- February 22, 2018 at 12:21 pm #32511
Well, there was only 50% of support to increase the roster size and add to the initial deposit. I think we’re all aware that’s not strong enough support to make the change. Reading some of the responses, I think there’s still a lot of confusion why we have to raise the deposit with this idea, but many of you in your comments do get it. During the orphan process, we take a serious hit on discounts for abandoned teams while not decreasing the prizes. When we discuss Increasing the roster size, this not only increases the potential for value hoarders to hoard more talent, but it also depletes the waiver wire by 12, and eventually 24 players each week, again impairing a team’s ability to improve and take a shot on a prospect via free agency. Now it works both ways, but talented dynasty players are quite involved in scouting, so going deeper down from experience, gives the edge to the vets. Out contest has always been at a price point designed to allow dynasty players to take that next step up in serious dynasty action, while at the same time, giving high stakes players who are new to dynasty a place to learn the ropes.
In Development: One of the issues I think we can make progress on is this perception that you have to make a deposit to RECEIVE a draft pick. That’s not how the software works. You can receive a draft pick via trade, but you can’t trade one away without a deposit. If you ever have experienced this, it was only a temporary bug that was resolved. Having said that, through a software improvement, I think we can say that if you acquire somebody else’s pick and want to later, trade it away (while keeping yours intact), this should not require a deposit. We unfortunately haven’t had the functionality to do that, but I do have that request in the system and we’ll be discussing this with our tech team. I’ll keep you posted.
Here are the individual comments we received:
In my experience, the larger the roster size you have, the less active the league becomes with trading and it makes the league boring. The majority of the trades you see in larger roster leagues are trading WR4 for a RB3, and its just not as competitive.
Given the three choices I am no to roster expansion. I don’t want to expand at the cost of increasing the deposit. It’s probably already to high. Additionally if you acquire a pick via a trade you should do have to pay a deposit to move the aquired pick (you’ve already collected for that pick)
I think adding like a 3 player travel squad would be a better idea.
Hey Scott the roster size at 20 is almost perfect. Over 20 and it really makes it hard pressed to find free agents. But I also believe there should be a extra roster spot reserved for Kickers/defense ONLY to take care of the byes (maybe QB too).
The roster is good where it is and keeps good players in free agents. It can take years to rebuild if there aren’t any quality players in free agents. More roster spots will only make the good players even better.
Keeping the roster size at 20 forces team managers to make some difficult strategic decisions. To me, going to 21 or higher (along with 3 ir spots) takes away from that strategy and will clearly limit FA options as 12 (or more) players per league will be locked up on other rosters. The 20 man roster loosely represents the 53 man roster quandary that NFL teams work with every week. I understand there is grumbling to go to a higher roster size, but to me these are short sighted requests; managers may not be considering how the decision will ultimately influence (and limit) their free agent options.
Certainly don’t mind the rule change, just prefer it at 20 for new players
No need to add to rosters 20 is fine.
Deposits are already too high
not sure why deposits are like to increasing roster size. btw, really don’t like that if i accept any trade offer that includes a future pick of my opponent and none of my future picks that i have to pay a deposit
If the deposit were limited to being a requirement for 1st (and MAYBE 2nd round) picks, I’d support an increase in roster size and begrudgingly accept a deposit increase. Picks in the 3rd – 6th rounds don’t warrant a $150 deposit. Frankly, they don’t even warrant a $100 deposit. I don’t have all the data, but in some of my leagues, I see a lot of teams that have all 6 of their draft picks on hand and will refuse to add a 3rd or 4th round sweetener to a trade because of the deposit. It limits options and stagnates trading. The first year or two in the DFWC only required a deposit for trading away a 1st rounder. I’d like to see something similar. I also don’t see an option for “Increase the roster size, but keep the deposit at $100.” I know you guys running the show wouldn’t go for that, but it’d at least allow us players to respond more honestly. The “I think the roster size is fine at 20, it adds to the strategy” has a bunch of built in assumptions that I don’t feel comfortable putting my vote behind. If you don’t want to be beholden to the results, just put a disclaimer that you are polling the community but reserve the right to make any final decisions.
The bigger the better. It’s hard to bring back an orphan team without being able to hold onto some young assets
Increasing deposit to $150 will kill any future trading of choices. $100 is already prohibitive, and has prevented making deals currently. Just add 1 additional IR slot. (this could even be done on a 1 year trial basis to see what the true effect is on roster size. Could be returned to 3 the following year if no value is perceived)
The wavier wire is already thin in quality pick ups. If we increase the roster size it will only make it worse. I lkike it the way it is.
This was done poorly from the start, should have always had larger rosters. <--- Interesting perspective. For most of us experienced dynasty players, going above 20 makes for league renewals even more difficult. Can you imagine trying to keep the league alive and having to sell a $300 team deplete with talent?
I really think you need to monitor trades more closely. I haven’t made any trades (not that I wouldn’t) but I see some owners who put out highway robbery offers. And to their credit they find some ducks to accept the lopsided trade. But that’s part of your abandonment problem. One team ends up stacked and other owners say why bother. <---- We take a look at ANY trade that league mates report as questionable and have a panel of high stakes dynasty players review them when in doubt. Our general policy is to not get involved unless we truly feel it upsets the competitive balance of the league. Hindsight is 20/20 of course.
Take the kickers and defense out and that’ll add 2 roster spots and you don’t have to change a thing
I think roster size is perfect, keeping the FA pool beefed up is more important to me incase of injuries, players getting cut, and studying who will become stars and who will become busts
Consider collecting deposit at startup draft that is forfeited if player abandons League prior to Year 3. Deposit can either be refunded at that time or held for future year trading privileges. If refunded, player would have to make your $100 or $150 deposit to execute trade involving future year draft pick <-- We have considered up front deposits, but just trying to keep it at a fair price point for all.
Add more in-season IR spots and/or taxi squad for rookies.
I am worried people will not trade their Draft picks because the price is $150 not $100. Talked to a lot that at $100 they don’t really want to trade their picks.
- February 22, 2018 at 12:26 pm #32514
Well, call me baffled. I have always thought that possible points would be an excellent solution, but only 1 in 3 of you agree with me.
Here are the comments we received:
This is a tricky one because it feels like no matter what route to choose to go with, there will always be people who are upset with the results. I’m assuming “possible points” is referring to best ball scoring? Working under that assupmtion, I’d hate to know that I missed out on a top 3 pick because the defense or kicker I didn’t use each week put up 20 points a couple of times. And as you stated, shoutouts would all but ensure the 4th-8th ranked teams would have a much higher chance at a top 3 pick.
League XX – Team XX was tanking, and does so every year. I e-mailed you about it in 2016 and again this past season in November 2017, when they obviously tanked by not using a valid lineup in week 11. Several players in their starting lineup were on bye. Their total points should be increased by the players on their bench who they should have started. It’s an obvious tanking situation, where they can say “oops, forget to set our lineup.” This is the most egregious but I’m sure you would see other examples if you looked at them week to week down the stretch. This single instance caused them to be below us in points and thus a higher draft spot. Our team, the XX, should have the higher draft spot due to their obvious cheating. This will need to be addressed before we re-up for 2018. Thanks. <----- Wow, when we see an email, we always look into it and reply back. Maybe it's not the answer you wanted, but sometimes, they don't have the player on their roster to replace someone and or they've ran out of $ to do it. We do report and track all those found to be tanking and attempt to correct the behavior. Please don't be discouraged and continue to report it as you see it.
Think it would be more dropped teams if you do the week 14-16 scenario, too hard for struggling teams
I think as a league you have to be all in one way or the other as in a shootout from weeks 14-16 or just embrace tanking with no repercussions as that is the best way to rebuild a depleted roster.
You could base the draft order for the non playoff teams on the first ten weeks, most teams are still in the playoff race making tanking less likely.
I think it’s a toss up between “possible points” and no change. But I think possible points would show which team really is the worst. You can’t tell if someone sits a player on purpose or it’s lack of knowledge.
some teams appear to be tanking but are just re-tooling their roster. If you have several older players at some point in time you have to change your mix of players.By doing this you are going to be non-competitive for a year or two.
The tanking was awful in both the DFWC leagues I am in and it was not policed early, only later in the season unfortunately. Therefore, I am in favor of possible points being the deciding factor..<--- Report it, see something, say something, not in chat, in a support ticket, please.
Possible points. Eliminates tanking, while continuing to help worst team rebuild for competitive balance. Best of both worlds. <--- That's what I thought too!
Changing this would “punish” the teams that legitimately come in last without tanking, the ones that actually follow the rules.
I’m only in one league, but haven’t seen a lot of tanking
I don’t think tanking is that big of a deal, we have seen tanking in the pro ranks I don’t care if it happens here.
I am in one keeper where we have a contest for nonplayoff teams just like you stated above. The problem is that there has been less trades/movement due to the fact that the nonplayoff teams do not want to lose in the week 14 – 16 shootout. I strongly vote against this as I believe the best way to rebuild is obtaining draft picks and this will not happen via trades if a shootout tourney is implemented.
Shootout is not a good idea. I’m close to 50/50 on possible points vs. reporting. I had a report a couple of tanking situations this year, and to be honest, I don’t like being THAT guy. It’d be nice if we didn’t have to do that, but at the very least, it should be easier to research. Going through the historical lineup feed is a nightmare.
This will suck for the bad teams for the most part, but will help with tanking. Tanking got pretty bad last year in both of my leagues. Once one team sees another team doing it then it turns in to multiple teams tanking which hurts the playoff teams.
Half of the teams that don’t make the playoffs, don’t even bother to submit updated lineups. Using best ball accumulation for weeks 14-16 “ONLY for NON PLAYOFF teams” ensures that the worst teams get the better draft positions. <--- We're in the minority here...
Please never change this. We should police our own leagues but I do a playoff system in another league and it makes it almost impossible to get the #1 pick if you’re the worst team. In that league I missed the playoffs by a few points and then won the shootout for the #1 pick and even I don’t think that’s very fair.
We reported tanking in dfwc XX but nothing was done. Multiple owners reported it. So the reporting system is fine, if something actually gets done…it seems to have been ignored. <--- We have seen people report in the chat rooms (not monitored) and or have emailed my personal email account (not gonna work) Make sure and email support - That's the only official ticketing system we have, otherwise things can get lost in spam.
Possible points sounds like a great option to me… another way i like is the 5th team (bubble team) that misses the playoffs gets the first pick overall or 5-8 have there own playoff for the 1st pick overall
YES, YES, YES, potential points takes tanking out completly. Absolutely NO for a shootout for draft position, bad teams deserve the highest pick, period.
Possible points can/will be gamed as well if people really want to tank (e.g. carrying one QB, kickers on bye, etc.) <---- Hadn't thought about that, but it seems like that's the lessor of two evils.
- February 22, 2018 at 12:38 pm #32516
Well. Three of you hate it, but a full 76% of you reviewed this favorably and 96% gave it an average grade or above. We’ll keep trying to push it, but looks like it’s performing more than adequately.
Comments we received:
best part of the website. makes it easy to bid on multiple players
I really Like it compared to any other kind of free agent pools.
Good to great sometimes it would be nice to be able to have waiver available Sunday morning but it works good the way it is
I had no issue using the blind bidding.
After blind bidding has completed people should be able to add/drop fist come first serve. If youiss the BB time you have no alternative.
I really hate that everything must be finalized by Friday night, shit happens Sunday adds and drops are critical imo
All missed bids should be reported, not just next highest missed bid. <---- Interesting, that's a lot of clutter for a report, maybe a detail link for those interested.
This software is brutal. <----- Would love to hear more about this experience. Assuming you're one of the 3.
I didn’t make very many moves.
The bidding format isn’t. Very mobile friendly. <--- we are taking a hard look at mobile this year. It's our biggest agenda item.
It is insanely difficult to figure out. I also really, REALLY dislike the fact there is no FCFS. There is simply no reason not to open up FCFS after Waivers. <—- Maybe try this video for help: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZO75aMOz_0
It is still confusing
Great dont change
It would add to the strategy to allow the FAAB dollars to be included in trades (current year dollars only). To keep it reasonable perhaps a $100 limit per trade would be a good limiter to prevent abuse. <--- We have discussed, but again, it's an issue of , OOPS, I shouldn't have done that. We're more protecting the players from themselves than anything else.
It would be great for issues concerning kickers that are last minute scratches, to be able to pick up a new kicker on Sundays. <---- Free reign of kickers and defenses? Always? Not subjected to the lockout rules? Hmmm...
Love the fact that results instantly known after deadline. Other sites take hour or overnight to reveal outcomes.
I love it.
I am involved in a few other leagues with Blind bidding and your process runs smooth! It would be nice to open a first come first serve on just sundays before kickoff in case of injury or if you don’t win a final bid on Friday night.
Hate the multiple groups thing
- April 12, 2018 at 5:34 pm #39452The Fantasy ForumParticipant
Scott, will there be a vote for a 2nd Waiver Run (Aka Kicker Waivers haha – for late cuts from NFL teams)?
And the Drop Rule. I’m good with it to help prevent collusion, competitive balance etc. Just one idea, with so few number of Kickers and DEF to select from overall (especially in comparison to WR and RB), would it be possible for a vote to exclude Kickers and DEF from not being able to be picked back up?
There seemed to just be a few K and DEF left, prior to the League Playoffs.
- April 29, 2018 at 1:21 pm #41340craigbodenmillerParticipant
Hey Scott, I just noticed on the email that kickers and defenses now have to be kept. I was just curious when this rule was changed? I’ve never kept a kicker and defense before and on the teams I missed the playoffs with I dropped them during the consolation tournament to stash players instead. I know quite a few teams throughout my leagues who did the same thing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.