I'm good with all that except playoff teams should still be able to bid on regular FAs, excluding the mandatory cuts of course. Determining the cuts is still up in the air but I'm not so big on the exp because no one is going to cut a rookie with an 85 rating to begin with. Just keep in mind the dead cap incurred for the mandatory cuts too

Of course they can bid on the others. These rules are strictly for the players that are released..also would need to enforce this keeping track..or do it publicly have a thread for the owners to post their players..just ideas..

i agree that years on the team would be better than exp years..exactly no one is gonna cut a stud rookie. (Hoping everyone here knows better lol)

Personally, I don't think any team should have a right to the players that are cut. How would that bring balance? If 4 teams or 8 teams or 12 teams have to cut one/two players, those teams are already aiding in balancing the League by losing players.

I'm afraid that one of the "middle-of-the-road" teams would get one or more of these players and become a powerhouse in place of the teams that won their conferences the previous year. Then you would just have a revolving door of power teams. I don't like that idea at all. Not if you are seeking balance within the League.

These weaker teams are already getting higher draft picks. Should they benefit also by gaining key players that hit FA due to cuts? I don't like it.

That's just my two cents.

CR

I don't much care for the proposed Rule referring to playing a game every 24 hours......I'm in ten Leagues, I need these (brake) days to tend other teams. Not all of us are in only two leagues.

I oppose this.

I'm in 23 leagues but I wouldn't mind 24 hours or even every 12 hours :p

I really want to keep preseason at 4 games, I learn a lot about my team in preseason. Also I posted my thoughts on player cuts on the other thread. The FA proposals sound good though I like longer but 3-2 isn't too short. And I love the idea of sped up draft, even doing it all in one day would be awesome as you would only have to dedicate one day to be online drafting. rather than 4 days scheduled around the draft. That would also make trading easier as everyone is on then.

Well obviously, you have waaay too much time on your hands and live alone.

instead of having the top teams
cut 2 top players....
...how about reducing their
roster from 53 to 46 for the
following year ?
...result would be
1/ teams could choose who they cut
2/ 46 man roster teams would have more injuries
3/ more free agents to bid on by 53 man teams

I could see 51 but 46 is just way too low and absolutely will cripple some teams, especially in dead cap most likely unable to carry mid level high bonus ex starters. That would be enough to make me want to quit.

cut two top players or reduce roster size
...that is the question..

if you are an owner...
...what would you rather do ?

...what should the roster size number be
reduced to...
...46 too harsh? ...51 not harsh enough ?