself cannot take into account all of that.  For gameplay purposes, going off what is 'realistic' here won't help much.  In United, there are a different set of variables to account for:

Every match impacts both teams' chances of winning in the following session and beyond.  Cases in point:

Suspensions can occur in any match even if not playing hardness

Injuries can occur in any match when not playing hardness by either team

Sby/Apps have to take the field to get experience to get their SL up

A player appearing in a 3rd match (4th if GK) will lose one FIT after the match is done

Winning teams get 10 CP and drawing teams get 5 CP, which directly influence fitness and SL as the season moves along

Any consideration of a forfeit would have to account for all of those (and others, anyone?).  For example, Brian proposes the draw as a result.  So the team that forfeited still gets 5 CP?  And the other team gets cheated out of a chance to earn 10 CP for a win instead of just 5 CP for the draw?  Or you shift to the 1-0 win as a match result so the CP issue gets worked out.  Sort of, for now the other team gets handed 10 CP they didn't really earn?  The 'unfairness alarm' is starting to go off in my head.  Also, for the game programming purposes, who gets the shot and score so the database matches up?  There isn't a "team goal" column to slide it into.  Further, Sby/Apps get credit for playing, but does a team's 3 older players still lose FIT if that would have been the 3rd match they appeared in that session, even though they didn't actually play?

And how do you account for that "winning" team and forfeiting team not risking injuries/suspensions like the other 28 teams will be doing, which could directly impact league results in the following session (as suspensions typically hurt worst in the first game or two of a session when the player is actually out)?  Is there a way to balance out that gift they were just given so that the league competitions are not unduly influenced?

As Al says, I'm not trying to shut down the conversation here.  I'm writing out what comes to mind as issues that the current system accounts for that a forfeit does not.  Any forfeiture system needs to at least take a stab at those points, so Abe and Brian can put the brain trust together and see what they come up with!

Kevin Martin on Friday, Jan. 15th, 2010 at 5:51 PM
 

Haha, Kevin, I like that response.  You are far and away the most prolific writer and knowledgable participant in this league from my perspective.

I think after the points you and others have made, it seems best to maintain the status quo regarding this issue.  My brain is very tired now and I must rest in preparation for four matches during tomorrow's session.

Best of luck to all...except Hereford in our YC match.

Brian Beerman on Friday, Jan. 15th, 2010 at 7:08 PM
 

Yes, I agree as well. It seems that Kevin covered all aspects of the pros and cons of the potential rule changes.  Thanks ...Kevin. Allan is doing a fine job for us already and we sure don't want him to feel obligated to do any unecessary changes.  -Cheers!
 

Abe Hamdali on Friday, Jan. 15th, 2010 at 7:28 PM
 

I am going to say that if a team does not show up for their match then it makes sense that the team will not be at risk of injuries or suspensions.  I think since we are only referring to the Youth Cup that the one game the forfeiting team "rests" their players is hardly worth the loss which means the following:

  • no CP gained
  • no QNL credit
  • FIT as if the match was played/no gain in FIT (could be a coding issue here)
  • no goals scored and I think the forfeit score should be 5-0
  • humiliation from the rest of the league (optional)

The team will be out of the Youth Cup and this situation won't have to be dealt with more than once a season.  The team getting the "BYE" will definitely not be risking injury/suspension either and in that team's case it is fair.  Pretty sure we're all competitive so no team should just lay down for another team plus the bulleted points above are a big hit.

Rob Baptiste on Sunday, Jan. 17th, 2010 at 5:09 AM
 

I'm afraid I'm firmly in the camp that thinks that forfeiture is a really bad idea since it doesn't achieve much and would require Al to do an awful lot of programming, especially to deal with giving appearances to youth players (and who says a team will only have seven youth players?).  Otherwise if I'm a coach who gets through without playing I'm going to be really miffed that my youth players missed out on the golden opportunity that is the Youth Cup.  And I won't have played them in other games that session because I didn't know that the other team weren't going to turn up.  (Not turning up could become a deliberate tactic to really harm someone's youth development, by the way.)

Andy Bate on Thursday, Jan. 21st, 2010 at 11:36 AM
 

Since we're considering "what if" scenarios that in all likelihood will never happen...

How would the forfeiture system work if BOTH teams failed to have 8 youth players?  Would the program have to give out two losses for the same match?  And then a team next session gets a "bye" because an odd number of teams advanced, which is not a benefit because they don't get to play the youth in a match and get no CP?

Kevin Martin on Thursday, Jan. 21st, 2010 at 6:14 PM
 

Following inline with theoretical train...I imagined all these forfeiture scenarios would still allow the "winning" team (i.e. the one who fielded a full youth squad) to still receive CP and QNL.

If both teams had to forfeit, then yes, the next team would get a bye and receive 10CP for the"win" as well as QNL for those players entered into their lineup for that session's match.

I'm just saying....

Brian Beerman on Thursday, Jan. 21st, 2010 at 6:38 PM
 

I'm no programmer... oh wait, I am one... but I would think the IF scenario is fairly simple.

As Brian indicated, I would not dream of voting for a forfeiture is the team that does shows up and adheres to the rules would lose out on ANY thing.  The only loss for the winning team would be the opportunity to pummel the other team.  Real-life scenario... I don't know... maybe they scrimmage with each other therefore they still get the appearance (QNL credit).  

Everything would be as a played game except there is a predetermined score and no penalty/injuries - since the other team in essence never takes the field.  CP for the win, QNL for APPs and SBYs, even FIT lost if the 3rd game if everyone really wants that also.  To me it makes sense that the injuries, penalties and other in-game aspects get lost because in fact no match was played - seems to be the more realistic approach to me.  NOTE: I do not actually watch soccer to often so perhaps I'm way off on how things are handled.  Just "hard-code" all the values - the winning team DOES lost the ability to build/pad stats but hey they're absolutely avoiding injuries and suspensions.  Granted a no hardness style team is unlikely to worry about such things.

Rob Baptiste on Saturday, Jan. 23rd, 2010 at 9:20 PM
 
 
 
Terms and Conditions