DSFL - Get Rid of Inactives

[White Cornerback]

Let's identify the elephant in the room. Firstly nobody's mentioned this already but

Code:

Players may play a maximum of four (4) seasons in the DSFL. If a player is sent down by their NSFL team at the beginning of their fourth year of eligibility, they may be claimed by any other NSFL team as a waiver acquisition (meaning the selecting team will lose their waiver wire position and fall to the back)

We are currently midway through our 3rd season of the DSFL, when we finish next season of the DSFL all inactives will not be eligible to play for any teams as it stands. The situation will solve itself out at the end of next season, any talk of creating entirely new rosters every single season is madness both from a logical standpoint and one of a workload perspective.

Rosters in my mind will no doubt be bare at the end of S6 DSFL's season and you all will in large have what you want so desperately in this thread, a relatively bare roster while just about being able to fill a 1st string in each formation (if even).

As it stands the Active>Inactive rule is already in place and states that you must start an active over an inactive.

[White Cornerback]

Also ", but this rule wasn't enforced until this season so POR can have Otto Von Gernhardt since they picked him up last season but no one can pick up Gadget Tech this season)"

Von Gernhardt and many others player were not subject to the rule because they were grandfathered in I believe.

[sapp2013]

Let's identify the elephant in the room. Firstly nobody's mentioned this already but

@White Cornerback

We have the 4 season rule for the dsfl, so I think it'll just take time (end of s6?) For a lot of inactives to be ineligible to play for the dsfl. Maybe change it to 3 years?

<_< :ninja:

[White Cornerback]

  <_<  :ninja:

Did I say elephant in the room? I meant giraffe

[PDXBaller]

Let's identify the elephant in the room. Firstly nobody's mentioned this already but

Code:

Players may play a maximum of four (4) seasons in the DSFL. If a player is sent down by their NSFL team at the beginning of their fourth year of eligibility, they may be claimed by any other NSFL team as a waiver acquisition (meaning the selecting team will lose their waiver wire position and fall to the back)

We are currently midway through our 3rd season of the DSFL, when we finish next season of the DSFL all inactives will not be eligible to play for any teams as it stands. The situation will solve itself out at the end of next season, any talk of creating entirely new rosters every single season is madness both from a logical standpoint and one of a workload perspective.

Rosters in my mind will no doubt be bare at the end of S6 DSFL's season and you all will in large have what you want so desperately in this thread, a relatively bare roster while just about being able to fill a 1st string in each formation (if even).

As it stands the Active>Inactive rule is already in place and states that you must start an active over an inactive.

Not all inactives will be removed to play from teams. I'd have to go through all the rosters, but I can identify at least half of my inactive players will remain for another 2 seasons after that.

It's actually not a large workload to create all new rosters. I've done it numerous times to test different things and like I said in my post, I can volunteer to do all the workload for it and verifying with each GM about their builds and rosters.

[CDub2]

I came here to say what @Roly said but he beat me to it. Pre packaged bots that fit a scheme is a good idea. Like picking the "Run OL" package, "3-4 LB", and the "West Coast WR" package would be fun. But if @PDXBaller has a builder tool, that will work too.

I think balancing the teams with equal TPE bots is a good thing because it:

1) As said before, the new players/rookies/actives/send-downs are the star of the show and now they will have teams built around them. Blah Blah Blah

2) It will make the teams who consistently update their players more likely to win (Team TPE linked directly to activity of players), as teams will no longer be carried by inactives (as seen last year by POR, our team was very successful due to Goose, Christ, and the DL)

3) It'll make the GMs who game plan and strategize much more valuable. No longer will GMs be able to hide behind high TPE inactives (see POR point above). The GM who puts together a game plan around their actives and game plans against opposition actives the best should win more often than not. It'll hopefully keep GMs engaged as well.

Also yeah, standardize rookie contracts.

[kckolbe]

Not all inactives will be removed to play from teams. I'd have to go through all the rosters, but I can identify at least half of my inactive players will remain for another 2 seasons after that.

It's actually not a large workload to create all new rosters. I've done it numerous times to test different things and like I said in my post, I can volunteer to do all the workload for it and verifying with each GM about their builds and rosters.

Yeah, I have inactives that joined last season, so they still have plenty of time left as well. Additionally, I have inactives that were NSFL first then DSFL before the cut off, so have only spent 1.5 seasons in DSFL. They should still be eligible as well.

I will lose some of my inactives last year, but there shouldn't be anything close to a purge.

[AdamS]

Fully enforce the active over inactive rule.

Raise or remove the salary cap so that inactives can be used to concrete needed areas (and already drafted NSFL prospects as well)

Flat pay for for all DSFL draftees.

Unless I'm missing something, that combo would solve the majority of issues

[PDXBaller]

Fully enforce the active over inactive rule.

Raise or remove the salary cap so that inactives can be used to concrete needed areas (and already drafted NSFL prospects as well)

Flat pay for for all DSFL draftees.

Unless I'm missing something,  that combo would solve the majority of issues

The issue isn't starting actives over inactives. It's when there's a team that is comprised of high TPE inactives that provides a significant advantage over those who don't and makes it harder for teams with actives to compete. It also influences how a GM will draft since they know they can rely on certain high TPE inactives for a few seasons and build around those guys rather than the new active rookies.

[timeconsumer]

The issue isn't starting actives over inactives. It's when there's a team that is comprised of high TPE inactives that provides a significant advantage over those who don't and makes it harder for teams with actives to compete. It also influences how a GM will draft since they know they can rely on certain high TPE inactives for a few seasons and build around those guys rather than the new active rookies.

I mean, it's not just the DSFL with this issue. Next draft the Otters will have a difficult choice to make depending on who is available to them at their pick because of guys like Verns with 450ish TPE but super inactive. Dropping a 220 TPE guy in his place is a tough pill to swallow for a team in Ultimus contention.