League Forums

Because one back-up at each position puts you at 44-man roster. That leaves you 5 spots left for (serviceable players) at any position you desire.

I will say that I am more for this suggestion than the idea of cutting a top player and letting the lesser teams have a "bidding war" for them. This idea "sounds" like it would be exciting during the offseason, but I don't like the idea of losing the Cap space or the player. I understand that whomever signs the guy will have to pay a boatload, but that may end up damaging them as well in the long run. Especially if they sign the player to a multi-year deal, win the Championship and ultimately have to cut that same player. Their Cap would be decimated.

I can tell I'm in the minority here, so do whatever. I'll decide afterwards whether I will stay or not.

Yeah, I didn't realize we were seriously considering the cut a player idea or I wouldn't have joined.

How about preventing players from trading their 1-4 round picks? And drop owners that purposefully tank.

Most inexperienced players who don't have their weights or game plan set trade these picks away too quickly, and then usually quit when their team does worse. It would also mean that perennial playoff teams would always be drafting at the end of the draft and have to work harder for star players. And if they tank for Luck, then then risk getting dropped from the league.

I also feel like it's up to players that aren't doing well to read the forums and ask questions about how the game actually works. I share just about everything that I know, but I have no sympathy for players that continue to run the plays that everyone knows doesn't work or continue to use the default weights, and then complain about losing.

Well guys, quite a range of opinion on what "twist(s)" we would like to seriously consider for the EFL. We are not going to be able to do much of anything for the next season, as far as making any cuts of top players by the top teams from the first season. It will take some time to come up with something that both makes sense, is fair, and is agreed to by the majority of owners. For now, we will continue to run pretty much like a regular league and shoot for next end of season to enact any major changes or rules.

The intent, the way I see it, is to make the league more competitive than others. You cant do much about how an owner scouts & gameplans, which is more than half the game. The roster is the smaller of the two parts, but not by much. Reducing the bottom of the roster by several players does not make a lot of sense to me as far as affecting the team strength. Plus, it would be a tough thing to deal with on an ongoing basis, monitoring team rosters, et al. If you win the LC, you should be happy with that and not worry about having to cut 2 top players, that would be part of the challenge, to have to replace them as best you can. Ive been in leagues where I repeated as LC 3 to 5 times, and it wasnt that hard. That is not the type of league that I would like to see this one become. I dont want to see owners quit because they dont have a decent chance to compete with and beat the top teams from the previous season. We now have a very good group of experienced owners in this league, so we dont have to deal with players with less than 3 mo's in MFN. Several of you in this league know that I help with advice/suggestions about both rosters and gameplanning for new owers or those who have struggled getting to the playoffs, as I prefer a league that has more competitive owners and teams, and I like passing on what has worked for me to others. The are some other owners in this league that do the same and also post a lot of their findings and experience in the general forum, like setherick, who has done so extensively. We have a very good group of owners in here now, that is our best asset. So, as I posted before, lets see if we can move forward and make this one of the best leagues in the game. cheers! gdb

is it too late to conduct a poll
to see if most owners would prefer
a game every 24 hrs...this season...

Either hit the like, thumbs up, or set up a poll, I havnt done one before, Im sure there are poll websites, or another way to do so. If we get 12 votes for doing so, then I will cut the sim time by 1/2. Myself, Im not too keen on it, Ive got 11 teams and partner on a 12th, I like the break and am used to it, but am not opposed either. So far we have 2 votes for it. cheers, gdb

Here's another idea relative to the "PCR" (Player Cut Requirement) at the end of season by the top teams. Instead of cutting a top player, the designated team does not re-sign the player, as his agent has advised him to go on the market, lol. This would do a couple of things, as compared to the public and other private/custom leagues. 1. Would create more opportunity for roster improvement by the rest of the teams. 2. If the team that let the player go wants to get that player back, they are going to have to outbid the other teams and pay for him. 3. Makes things more strategic for roster management.

That requirement could be countered by continuing to sign top players to long term contracts, so that would need to be considered for development of this idea or rule.

Again, the intent is to foster a higher level of competitive balance. You cant do that on scouting/gameplanning other than sharing information about what is working and why. You can affect the strength of a teams roster by providing them more access to better players. Setherick had a good suggestion about protecting high draft picks from unbalanced trades, although the makeup of owners in this league is strong and experienced. The majority of owners knows that the trade meter & values can be way off the mark, which can cause severely unbalanced trades. The primary roster advantage that a sub 500 team gets is that they will get at least two potential top players with their first and second round picks from the next draft. So that may be the primary thing to be protected in this league.

I just don't think you build a competitive league by hamstringing the best players. As far as I'm concerned, the only want to make a league more competitive is to get everyone to rise to the level of the challenge.

Reading all the comments and ramifications of having to cut players, I wouldn't be opposed to losing draft picks.

I would like no restructures . ....to quickly have rosters salaries match anything like the nfl (to create actual parity and true fun) no teams should get a resign without letting the guys test the market . But like I said draft contract would need to be more like the nfl as well .

It would be a true test of how to use money to build a dynasty . In the nfl There a new record contract every year.....not even close here. It takes six to ten seasons here. How could a team that missed the allocation ever catch up quick with out trading away the future ?.

True gamers who wanted true competitives and party would be on board . Really I think there should be no vote, cause then this league will be,dead like the rest . Or one could just wait for another allocation out of a private league so a newb who like the game can get another shot at getting it right.

Or where I am at is waiting for jdb to get this part right.....it's been a long time .....almost as long as making everyone over 50 speed and strength . All might never happen, but I see no reason to wait for jdb here. Just force the signing team to trade away a worthy pick .....the worst team would have choice....kinda like waivers cause the losing team will want a higher pick.

It's simple and would make fa fun again , but I bet teams have locked down great players for six year penny contracts

Understand your concern, but arent you tired of being in leagues with owners who dominate their division and playoffs? Its the same owners league to league, which include myself. If Im willing to be "hamstrung" in order to make it more challenging, why shouldnt others? By the same token, why not have selected a team that already had a playoff caliber roster? Why take one that is going to require a lot more effort and time to build? Because it is more of a challenge, and you take more pride in creating a winner from it. There is already one thing that helps sub-500 teams, and that is the draft. But, the draft is not always deep enough to give the 2.16 and higher picks a strong selection. Overall, my opinion is that if I win the LC, Im more than happy to give up 2 "blue chippers". If I end up losing the LC, I can afford 1, which will still give me a very good chance of getting back to the LC game. Non-wild card teams can also afford 1 player. We could include the player values to determine who is eligible or not for going to FA. If you are able to win back 2 back LC's in a league where you have to send two good starters to the FA pool as a result, then you really deserve it, much more than in a standard or custom league that does not have that "twist" to it. Again, its up to the majority who take time to post and vote.

At this point, its a discussion and trying to figure out how best to do it, if that is what we decide to try. I dont want it to be a hassle and time-consuming job to ensure compliance, and I would prefer to see it not cause issues or disagreements. Is that possible? I dont know, I know that the NCAA league has a player cut requirement and so far it has not been a problem, but they are about halfway through their second season, and no one has had to cut a player yet as far as I know. They have a list of players that will need to be cut at the end of the season, but those players cannot be signed or play again. And, the same brothers (bryson & flys) who set up and now dominate L75 also set up and dominate that league, and it is consistent, which is why I would prefer rules that would give more owners a better chance of getting to the LC. If I saw a lot more variance amongst LC winners and top team owners league to league, then I wouldnt be supportive of a rule to create more competitiveness. And even if we do have a cut rule, it still may not make much of a difference, as active play selection, scouting/gameplan are more important than having a superior rated roster.