KRFL - a football simulation league
Forums
KRFL :: Forums :: KRFL Forums :: General League Discussions
Roster Requirements << Previous thread | Next thread >>
Moderators: noodles, MarkB
Author Post
MarkB
Sun Sep 20 2020, 08:40p.m.
Mark Blume

Registered Member #81
Joined: Mon Oct 14 2013, 08:54a.m.

Posts: 1980
Our rules state:
At the start of each game throughout the entire season (including the playoffs) each roster must include 52 players including the following minimum number of players at the following positions:

Note, it does not say "uninjured" players. So injured players count towards the minimum number of players. I see a number of teams who have the minimum number of players or maybe one extra, but almost all of those players have durability ratings of 8 or less. So there is a huge risk that at some point the team will have only half of the required number of players at a position. With the numerous injuries in the NFL, we need to seriously consider changing our rule and require the minimum number of players at each position has to be met with either:
1) healthy players only, injured players do not count
or
2) only players with a durability rating above # count. What # is I am not sure. In the other league I am in it is "6".
Back to top
mark
Sun Sep 20 2020, 08:52p.m.
Registered Member #45
Joined: Wed May 05 2010, 11:29p.m.

Posts: 826
For some reason black hills think they have to pick up 2 DBs? I don’t think they do.🤷🏻‍♂️
Back to top
MarkB
Sun Sep 20 2020, 09:01p.m.
Mark Blume

Registered Member #81
Joined: Mon Oct 14 2013, 08:54a.m.

Posts: 1980
mark wrote ...

For some reason black hills think they have to pick up 2 DBs? I don’t think they do.🤷🏻‍♂️



That is because he only has four healthy DB's and I thought our rules required six uninjured defensives backs. So I sent Black Hills and email stating that they had only four and needed to sign two healthy DB's.
However, our rules only require six defensive backs. There is nothing in the rules that require them to be uninjured. I could swear that was the intent of the current rule. But it is not written that way in the rules.
So Black Hills is not required to sign any free agent defensive backs.

And hence my suggestion we change our rules next season.

[ Edited Sun Sep 20 2020, 09:06p.m. ]
Back to top
Salem
Tue Sep 22 2020, 10:54p.m.
Registered Member #25
Joined: Sun Sep 07 2008, 10:07p.m.

Posts: 763
NFL teams have 55 players and can put players on IR and call up more players. We have 52 players. We would need to expand rosters in order to make your proposals work.
Back to top
MarkB
Wed Sep 23 2020, 09:46p.m.
Mark Blume

Registered Member #81
Joined: Mon Oct 14 2013, 08:54a.m.

Posts: 1980
Salem wrote ...

NFL teams have 55 players and can put players on IR and call up more players. We have 52 players. We would need to expand rosters in order to make your proposals work.


I am not sure expanding rosters is necessary. KRFL teams can already sign free agents to replace injured players. The point of my rule suggestion is so teams are required to have enough healthy players to field a competitive team for each game. I have proposed rosters of 53 in the past, and it has been shot down. So maybe an increase from 52 to 54 or 55 along with a revised roster requirement (I'd prefer option 2 above) would made sense?

Back to top
noodles
Thu Sep 24 2020, 02:33a.m.
Webmaster

Registered Member #1
Joined: Mon Feb 18 2008, 02:12a.m.

Posts: 1268
A few years ago I suggested eliminating the roster requirement rules because as acting Commish back then I hated having to check each team for compliance. My thinking was that requirements could be thought of as prudent guidelines to be considered by each individual coach. Further, a poorly constructed team without sufficient depth hurts the coach more than anybody else. As an opponent, I'd love it if a team I was playing had to slot in an LB or DL to fill a vacant DB slot during a game. The only counter argument I can think of is that a reckless disregard for those guidelines could really screw up any competitive balance and sense of realism we desire. I'd be reluctant to add more players to the roster because I think the FA wires are already thin enough but I could live with a modest expansion although my preference is to do away with the requirements completely.

[ Edited Thu Sep 24 2020, 02:33a.m. ]
Back to top
MarkB
Thu Sep 24 2020, 10:25a.m.
Mark Blume

Registered Member #81
Joined: Mon Oct 14 2013, 08:54a.m.

Posts: 1980
RE: As an opponent, I'd love it if a team I was playing had to slot in an LB or DL to fill a vacant DB slot during a game.

True, but if a team wants to "tank" a season, that (loading up on low durability rating players) is one way to do it........
Back to top
 

Jump:     Back to top

Syndicate this thread: rss 0.92 Syndicate this thread: rss 2.0 Syndicate this thread: RDF
Powered by e107 Forum System