Tford Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RodneyRules Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarleyKR07 Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 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.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Def. Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t-bone65 Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 Dont like not having flexibility in the number of devys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tford Posted March 20, 2019 Author Share Posted March 20, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.