Commisioner Input Needed

[Go Skins]

I've been a commisioner for 4 years now, in a 12-team league, and we've always drafted 16 rounds, held a roster of 16, and no IR spot. There is interest in bumping it up to 18 rounds, and hold 18 players, no IR, but here are our questions/concerns:

 

1. Will drop/adds increase, decrease, or stay about the same? (We charge $1 for every drop/ad). The free agent pool will be 24 players shorter than we're used to, which would make it seem like it would be less, but perhaps with more players for teams to drop, the drop/adds wouldn't suffer?

 

2. Would it be more advisable to stay at 16 rounds, and create an IR spot? Is it difficult to "monitor" people who keep players on IR? (We use cbs sportsline as our league manager...)

 

Thanks for any input. In case you need more info, we start 9: 1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 RB/WR/TE flex, 1 TE, 1 K, 1 DEF. Some of our teams are "drop/add happy," and would still like these transactions to be readily available.

[ts]

Adding an IR spot should not be a problem as long as the league rules are crystal clear as to how IR status is determined & handled ... such as:

 

- how long can a player remain on a roster while on IR?

- what NFL injury status is req'd for a player to be eligible for IR? 'out'? 'doubtful'?

- what 'official source' will be used as the final arbiter of injury status, in the event that 2 web sites, newspapers, etc, have the same player listed with a different status?

- is there a $ cost associated with IR moves, similar to FA add/drop?

- are there limitations as to when a player can be placed on/removed from IR?

- if this is a keeper/dynasty league, can players on IR be retained from season to season?

- if you limit the # of FA add/drops per team, per week, does an IR move count as one of those add/drops?

- how many players per team can be carried on IR at one time? (1 seems ok)

 

... as long as there is no room for owner confusion on how your league's IR system works, it may be a good option for you, as opposed to increasing the active roster size.

[Big Country]

If it is a keeper, IR spots have a point, in a non-keeper, I say let the owners manage their teams and injuries as they see fit.

 

16 vs. 18 probably won't have a drastic affect on add/drops unless all your owners get so lucky they happen to pick up every unknown break out player that comes along.

 

I guess my rule of thumb has been to have a roster that is enough for a backup of starting lineups, so, if you start 9, roster of 18 is fine.

[Puddy]

If it is a keeper, IR spots have a point, in a non-keeper, I say let the owners manage their teams and injuries as they see fit.

 

16 vs. 18 probably won't have a drastic affect on add/drops unless all your owners get so lucky they happen to pick up every unknown break out player that comes along.

 

I guess my rule of thumb has been to have a roster that is enough for a backup of starting lineups, so, if you start 9, roster of 18 is fine.

 

881817[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Exactly.

[MikesVikes]

I would rather increase the roster size over having an IR. Unless you provide the day care coverage.

 

I would say that you should see a decrease in FA activity and not an increase. More players on rosters to fill in as needed, less free agents that will help you out. But 18 is not too big where you can't find a FA that can help you out, Imo.

 

17 or 18 sounds about right. 18 sounds better.

Edited July 16, 2005 by MikesVikes

[Go Skins]

Many thanks - helpful tips.

[Guest THEbigred]

I would leave it as is, although it depends how much you value the FA system. I personally hate larger rosters because that means there's less/no meat on the FA wire, which is usually pretty thin as it is. And IMO the FA system is an important and fun part of the season. It gives teams a chance to rebound at least somewhat from a disappointing/hurt player they drafted.

[Duchess Jack]

A lateral answer.....leave sportsline. MFL is the shizat

[kcmast]

Last year I had one league with 18 rounds, and another with 20. Both were 10 team leagues and there was a noticable difference in the FA pool. If you like FA action leave it at 16, but if you want more emphasis on the draft, go to 18.

Edited July 17, 2005 by kcmast

[satelliteoflovegm]

I would think that FA movement would increase or stay the same. The logic being those last two spots being the flavor of the week and when the new flavor comes along you'd be more willing to take a shot at them.

 

I have had teams with 16 guys I thought were all good and I didn't want to cut anyone, and so I didn't...

[trrhyne]

I think FA activity would decrease. Our league went from 14 to 16 spots and activity dropped. We have actually decreased down to 13 so that you don't have backups at every position. Most teams carry only one K or one TE. If you have a premium K or TE then you are forced to cut another position to keep them or take a zero for bye week. Otherwise, people shuffle Ks and TEs and it all adds $ to the pot. Also, if you hoard RB's, then you suffer at WR and it increases trading as well. The one downside for us is that it is hard to handcuff a player and if he goes down, then it is hard to get his backup off the waiver wire. It all depends on the personality of the league. Ours just needed a boost to increase activity.

[Ralph Furley]

We've ditched the IR in my leagues a few years ago, and increased the roster from 12 to 14. IT has been a good decision IMO. It was getting too much of a pain to regulate the IR.

 

I don't know if 18 roster spots would be too much in a 12 team. I would have to imagine that the add/drop money would see a drop because each roster would have so many spots filled.