We are in danger of losing the value of OTF.

Currently we have 8 teams on 10 OTF and 3 on 9. Not a great deal considering we have 48 teams.

I looked at 5 teams (with 10otf) @ random and NONE of them had used Ball as a tactic.
I know it also depends on the MF if you are to use Ball , but I am concerned that we are drifting away from OTF and possibly Ball as a tactic. A short while back we lost Finesse
which very few people used as they did NOT get to grips with.

Early Cross was rarely used until someone!!!!!! showed us how it worked. So now we have a league wich is using basically 3 tactics (to WIN) N, E & L.

I would like to propose a reduction in the OTF loss which is currently 30% to 20% .

With the current trend of CP being the same value as TP and managers not using CP on OTF we are in danger of losing OTF as of any VALUE and Ball as a tactic.

I would not like to see the league reduced to teams playing Long or Early all the time.

I have to agree with Robin. I must say that with CP in such short supply this season I have not even contemplated using 6 to up my OTF back to 10. Which is something I used to do automatically in PSFA & when I first joined SESL.
I agree about the end of season loss being reduced to 20% & I would go one step further & reduce the amount of CP used to up OTF 1 point to 1 from the current 2 !
Just done an analysis of Division 1 club tactics & only 3 teams have used Ball Control at all this season Rangers,QOS & Falkirk:
RAN = 14%
QOS =5%
FAL = 8%
Which when divided amongst the sixteen div 1 teams gives a % of around 0.5%
Which confirms Robins fears!

The first thing I did at INV was bring the OTF from 6 to 10 and I'm wondering if this was a mistake.

I always had it at 10 for PT even though early on there I was a EC team.

I completely ignored OTF and SET on PSFA as I had a LB or EC side there.

On Flatnz, I use the 3 pre-season games to get back to 10 OTF and my first league match was an all ball control game. But tactics are more important in Flatnz than on the other leagues as the SL level is traditionally lower.

Now back to SESL. I have brought the OTF up to 10, but I have yet to send out a BC team, two sessions ago I sent out a Press team from the start of the game instead of a BC team because the area stats from BC aren't good enough over BC or N to justify often. I don't expect to bring the OTF back up next season if I'm still in charge of INV as a result.

OTF doesn't have to be used for Ball Control.

Increasing OTF from 7 to 10 costs 6 CP and will increase DEF by 6 if Stalling, OFF by 6 if Pressing, or both by 3 if Normal.

6 CP on a FW (or maybe two) will increase OFF by 6
6 CP on a WG will increase OFF by 7.8 to 11.4
6 CP on a MF will increase DEF by 3 and OFF by 4.5 (unless L or E)
6 CP on a DF will increase GP by 3 or 3.6, DEF by 6 and OFF by 1.5 or 1.2 (mostly)
6 CP on a SW will increase GP by 6 and DEF by 6 (or 9 vs L or E)

All will have a better chance of scoring; 12% for a FW but this could mean an increase from 30% to 42% which is 40% better.

A decent age 2 player will lose 2 SL at mid-season and 4 at the end of the season. OTF will lose the same amount of CP. Of course age 3 or higher players will lose more.

Where OTF is better is that it's available every game (not just 2 out of 3), it doesn't age at mid-season, and you can get those 6 CP added in 3 games instead of 6.

In the past I've always got OTF back up to 10 but this season I'm more an Early Cross team and CP is in short supply for me (my choice as I traded 18 CP away). However I disagree that the league will become all Early Cross as it is quite easy to counter.

I wouldn't have a problem with a 20% rather than 30% loss but I think 1 CP for an increase of 1 OTF is too far.

How about increase OTF maximum to 15 or 20.

Or offer 'OTF boost' to teams doing well int he Cup (rather than offer financial rewards as suggested). Winner get +4OTF, runner up +3OTF, both semi finalists get +2OTF

Leave this rule alone! It works just fine for those that use it. Altering it to suit the needs of those NOT currently using doesn't seem right. It is an EXCELLENT counter to L and E when used correctly. I have built my team around this concept and will be greatly disadvantaged by "opening it up" with reduced resources.

There needs to be a resource allocation decision associated with CP expense. You shouldn't be able to increase OTF without contemplating a cost to resources in terms of training. If you don't have enough CP for OTF, it is because you made a conscious decision to coach players instead. Nothing wrong with that. But OTF shouldn't be a "right." You have to allocate limited resources to attain it.

Great Healthy debate going on here.
As usual Steve"Mr Stats' Turner has come up with some compelling figures
Thanks Steve!

I agree with Phil keep it as it is. Nearly 25% of managers are using it to near the maximum so the reward/penalty is probably about right.

The effectiveness of OTF has reduced over the seasons as SL averages continues to rise, and therefore it's importance is somewhat dimished.

Jackie's suggestion of increasing the maximum seems a good one to me so that the OTF keeps pace with rising SL. Say to 12?

Or alternatively consider ways to reducie the amount of resources gradually over 2-3 seasons which will make OTF more attractive again. Perhaps free TP at the start of the season down to 30 and 10% increase in CP costs?

Finally Robin I hope that you are not suggesting a rule change becaues only 25% of manages use it to the maximum, because only 2% of players are passive... ;-)

The use of OTF is all in the hands of a manager. I had not a lot of cash to start with this season, so I decided to only coach players this season. At the start of next season, I will have the much needed amount of cash available next season to start working on my OTF.

So I think that the rules should not be changed.

Seeing as Stewart has brought this up on the blog again, and only because he has.

Trouble is 4 OTF = 8 CP.

Most teams will buy 35 CP for 1500k. Giving the finalists 6 or 8 CP is like letting them buy 41 or 43 CP for 1500k. But 40 CP costs 2000k so this is over 500k reward.

Yes I know it's a reward for winning something but the 4 teams that won today will pick up around 200k+ for the semi-finals and the two winners there another 100k for the final (based on one free TP or CP slot).

Isn't that enough reward?

Forfar, who aren't having a great league season, have picked up 1557k in gate money and more to come from the Cecil Cup. Deveronvale have 1270k.

Offer 'OTF boost' to teams doing well in the Cup is maybe more to deal with the sudden apparent lack of OTF investment, moreso than a financial/resource reward for Cup success.

I would maybe offer 1 OTF to semi finalists, 2 OTF to runner up, and 3 OTF to Cup winners.

The aim to to preserve OTF as a viable option, as otherwise we may as well scrap OTF if only a handful out of 48 managers are making any use of this.

If the relative value of OTF is being reduced by playing against higher skilled teams, then it might be an idea to increase it's maximum, although I wouldn't go as far as a 150% or 200% increase.
Maybe bring it up to 12, a 20% increase.
However, if you could bear in mind, it is costing those managers with high SL teams more CPs to maintain them at this lvl, which is of course, the whole point of the aging tables.
Therefore, relatively speaking, it is actually quite cheap for them to maintain OTF, compared to the amount they invest in their team.
Also, one of the main points about OTF only being viable for a selection of tactics is to provide managers with a choice. Decisions, decisions.
They have to make a decision. Shall I always use EC or LB? Shall i sometimes use N, P, Op, etc, etc. Should I hold OTF at 7, 10, ignore it?

It could scarcely be denied, although I'm sure someone will try :-), that a given team with a particular set of players , but 1 OTF, is unlikely to win more matches than an identical team with an OTF of 10.
It's in the rules, and it is still viable, but managers have to choose to use it or not.

A little like the difference between having a SW in the team not.
Pros and Cons, ups and downs, swings and roundabouts.
Let the Managers manage.

I still feel this rule should be left alone. It's a resource management issue. If you want OTF, budget for it at the outset of the season. Too many rewards for too many accomplishments. Some managers seem to want resource handouts for tying their shoes in the morning...

Also, in essence, winning needs to be it's own reward. Okay, you won the Cup and you got extra revenue in the process. In addition, you want extra resources to make it easier to repeat the feat? We say nay---it's back into the heap with you! Scrap your way to the front like everyone else!

Phil,

What about changing the OFF bonus from BC upwards?

Three seasons ago the EC bonus was massively changed, LB bonus has been changed in the past 4 seasons as well, downwards. LB is still very attractive as a tactic, but EC was not before and it is now.

I agree with you that OTF is a choice and a balance issue with managing resources so shouldn't be made easy for everyone. You will notice that I have OTF 10 here and in Flatnz.

But what do you think about making BC stronger?

EC hasn't changed since I've been in SESL. It was increased a long time ago from the current Flatnz level (and L was changed then as well but has gone back).