Tford

Rule Review Discussion: Having DTS flexibility (using devy spots for DTS players)

Recommended Posts

Our goal is to have the rule review period completed by 3/29.

 

This rule review was a discussion point brought up in the Rule Review catchall thread. Will leave this thread up for a couple days for debates to happen then will follow up with a vote.

 

To clarify, the owner that proposed this would like the ability to use the devy spots on his team for DTS (allowing up to 3 more DTS players at the cost of devy).

 

My personal opinion is that I am against this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a DEVY league so I would be against it as well.  That is what makes this league slightly different is that you are "scouting" ahead to get guys.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RodneyRules said:

Its a DEVY league so I would be against it as well.  That is what makes this league slightly different is that you are "scouting" ahead to get guys.  

Agree. Take the devys out and it's just another fn league....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As mentioned like a hybrid approach, min 2 (or even 3) devy with a flex spot (or two) for devy/rookie depending on owner's discretion. 

 

On 3/18/2019 at 7:38 PM, Def. said:

 

Think there needs to be at least a minimum enforced, or else what's the point of a devy league if only 6 people do it.  Was thinking more along the line of having a 14 player DTS, 10 for rookies 2 for devy, and the last 2 flex for whatever you choose (rookie or devy) with a minor stipulation of a max of 3 offensive devys on any DTS (so if carrying 4 devy you need at least 1 defensive player).  Give flexibility to owners to choose how they build but keeps the intent of the league.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's probably worth bringing in the point made in the catchall thread of the potential to enforce a minimum amount of devys. I'd like that better than allowing 0 devys.

 

It can be debated whether this should be a rule change on its own or tied to this particular rule change. I'm open either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.