Hats off to Barry for even suggesting changes might be allowed!

It COULD mean almost twice as much work EVERY week - Shrews was always more precious than me about the 'first entry only' element but I do feel that it is a fundamental part of game. Managers have to make the choice of whether or not to get in early or wait for late team news, however - it is only in the Cup that this can even be a factor in the result. I assume if changes were allowed, the time the last line-up was received would be the time used for determining results?
Personally, I always select my initial line-up early in the week before finalising it on a Friday. I could easily send it off to Barry just in case my PC dies on Friday. So there is some mileage there. Perhaps the 'draft' email/PM could be sent, but Barry doesn't read it unless no 'final' selections are received?



Only the other suggestion, regards a predetermined line up as Barry suggests, the big drawback with that is managers anticipating being up against a no-show, could easily work out their opponent's team and tweak their's accordingly. I suppose though, that if you really want to, you can do that now.

Totally random doesn't work for me as one week it could be a great line up and the next it could be a complete dog. Similar in that way to how it could turn out done now.

How about Barry picks a team each week (before seeing anyone else's selections), and this is used for anyone who doesn't pick? The no-show would get no points of course, but his opponent would get a fair game - not a difficult one though, it's Barry remember....!!
If it was me, I wouldn't pick the very best line-up that I could, but intentionally make it no more than 'above average', although what that is would be open to interpretation!


Good luck with this one Baz!!

I suggested this on the weekly thread after a lot of no-shows:

I have an idea for the 'what to do if people don't enter' discussion.
Firstly, the decision should penalise the player who doesn't enter - and the current rule that the player loses does that. So really we are just talking about what to do to make it fair for that persons opponent and the wider league.

I don't mind the 'lowest value players' approach and there is always an element of luck in this game - who really picked Sidibe at £0.1m last week as anything other than to free up some cash? - but that doesn't happen very often.

One alternative idea would be to take it in turns picking a 'no-show' team. If someone didn't turn up they'd automatically be given this team. It would give Barry very little extra to do, the no-show would still lose (as now and above). It would however give the opponent half a game and keep the league fair.
I'd suggest making the maximum value of the team lower - something like £15m. That would save lower league teams being pummelled by the picks of an experienced Premier player, and ensure that the no-show team required a different tactic to the picker's main team.

Could it work?

good stuff so far guys. Remember it's OUR game, not mine, so I'm keen to hear from all that has an opinion, either on here or by pm if that suits better.

Don't like this one at all, would just cause even more no-shows in the lower leagues!

Most of the others seem reasonable enough though - what do you think of my team change bonus idea that each player could use once in a season, that would be less extra work than some of the other options?

aye, fair point.

I think it's one that can be included in the discussion but making it a bonus adds its own complications - can't play against the leader etc etc, or you already played a bonus but need/want to make a change...

Is there any evidence that no-show incidence increases proportionately the lower down the leagues you go?
If not, this would penalise newer* players for collective sins


*for newer, read less experienced for whatever reason

62134

can't speak for previous seasons but so far this season no shows per league are....

prem -4
champ -3
1 -1
2 -2
conf -6

Is there agreement that the no-show team should be more competitive than the current rules produce? Don't want to assume that this is a given.

A couple of other thoughts:

Rather than keeping the players from last week how about keeping the positions from last week (the fifth defence, the second striker and so on)? Might be too predictable though.

The no-show team is made up of the most popular picks that produce a team within budget.

I don't like different entery dates or extra money for early submission. Everything I feel should be on a level playing field.
Things like default line ups etc for non shows are a good idea but a good part of this game is that it's interactive and if we allow default line ups then it doesn't really deter no-shows

This season in particular (and our Division more specifically) has highlighted this. The top 2 both played against the same noshow whereas the chasing teams for promotion and the playoff palyed the same player when they did show. This put the top 2 (which included me) at an unfair advnatage. OK we still had to win but it's easier.


We don't want to make the noshow team too strong as it then penalises the "innocent" party.
Maybe each week barry picks a player at random and all nonshows just get that team? (without the bonuses)
Onnce the deadline is passed then he reveals who the random player is

I like this idea!
Barry would have to tweak it a bit if it turned out to be over budget or having players from the same team, but that shouldn't be too arduous. That would make it less predictable as well - and it's only predictable if you suspect for some reason that your oppo will no-show; same as with any other method really.

I can't see far past this idea. We're agreed that a) the non-picker should lose and b) that the opponent should still have to fight for the win. It would take Barry (in all his wisdom and experience ) no time to pick a slightly reduced-value (or even full value) team to act as the replacement. In fact, I'm sure it would take less effort than it does currently with having to "fix" a team from a previous week.

Can I ask why having multiple entries is a bad thing? In the Sharp Shooters, I accept amended entries up to the deadline but I don't put any of them into my spreadsheet until after the deadline has passed.

So if I process them newest first, and I come acrosss an entry from some-one who is already in the spreadsheet, I just ignore it (on the grounds it was superceded by the one I've already recorded).

Is FISODAS done differently from this?

maybe cos you've not got 50 teams every week

I would have to wait till friday midnight to start putting the teams in going by that method - and as much as I love the game I'm not staying up till 2am putting the teams in

SP was suggesting we take it in turns to pick an extra team for no-shows; you're saying Barry does it I think?
Which do you agree with?

I can't see going to the trouble of selecting random pickers adds anything? What if the person selected no-shows, do we have a standby?! We know Barry will turn up every week!
It also gives an element of consistency to the selecting (consistently poor! ). The other way, you could be up against the Prem leader one week and bottom of the conf the next.

Sorry, I mis-read it, but in a good way. My thinking was that it would be Barry doing it, as you suggest. As I said, I think it would take less of his time to do it this way and would make every match count. Random/selected pickers would just add problems rather than take them away.

He could even do it retrospectively for this season just to make it fair...

Great call!

Barry!!

I think this is the answer It'll be a lot quicker me picking a team than arsing around with the spreadsheet making teams "fit"....

so, we're here

any no-shows loses the game, loses bonus if it's 2nd no show as usual, but instead of last weeks team their opponents face a team selected by me.

finer details to sort out......

value - full 20 or a reduced total - 18, 15??
when - do I have to have "my" team selected first or does it not matter?

anything else we need to think about?

Now we're getting somewhere.

value - full 20 or a reduced total - 18, 15??

My preference would be the full 20 as this is a fairer reproduction of what the missing team might have had.

when - do I have to have "my" team selected first or does it not matter?

I think it should be decided on before you start receiving teams so there's no chance of bias creeping in (not that I'm suggesting it would ). Is this what you meant?

This could form an interesting side game: the Barry League. How many times can you beat people over the season.

even if I wanted to be biased I don't think I'd have time to! but I think you're right, I have to pick my team first.

I agree with the good Doctor!


I think you should come up with a system for selecting your line up though, and not spend ages trying to get the best one you can each week.

The details will have to be worked out by yourself of course to stop us predicting the line-up!

Perhaps divide the defences into three by value and avoid the top third for example. Same king of thing with the strikers - divide into five groups of ten and select one from each section maybe? Select the strikers first, see what's left for a defence and select the median from those available?

It's going to be fun!
'Would I have Beaten Barry' side game!!

Seems good to me and gets the "Surprised Seal of Approval" although that probably destroys it's credibility!

Pick team first
value up to 20m
no bonuses
other normal rules apply

See I knew sense would prevail in the end, just took you lot a while to get there

Fair point

I'll chuck an idea in here even though a lot of you hate the idea of new bonuses!!!!!

New bonus

Chairman's gamble

Based on the fact chairman put their clubs into massive debt for success the pitch.
Budget increased to 22M BUT the opposing player is given a one goal start.

As long as I wouldn't be forced to use it
But then maybe I'm unusually sensitive to the risks of chairmen running up huge debts this month? (never thought I'd be saying thank you to Mandaric so gratefully!)

Not enough extra money to tempt you? Increase it then.........or is it a total duffer?

To be quite honest, I don't like it, but if the majority want's it I'm happy to play within the rules!

I'd prefer the one goal start. You can have 22m every time.

I'm happy enough for you all to brainstorm, but as I don't feel there is anything wrong with the current bonuses, or the number of bonuses available, I won't be looking to change any of these bonuses...... unless you all tell me otherwise!

I will have a re-read other this thread though!