*Will we need to fold two NSFL teams?

[sapp2013]

I think one of the problems with contracting the league, is that, like you said, increases the average amount per team to 16-17, and 18 is what you said was the max. if we have 1 year of talent influx, we are at the point of expanding again. I think that we should be using inactives as much as possible, but behind actives, so that we can reach that max, yet still have a cushion in case there is that influx of talent.

Also, being on Colorado, you can see that we had 17 people update this year, which means we are just about at max. We also lead every update category. We are doing our part on keeping up with active people, and it is difficult to draft because we don't have many active spots left. We have had people frustrated that they are sitting behind other actives because we have so many active players on our team.

So I think contraction is the wrong decision here.

[Supersquare04]

I've said it all season but this is the idea that I like the most although I think bots should be available for every position.  My thought is the bots are all a flat TPE (say 200-300) and would cost (estimate 50%) more than a player of the same level.  The purpose of filler bots is to provide a team a stop gap when there's a hole in their depth chart.  They are not meant to be displacing active players. My thought with bots at every position is that it would allow users more options with positions.  I know we've heard countless times over the past year that many people play a position out of team necessity and really don't enjoy it. 

***Numbers and percentages I mentioned are just a starting point I had been thinking about.

I like this idea

[RainDelay]

I’m not sure of ways to up recruitment that drastically but that’s what we need

[TheMemeMaestro]

SBA just had a massive recruitment drive like 50+ new people in a season. To a point where they had to add 4 new NCAA teams and 2 new SBA teams after they had just added 1 the year before. If we could get something like that we would be golden.

[ralams123]

Cut the DSFL into 2 teams. It will make the Locker Rooms more active and if new players see an active league it would keep them from going inactive. IMO

[timeconsumer]

I think removing 1 team would be ideal.  People worry over balance, but conferences have never been balanced.  As for which team, hard to say.

Not possible in DDSPF

[kckolbe]

Not possible in DDSPF

I mean remove as in replace with bots

[Supersquare04]

no offense, but I think a 2 team dsfl isn't going to do anything. It sounds pretty boring facing nothing but bots 70% of the time.

[AzhekAhriman]

2 Team DSFL would potentially work if we really opened the floodgates on how GMs could customize bot teams. As it is you see sort of the same styles and stuff but with a little tweaking you could see some very unique bot teams that would pose a challenge and promote meaningful story-lines. I also think that something we have almost completely ignored an important ingredient recruiting wise is the enormous pool of folks that are primarily college football fans. These guys don't follow the pros as much usually because the pipeline from college to pro is not straight or consistent enough to keep watching the same players and rooting for them. Some form of NCAA system that leveraged crazy popular brands like the Florida Gators, LSU Tigers, Ohio State Buckeyes, etc... could provide that streamlined pipeline and potentially get people past the first step of activity.

[speculadora]

I think there are some small things being missed in comments with regard to contraction. For starters, contracting would bring the number of players who updated *at least once* to 16-17 per team. That kind of updating is not particularly healthy from a sustainability standpoint. I think 3+ updates is a better baseline for that calculation, and we have 75 such players in the NSFL right now. At six teams, that number would equate to 12.5 per team - basically equal to the number of players who have updated once and leaving plenty of room such that an influx of new players wouldn't necessitate expansion (and we shouldn't even be talking about that as a contingency because we have not had anything of the sort lately). Secondly, contracting the NSFL on it's own wouldn't really be enough in my opinion. It would also probably require a dramatic restructure of the DSFL. My preference would be a baseball-like farm system in which all new players are actually drafted to NSFL teams and then sent down by at the team's discretion. I'll probably write a media of my own detailing how I'd approach all of that.