DSFL - Get Rid of Inactives

[PDXBaller]

Rule Proposal: Get rid of inactives in the DSFL. Rights can still be held by respective teams if the player should return and they are to remain in the DSFL (ex: NSFL team wants to keep player XYZ in DSFL even after they return to the site)

The focus of a DSFL GM should be to:
-Engage new players and maintain activity level throughout the DSFL season
-Prepare new players by ensuring they understand: how to update their player, attributes to focus on, and assisting with ideas or materials for media
-Be available to answer any questions
-Provide a positive locker room environment

Why get rid of inactives?
-High TPE inactives are highly sought after and this adds overhead to GMs to monitor any activity regarding inactives. This creates another aspect of GMing in the DSFL that is unnecessary.
-It's very challenging to manage inactive player contract lengths, salary, and fitting that into the DSFL salary cap. We run into situations like this season where SA was unable to pick up Mike Vick due to lack of salary cap and HO had to step in to provide cap relief. We don't want to leave active players hanging and should locate them to an active team ASAP.
-Many inactive players fall under weird circumstances and the rules haven't been enforced consistently (ex: player cannot be in DSFL if they played 14 games in the NSFL, 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)
-Managing inactives does not align with the focus of a DSFL GM and the goals listed above.

Idea
Allow GMs to create a new roster of players after the DSFL draft. This would give them a chance to architect a team that is geared towards their active players' strengths and help with weaknesses. This would also allow teams to create an offensive and defensive identity that would make for interesting matchups (best passing offense vs. best rushing offense).

GM Players can still be implemented starting at 70 TPE and building 5 TPE a week, while the a rest of the bots can start at 50 TPE and a specific number of bots (maybe 2 players) can increment twice a season (ex: +15 TPE after week 4 and +15 TPE week 8). Keep in mind these are rough values that I came up with and did not test.

Fun Example: I draft 2 runningbacks and no wide receivers or quarterback (NSFL bound) in the next draft. Knowing that my passing game won't be a big focus of the offense and that I will probably be creating a bot QB and bot WRs, I would build my OL with higher run blocking values than pass blocking values to focus my offense on running more than passing. After week 4, I notice my team is great at getting to the goal line but my bot kicker isn't doing so well so I decide to buff him using the 15 TPE boost and maybe I pick my Center for more strength and run blocking. Maybe after week 8, I decide that the league is becoming more pass heavy so I buff a CB and DT to help. These are small increases that help a team improve, but not so much that it makes an active player useless.

Get Rid of Salary Cap
An addition to this idea would be to get rid of the DSFL salary cap. Managing the salary cap is a major component of an NSFL GM's job, but is unnecessary for the DSFL since most of our teams are composed of inactives or bots. It makes no sense for us to manage a salary cap and detracts from the core functions of a DSFL GM. Rookies should receive a flat salary when they start in the DSFL.

Before the migration to bots, we can post on each Inactive Roster Page and tag the user with information on how to contact the commissioner or GMs if they log back in (create a DSFL Contact Page that we can maintain as roles change so they can reach out and be relocated back to a team). The rights can still be held by the original team should the player decide to come back and continue their player's career.

Contingency Plan
On each player's roster page, we will tag them and write a message explaining how they can contact their GM or Commissioner to get back onto their respective team:

"Hey XYZ, you've been placed on the inactive list, but your rights are currently held by the San Antonio Marshals. Please check out our DSFL contact page for information on how to contact the Commissioner to be placed back onto the Marshals roster ASAP if you choose to continue your player's career"

We'll have a public contact information page with the latest information on how to contact the Commissioner and all GMs.

I wholeheartedly volunteer to help setup the sim file, pages, or anything else necessary to grow the DSFL.

Thoughts? Feedback or concerns? I'd love to hear everything!

[sapp2013]

Some people come back and realize they aren't on a team, and then don't stay. That's what happened with me and SBA. I was gone from the site for 29 days, and their rule on inactives is 21 days and the AD can release you with out problem. I decided not to return because it wasn't worth it to fight to get back on a team. They lost a potentially active player because of that. It also hurts NSFL teams that drafted players or signed them to a contract and then they are stuck with said contract until it runs out. With the dsfl we can mitigate some if not all costs and a team there gets a good player. 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?

[ItsJustBarry]

I will agree that active players NEED to take precedent over an inactive. For this league to grow and thrive, we need to active players and it all starts with the DSFL. Active player retention has been a big hurdle for us in the past. It's no surprise that Portland and San Antonio have the most active players and their players get drafted the highest when you look at their front offices.

I also agree that DSFL players should all just receive a flat contract for their rookie season. This would take out the need for negotiations, and animosity when players are getting different amounts. This also alleviates the GMs of an extra, unnecessary responsibility and frees up some time for more important tasks. The fact that this wasn't changed after the former Blues GM exploited the system is still a shock to me.

[PDXBaller]

Some people come back and realize they aren't on a team, and then don't stay. That's what happened with me and SBA. I was gone from the site for 29 days, and their rule on inactives is 21 days and the AD can release you with out problem. I decided not to return because it wasn't worth it to fight to get back on a team. They lost a potentially active player because of that. It also hurts NSFL teams that drafted players or signed them to a contract and then they are stuck with said contract until it runs out. With the dsfl we can mitigate some if not all costs and a team there gets a good player. 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?

And I have this problem remedy'd by having us leave contact information for the player in case they want to return. All they have to do is contact the commissioner and we'll get them back on a team and playing in the next sim ASAP.

The DSFL shouldn't be used as a way to circumvent salary cap in the NSFL. If you draft an inactive player or a player becomes inactive then you should still be stuck with the cost. Again, managing and fighting over inactives shouldn't be a focus of a DSFL GM.

[PaytonM34]

I feel like it would add to the realism too... Players that are drafted high and that are expected to go to the NSFL should be standouts in the DSFL, not shadowed by some 150tpe inactive.And creating your team identity around your rookies should be a priority, not drafting rookies to fit your team identity. I want this in for next season

[kckolbe]

I feel like it would add to the realism too... Players that are drafted high and that are expected to go to the NSFL should be standouts in the DSFL, not shadowed by some 150tpe inactive.And creating your team identity around your rookies should be a priority, not drafting rookies to fit your team identity. I want this in for next season

You have no clue what you want. First off, most of my cap was gone because I paid my rookies 5 mil, not because I had a ton of expensive inactives. Rookies aren't sitting behind inactives, so the shadowed by better players argument holds no water.

You say it is too much work to manage an inactive (how is that work, btw), but updating your entire team every week isnt?

[PaytonM34]

You have no clue what you want.  First off, most of my cap was gone because I paid my rookies 5 mil, not because I had a ton of expensive inactives.  Rookies aren't sitting behind inactives, so the shadowed by better players argument holds no water. 

You say it is too much work to manage an inactive (how is that work, btw), but updating your entire team every week isnt?

I do actually, right now our offensive star is an inactive 140tpe runningback in Spinelli, and our hand is forced to play the run game in order to be competitive...

Never said that about the work either, I'd actually love to manage a team that isn't a bunch of inactives and get to choose where the TPE goes...

[PDXBaller]

You have no clue what you want.  First off, most of my cap was gone because I paid my rookies 5 mil, not because I had a ton of expensive inactives.  Rookies aren't sitting behind inactives, so the shadowed by better players argument holds no water. 

You say it is too much work to manage an inactive (how is that work, btw), but updating your entire team every week isnt?

Going against an opponent who has a high TPE inactives definitely overshadows an active player who isn't quite there yet in TPE.

It is work to manage inactives because you have to monitor transactions when an NSFL team is sending someone down or we have the 'Send Down' draft before each season. It just adds more overhead to a job that should be focused on giving new players a fun and engaging experience while preparing them for the NSFL. My plan isn't to update the entire team each week, but to update a few players at certain intervals. Again, this is all brainstorming but the key here is that we want to get rid of inactives from the DSFL entirely.

[bagwell]

I did feel like GMs get a ton of benefits from having a team consisting of high TPE inactives. If you check out the index, you can see that the teams with the better records have better inactives as a whole and the numbers don't lie when it comes to stats.

I was partially discouraged in the beginning when I noticed that other teams had such great OLs and didn't think that as a DT I could make an impact until I had higher TPE. Having a bunch of inactives makes no sense from a management stand point either. I'd rather have the GMs get more control over the type of team they want to build around the drafted actives rather than be at the mercy of best available inactives.

[kckolbe]

I do actually, right now our offensive star is an inactive 140tpe runningback in Spinelli, and our hand is forced to play the run game in order to be competitive...

Never said that about the work either, I'd actually love to manage a team that isn't a bunch of inactives and get to choose where the TPE goes...

You said it was challenging managing the contracts.