NSSports Cricket Discussion Thread (OOC)

[Free South Califas]

Instead of having cumbersome elections I'm more than happy for TBI to rule by decree as the first GCF Test president and for yourself to be the first limited-overs chair.

Presumably we'd just use the name "Global Cricket Federation" as our "ICC". An elite status above GCF Test full member, based on participation and akin to the WCC, might be worth considering though.

I'll second this. If anything, there should be a WCC-like body of which any member can call for nominations/elections - that way, when TBI gets sick of it and/or someone else decides there needs to be a change of pace, we can do that. JMHO.

ETA: Also, I propose "GCF Test" and "GCF Ltd" as the shorthand to describe the two chambers of the organization. The only remaining question is which kicks off as the overall GCF president and when/how-often they will switch in that position.

To clarify, I strongly support TBI and Apox as acting presidents (or delegates, whatever).

ETA, name suggestions: GCF Executive Council (or) GCF Executive Board; this would itself have a Test chamber and a Ltd chamber. Or, GCF Test Board and GCF Limited-over Board. (Substitute Council, Committee, Executive ____, etc.)

[Liventia]

Should we define how one becomes a GCF board/council member?

Presumably this will be a higher status than full ranking member on the Test side. As to become a full member a team needs to have played at least 7 matches over a three-season span, perhaps being a full member in the ranks for two seasons would accord GCF council status? Or do we want to take RP into account too?

On the limited-overs side of things I think RP and squad lists will pretty much form the basis of any criteria.

[The Babbage Islands]

How about three statuses: "Full Member" as defined in the Test cricket ranking scheme, which includes voting status; "Voting Member" for limited-overs cricket, to be defined as roster plus at least one RP in (the last) (the last two) (two of the last three) limited-overs events; "Associate Member", a non-voting status, as defined in the Test cricket ranking scheme. In other words only Test nations are "full members", like RL, but in GCF voters are drawn from the ranks of all active cricketing nations.

[Liventia]

I think that's a start, but you can become a Test full member even without RPing or posting a roster (since your rules currently allow non-RPing candidates to schedule two tests of three each a season for a total of 8 matches), so perhaps that needs to be tightened up.

[The Babbage Islands]

I think that's a start, but you can become a Test full member even without RPing or posting a roster (since your rules currently allow non-RPing candidates to schedule two tests of three each a season for a total of 8 matches), so perhaps that needs to be tightened up.

Agreed. (I note in passing that it takes rather more effort to schedule two Test matches for a season, particularly under the current scheme, than it does to post "In".)

[Arcquest]

Hey everybody.
How may I join the Cricket Federation? GCF as you people call it.

Looking forward to this

[Afalia]

Hey everybody.
How may I join the Cricket Federation? GCF as you people call it.

Looking forward to this

I second this question.

[Apox]

To those asking to join the GCF, it's really simply a question of signing up in the correct thread, although I fear you may be too late for this current season and may have to wait for Season 4 to swing around. However, becoming a GCF member is really achieved through participation, so after you played several matches you can join.

So if everyone's ok with it, shall TBI be the Test president and I the T20/limited overs one? To pick an overall presidents, bear with me whilst I put the two nations names into the T20 xkorinate scorinator...

And TBI wins! So The Babbage Islands shall be the overall president for the first term, with me the vice. In terms of term length, I would suggest maybe after the completion of two T20 and Test tournaments/series before re-election if that sounds good?

Finally, T20 rankings. I'm quite happy to compile them, the main question is what formula would be used to create them? Would it be similar to the World Cup rankings or something else? All questions to consider.

[Liventia]

Given the amount of turnover we seem to have, perhaps limit the formula to the past two WT20 tournaments, rather than past three.

Also, are any there List-A (ODI) plans in the works, or are we happy to stick to just Tests and the WT20 for now?

[Cyborg Holland]

Given the amount of turnover we seem to have, perhaps limit the formula to the past two WT20 tournaments, rather than past three.

Also, are any there List-A (ODI) plans in the works, or are we happy to stick to just Tests and the WT20 for now?

I think it's only logical to have List-A cricket if we have the others.

But what I really want to get going is an IPL-styled thingy, with "franchise" clubs based in various cities competing for one trophy. Thoughts?

[Schmiegelland]

Can I sign up for ODI and T20?

[Liventia]

Can I sign up for ODI and T20?

We don't currently have an ODI tournament; the 3rd World T20 recently finished. However, we are in a Test season and you can sign up as a candidate member here by arranging a series against another country.

[Apox]

Ok, that's a reasonable point, so I'll create rankings at some point based on the past two tournaments and put that into the OP, along with the Presidents.

If wanted, I'm happy to open sign-ups for an ODI style tournament, although not yet and only if it's really wanted as ODI is probably my least favourite format. (It seems like an unnecessary blending of T20 and Test to me.)

However, I support Cy's point of creating a NS version of the IPL, something I've been behind since the re-emergence of cricket here in August.

[Cyborg Holland]

However, I support Cy's point of creating a NS version of the IPL, something I've been behind since the re-emergence of cricket here in August.

OK, some feeler questions:

1) How would team allocation work, would a nation enter one franchise, two perhaps?
2) How would player allocation work? Like the IPL, or the NFL? Would their be restrictions?
3) General Format? A league, like the IPL, or groups like the Champions Trophy? Something Else?

[Cotdelapoms]

However, I support Cy's point of creating a NS version of the IPL, something I've been behind since the re-emergence of cricket here in August.

OK, some feeler questions:

1) How would team allocation work, would a nation enter one franchise, two perhaps?
2) How would player allocation work? Like the IPL, or the NFL? Would their be restrictions?
3) General Format? A league, like the IPL, or groups like the Champions Trophy? Something Else?

Perhaps a situation like the WGPC, where nations create the teams and/or a bunch of players and then can decide on the squads from there? Some of the nations that are near the top of the ladder in the GCF can provide a lot of players, whereas some other nations can be limited to one or two?

[Cyborg Holland]

OK, some feeler questions:

1) How would team allocation work, would a nation enter one franchise, two perhaps?
2) How would player allocation work? Like the IPL, or the NFL? Would their be restrictions?
3) General Format? A league, like the IPL, or groups like the Champions Trophy? Something Else?

Perhaps a situation like the WGPC, where nations create the teams and/or a bunch of players and then can decide on the squads from there? Some of the nations that are near the top of the ladder in the GCF can provide a lot of players, whereas some other nations can be limited to one or two?

That's like an International IPL, which was what I was going for. Considering, however, that the GCF rankings only contains 12 teams plus 5 AS/CA teams, then I couldn't really serious limits imposed on the lower teams.

Here's my basic plan, what I'd do if I had total control (which I don't )

• Each team has 7 players from their own country in the starting XI
• Each team has 4 international players, none from the same country
• Each country puts 2-6 players into the International Players Pool
• Some sort of auction/selection system is done to allocate IPP players to teams

You could either use your international players, or just invent random ones, but I'm not sure how to do the whole IPP selection thingy

[Apox]

Perhaps a situation like the WGPC, where nations create the teams and/or a bunch of players and then can decide on the squads from there? Some of the nations that are near the top of the ladder in the GCF can provide a lot of players, whereas some other nations can be limited to one or two?

That's like an International IPL, which was what I was going for. Considering, however, that the GCF rankings only contains 12 teams plus 5 AS/CA teams, then I couldn't really serious limits imposed on the lower teams.

Here's my basic plan, what I'd do if I had total control (which I don't )

• Each team has 7 players from their own country in the starting XI
• Each team has 4 international players, none from the same country
• Each country puts 2-6 players into the International Players Pool
• Some sort of auction/selection system is done to allocate IPP players to teams

You could either use your international players, or just invent random ones, but I'm not sure how to do the whole IPP selection thingy

Yep, that would work. Maybe have only countries who have participated in past GCF's/T20's being able to create teams, with the above rules, and then members with no past participation being able to submit players like you can for the F1.

EDIT: And would prefer a league format type thing, but with a team max number (such as 16 teams perhaps?)

[Birolika]

I'll be honest I'd prefer a more traditional league format for cricket OR a cup format like the T20 in England, but cricket's cricket I guess so I'd be up for it and would prefer an IPL system to a format not originally used for cricket (because tradition ).

[Cyborg Holland]

That's like an International IPL, which was what I was going for. Considering, however, that the GCF rankings only contains 12 teams plus 5 AS/CA teams, then I couldn't really serious limits imposed on the lower teams.

Here's my basic plan, what I'd do if I had total control (which I don't )

• Each team has 7 players from their own country in the starting XI
• Each team has 4 international players, none from the same country
• Each country puts 2-6 players into the International Players Pool
• Some sort of auction/selection system is done to allocate IPP players to teams

You could either use your international players, or just invent random ones, but I'm not sure how to do the whole IPP selection thingy

Yep, that would work. Maybe have only countries who have participated in past GCF's/T20's being able to create teams, with the above rules, and then members with no past participation being able to submit players like you can for the F1.

EDIT: And would prefer a league format type thing, but with a team max number (such as 16 teams perhaps?)

That's a good idea, and I think we can set a 16 team limit, as I don't think we'll get any more participants than that. But what I'm really wanting to figure out is how to do player allocation? Any ideas?

[Licentiapacisterra]

Yep, that would work. Maybe have only countries who have participated in past GCF's/T20's being able to create teams, with the above rules, and then members with no past participation being able to submit players like you can for the F1.

EDIT: And would prefer a league format type thing, but with a team max number (such as 16 teams perhaps?)

That's a good idea, and I think we can set a 16 team limit, as I don't think we'll get any more participants than that. But what I'm really wanting to figure out is how to do player allocation? Any ideas?

An NFL-style draft, maybe ??

[Cyborg Holland]

That's a good idea, and I think we can set a 16 team limit, as I don't think we'll get any more participants than that. But what I'm really wanting to figure out is how to do player allocation? Any ideas?

An NFL-style draft, maybe ??

But how would order players? And the teams that get first picks?

[Licentiapacisterra]

An NFL-style draft, maybe ??

But how would order players? And the teams that get first picks?

I'd go with some kind of lottery to see who gets the first picks.

[Cyborg Holland]

But how would order players? And the teams that get first picks?

I'd go with some kind of lottery to see who gets the first picks.

Maybe, but there's no real OOC discerning about how good certain players are, so it wouldn't really matter who wins.

[Darmen]

Assign each player a number, than release a list of the players with their numbers for public view. Teams would then be required to list the players in order of their preference (or would have a random series of numbers set for them if they don't send in their preference), and then you have a draft, with teams given random picking orders. For instance:

Player Pool
1. Player A (XYZ)
2. Player B (XYZ)
3. Player C (XYZ)
4. Player D (ABC)
5. Player E (ABC)
6. Player F (ABC)

Team 1's Preference: 4/5/2/3/1/6
Team 2's Preference: 1/6/5/2/3/4

Team 1 picks first, getting player 4. Team 2 picks second, getting player 1. Then Team 1 gets player 5, Team 2 player 6. In the third round, Team 1 gets player 2, while Team 2 gets player 3, since both players 2 and 5 have already been selected. Of course you could also have teams exchange places in the draft order so that Team 1 picks first in Round 1, but last in Round 2, and first again in Round 3.

[Cyborg Holland]

Assign each player a number, than release a list of the players with their numbers for public view. Teams would then be required to list the players in order of their preference (or would have a random series of numbers set for them if they don't send in their preference), and then you have a draft, with teams given random picking orders. For instance:

Player Pool
1. Player A (XYZ)
2. Player B (XYZ)
3. Player C (XYZ)
4. Player D (ABC)
5. Player E (ABC)
6. Player F (ABC)

Team 1's Preference: 4/5/2/3/1/6
Team 2's Preference: 1/6/5/2/3/4

Team 1 picks first, getting player 4. Team 2 picks second, getting player 1. Then Team 1 gets player 5, Team 2 player 6. In the third round, Team 1 gets player 2, while Team 2 gets player 3, since both players 2 and 5 have already been selected. Of course you could also have teams exchange places in the draft order so that Team 1 picks first in Round 1, but last in Round 2, and first again in Round 3.

But if you have a large number of teams, this could rapdily become very hard to do indeed...