FFL 2011-12 - Congratulations Hamncheese!

[Hopper15]

My Number: randomize me

1) Eliminate IL: YES, Add Roster Spot? YES

2) Divisions? No

3) Add/Drop Limit: Annual - 35

+1

[Woody Allen]

I want the annual move limit to say at 60.

[stick]

#11

1) Should we eliminate the IL? Yes If so, should we add one roster spot? No

2) Should we divide the league into two divisions, with division winners securing automatic playoff bids? No

3) Should the limit on add/drops be a weekly limit, or a seasonal limit? Weekly

[jazzfan1971]

If you want more complexity here is an idea:

Unlimited add drops, but, after you get to 30 you can only add/drop on Sundays.

[Breakdown777]

Complexity is what caused all the IL issues in my opinion. It's too easy for someone to say "I forgot that rule...oops" and end up taking advantage of the system. While I'd like something more complex (it allows for a better compromise), it's apparent that not everyone can handle it as it's too easy to misinterpret or forget the rules.

[floppymoose]

If you want more complexity here is an idea:

Unlimited add drops, but, after you get to 30 you can only add/drop on Sundays.

Yahoo doesn't support that, so it would be an ad hoc rule that would likely lead to the same problems we had with the IL. What yahoo does support is weekly lineups, which has a similar effect.

[sabonis]

We typically finish 6 weeks before the start of the season. How can anyone need a 6-week time cushion? I ask for a 2-week push back, which is good for finishing the draft 4 weeks before the season starts. And that's not even remotely going to cause 'rushing'.

Just speaking from experience. People get chippy if we start later, no matter whether we'll finish early or not.

I see Sabonis' point of finishing before exhibition games in early October. If we can do that (i.e. draft in 4 weeks), then no problem. I don't see us finishing in 4 weeks if 1) we add a roster spot and 2) we go back to our old time frame of 12 hours.

Sabonis: Your point about add/drop limits makes sense, but there's only one problem I see. A seasonal limit gives much more room for streaming during harder weeks (i.e. against a harder opponent, or when players are injured or not playing). A weekly limit equalizes the add/dropping or streaming. And, btw, streaming still hasn't proven to be a fail proof way to win it all, or even make the playoffs. But I'm fine with a limit, so I won't argue that.

that's exactly why I want to limit both the season and weekly moves. 50 or 40 for the season and 3 for the week.

[writersblock]

Since I care more about the number of adds than whether it's weekly, sign me up for the seasonal 35 bandwagon. Maybe it's a middle ground that nobody hates?

I hate it. I think 35 is far too few. I think we're only voting on weekly or seasonal at this point. Leave the final number to after we get past this first vote.

We also need to add up the weekly vs. seasonal votes. I don't think it's decided yet.

[Curtis Lemansky]

I agree 35 is too few.

50 is the ideal IMO.

[Sk1p]

has anyone taken 20?

[sabonis]

I'm all for 35 or maybe 42 (2 per week)

but let's vote on that once weekly or seasonal limit is settled

[Woody Allen]

35 is less of a 'middle ground' than 120.

[Curtis Lemansky]

35 is just plain silly.

In a league that is 280 players deep, when a player gets injured, you will probably have to go through 4-5 players just to find a roster worthy player.

Anything below 50 is unacceptable for me if we are talking about seasonal limit. I'm ok with 3 or 4 as weekly limit as well. 2 would be again a completely irrational limit.

I dont know why we are all making this big fuss about this either. Did we have a "streaming" problem last year that I'm not aware of? What is really the issue here? Seasonal limit with 50 worked just fine. In BOSF, we have a weekly limit of 4 moves and didnt have one single problem.

I'm practically indifferent between weekly and seasonal limits, I'm completely against illogically low limits.

[writersblock]

35 is just plain silly.

In a league that is 280 players deep, when a player gets injured, you will probably have to go through 4-5 players just to find a roster worthy player.

Anything below 50 is unacceptable for me if we are talking about seasonal limit. I'm ok with 3 or 4 as weekly limit as well. 2 would be again a completely irrational limit.

I dont know why we are all making this big fuss about this either. Did we have a "streaming" problem last year that I'm not aware of? What is really the issue here? Seasonal limit with 50 worked just fine. In BOSF, we have a weekly limit of 4 moves and didnt have one single problem.

I'm practically indifferent between weekly and seasonal limits, I'm completely against illogically low limits.

I completely agree with Gokce here. Why are we making a big deal about add/drops? I've said it before, streaming has never won anyone the championship, much less an ideal playoff spot.

The real problem we had last year was IL infractions not streaming. I'm in Gokce's BOSF league and there wasn't one issue with add/drops. In fact, we had no issues whatsoever, and you know what the only real difference was? No IL list. That's it. There was a 4 per week add/drop limit too. No problems, whatsoever.

We seriously need to stop fussing about add/drops and streaming. It's never made a difference in this league (partly because a 20 team 13-player league means you stream you lose a guy you need), and the more we tinker, the more it's going to ruin the league. Let's stop complicating things. The only real issue in the 10 years this league has been around has been the IL. The easy solution: drop the IL (which I believe the vote is unanimous for this) and leave everything else alone. For those worried about streaming, add a roster spot, taking the potential "streaming" players off waivers.

[sly]

I'm not particularly concerned with the amount of add/drops allowed. Hell, I'm perfectly fine with having no add/drop caps. As - no matter what we choose - we can all adjust our strategies accordingly. Consequently I voted 35 since it was mentioned. I couldn't care less what that number was.

[jfrost]

I too am not really concerned about the number of add/drops... lets just get the lottery done so we can start planning our strategy.

[Curtis Lemansky]

Blake, please check your pm's.