PDA

View Full Version : League constitution committee: sign up here


Vegas Vic
12-03-2003, 08:22 PM
We need volunteers for drafting the league constitution. I have no experience in this, so I will be seeking a lot of help and input. My goal is to have the committee draft the constitution (with input from the other owners), and then have it ratified by a majority of the owners.

Please respond if you're interested in being on the committee.

Thanks.

cuervo72
12-03-2003, 09:52 PM
Well, since I've been bitching so much, I'll sign up for the committee. :)

Chief Rum
12-03-2003, 11:20 PM
I do enough writing, so I don't want to write any of it. But I'll be glad to contribute ideas and discussion to it.

CR

cthomer5000
12-04-2003, 08:04 AM
I think I'll be good in the ideas department, so sign me up.

Samdari
12-04-2003, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by cuervo72
Well, since I've been bitching so much, I'll sign up for the committee.

Hmm, me too. I have been adamant that such rules as we need outside the simulation need to be formalized, I will sign up as well.

cthomer5000
12-04-2003, 09:01 PM
here's a link to the FOBL constitution (and how I dream of a website this nice one day!)

http://www.thefobl.com/constitution.htm

Perhaps we can use that as a starting point.

Buccaneer
12-04-2003, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by cthomer5000
here's a link to the FOBL constitution (and how I dream of a website this nice one day!)

http://www.thefobl.com/constitution.htm

Perhaps we can use that as a starting point.

But without Appendix A, please.

Vince
12-05-2003, 01:29 AM
Damn. That is some pretty amazing stuff, there...

I'd be happy to contribute what I can, but until Wednesday (a week from yesterday), I might not be able to contribute much, as I have finals. That being said, I'll probably contribute more during this week as I procrastinate than ever :)

MrIllini
12-05-2003, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by Buccaneer
But without Appendix A, please.

oh you know you love it sucka

Subby
12-05-2003, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by Buccaneer
But without Appendix A, please.
Yes, we don't want Bucc flummoxed right out of the box ;)

cthomer5000
12-05-2003, 09:58 AM
Well, I guess first thing would be deciding the basic league structure. Is everyone in agreement on the 1 comissioner, 2 league presidents setup?

Subby
12-05-2003, 10:14 AM
I think we need to decide whether it would make sense to have divisional representatives too.

cthomer5000
12-05-2003, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by Subby
I think we need to decide whether it would make sense to have divisional representatives too.

do you think it would?

Personally, I think a 9 person comittee is too many. Having 1/4 of the league on decisions greatly increases the odds that things will bog down.

I've gone from ambivalent to strongly preferrend the 1 commish/2 league presidents setup.

SackAttack
12-05-2003, 11:39 AM
Too many cooks spoil the broth. For the purposes of actually running the league, I suggest a commissioner and two league presidents, and perhaps one roaming stand-in in the unlikely event that all three leadership figures are unavailable at the same time. Even that might be too many, but it's certainly more workable than having 1/3 of the league be leadership.

Subby
12-05-2003, 12:54 PM
No, I firmly support the Commish-for-life/2 league Presidents structure.

I couldn't be more against divisional reps :)

Vegas Vic
12-05-2003, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by SackAttack
Too many cooks spoil the broth. For the purposes of actually running the league, I suggest a commissioner and two league presidents, and perhaps one roaming stand-in in the unlikely event that all three leadership figures are unavailable at the same time.

Also, for security reasons, we should adopt a policy that the commissioner and league presidents can't be in the same vehicle or airplane at the same time.

OK, I couldn't resist. :D

Kodos
12-05-2003, 01:17 PM
I like the 1 commish/ 2 league presidents format.

Vince
12-05-2003, 02:21 PM
What he said ^^^

1 Commish and 2 league presidents sounds good to me.

KWhit
12-05-2003, 03:31 PM
1 commish and 2 league presidents sounds good to me. Any more than that will just complicate things.

Buccaneer
12-05-2003, 08:46 PM
Aye.

cuervo72
12-08-2003, 11:36 AM
I'm good with 1 Commish and 2 presidents too.

Here are the main sections of the FOBL Constitution:

I. ORGANIZATION

I think we have this somewhat covered, there's not much wiggle room here besides the names of the divisions and who's in them.

II. GOVERNANCE

Beginning to nail this down.

III. OWNERSHIP

We'll need to deal with what we do about delinquent owners, owners who drop out, moving of franchises, etc. Probably a sizable section.

IV. GAMEPLAY

We will need to determine how often we sim, how we handle holidays, if there is any off-season, etc.

V. FREE AGENCY

For our purposes, this will be largely handled in-game, and I think this can be a section within gameplay as the main thing I think we'll need to determine is at what pace we go through the FA period.

VI. TRADING

This section I think we can for the most part just adjust what FOBL has. I'm not sure if the game places any restrictions on FA's/players who just signed with your team being traded in multiplayer as it does in single player. Considering what a sign and trade would do to one's salary cap, I can't imagine this would be much of an issue. I don't know how the multiplayer trading mechanism works, if this is put in by the individuals involved or if a trade is announced and the commish processes it.

VII. ROSTER, POSITION, AND INDIVIDUAL PLAYER SETTING RESTRICTIONS

Mostly covered in-game, though we might want to have some IR restrictions or a minimum roster requirement over 46. Or we may not. Not much to be done with player settings in FOF besides playing time, which is not an issue.

VIII. AWARDS

If we're interested in voting on our own awards or pro-bowl teams, rules could be laid out.

IX. HALL OF FAME

I don't think this needs to be covered.

X. AMENDMENT PROCEDURE

Obviously necessary.

XI. TECHNICAL MATTERS

We should cover things like league settings (inflation, injuries), how cities are chosen and designated in the city file, etc.

APPENDIX A: FINANCIAL SYSTEM

I don't know if this holds any relevance for us, certainly not in the scope that FOBL deals with this.


Can anyone think of other main sections that might be present in the constitution that are missing here? Or any issues that would fall under these categories?

cthomer5000
12-08-2003, 11:55 AM
I think staff hiring is an issue we're going to have to figure out. I don't know how that works in multiplayer, (Can the commish force anything? or does the game still handle offers normally?).

I think we might need some sort of out-of-game staff salary cap to determine who can hire which staff, otherwise there will just be enormous bidding wars for all the top talent. I also think a staff cap might help balance the way an owner constructs its staff.

(I'm thinking it could work like a fantasy-sports auction).

Basically the whole issue of financials needs to be addressed.

Do we want a flat cap? Or constantly increasing...and at what rate?
Do we care at all about team's bottom-line numbers? Or are we only interesting in on-field results?

cuervo72
12-08-2003, 01:41 PM
Well, the cap I was thinking would be in the "technical matters" area, as it would be a global setting dealing with inflation. I believe the game itself has some sort of cap on staff hirings, but I don't know if this is a hard number for all teams, I'd say probably not.

You do have a point about bottom line numbers though, if we choose to not ignore them.

Samdari
12-08-2003, 01:50 PM
I think one thing that needs to happen is that the test league needs to cover an offseason so that we know answers to some of the technical issues. We cannot write rules without knowing what is possible.

cthomer5000
12-08-2003, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by cuervo72
Well, the cap I was thinking would be in the "technical matters" area, as it would be a global setting dealing with inflation. I believe the game itself has some sort of cap on staff hirings, but I don't know if this is a hard number for all teams, I'd say probably not.

You do have a point about bottom line numbers though, if we choose to not ignore them.

If we do not ignore the bottom line, then some teams are esentially penalized for their city selections.

If we DO ignore the bottom line, we have to really deal with the issue of coaches/staff most of all. If the owner still makes restrictions (as they do in solo mode) then some teams again are rewarded for having more fans, larger economoy, etc...

1. We need to know whether owners put any restrictions in place in multi-player.

2. We need to determine whether we care about financials.

3. We need to decide the best way to handle the coach/staff hiring aspect in relation to points 1 and 2.

Vince
12-08-2003, 02:28 PM
1) We can figure this out in the test league when we get up and running again.

2) Personally, I'd rather keep financials, and make the bottom line worth something. Not a big deal if I'm in the minority, though.

3) I think cthomer5000's idea about dealing with a staff cap sounds great, but I don't know how much trouble it would be to implement.

Just my $0.02

KWhit
12-08-2003, 02:37 PM
If we ignore the finances (which I think we should) it will make staff hirings in-game very difficult. Even if we do some sort of auction it could turn into a nightmare.

I had a thought... Help me think this through. One way we could go with staff hirings is to just draft them and ignore the $ aspect of the hirings.

Maybe hold a separate coaches draft each year where each team picks any member of staff. I'm thinking that it would go in the same order as the college draft but be serpentine for any additional rounds.

We don't want every staff member to have the same length of contract (I don't think) so we'd want to somehow stagger the years you could sign them for - maybe 4 years for your first pick, 3 years for your second...

And somehow give a team an advantage if they want to re-sign their current coach. Not sure how that would work.

Basically I'm just talking out of my butt and thinking out loud. Could this work?

cthomer5000
12-08-2003, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by KWhit
If we ignore the finances (which I think we should) it will make staff hirings in-game very difficult. Even if we do some sort of auction it could turn into a nightmare.

I had a thought... Help me think this through. One way we could go with staff hirings is to just draft them and ignore the $ aspect of the hirings.

Maybe hold a separate coaches draft each year where each team picks any member of staff. I'm thinking that it would go in the same order as the college draft but be serpentine for any additional rounds.

We don't want every staff member to have the same length of contract (I don't think) so we'd want to somehow stagger the years you could sign them for - maybe 4 years for your first pick, 3 years for your second...

And somehow give a team an advantage if they want to re-sign their current coach. Not sure how that would work.

Basically I'm just talking out of my butt and thinking out loud. Could this work?

I think the auction process might be a little more fair, and not as difficult as most think. Here's how it could work:

You have 100 dollars each year to spend on your entire staff to spend on your scout, coach, and coordinators combined. Everyone has the game file, and for stage 1 you submit your choices and amounts via messageboard.

Owner A
Coach Joe Blow 50 dollars
O.C Hugh Jass 20 dollars
scout Name Name 10 dollars

Owner B
Coach Joe Blow 40 dollars
O.C. Hugh Jass 25 dollars
scout Name Name 9 dollars


Owner A would get his head coach and scout, while owner B would get the offensive coordinator.

We could devise some sort of pay-increase rule in order to re-sign your guys. Maybe something along the lines of

When a staff members contract is up, you can do the following:
A. Let him enter the free market, where anyone (including you) can bid on him
B. Retain the staff member by giving them a 25% pay increase (in our outside the game cap).

That way, you can't keep your staff together forever, forcing you to eventually make tough decisions - and giving everyone a crack at the top coaches/scouts eventually.

We could also set some sort of rule like a 3 year max length on contracts, with 3 being the default unless specified to be shorter.

I think it would make for a chaotic first off-season, but things would settle down.

EDIT-ADDITION...

If we went this way we could also set up some more rules such as:
If two competing bids are made on a staff member, the member would choose to stay with his current team (when applicable)
If offers are made to the same coach for multiple positions, the coach would accept up to 25% less pay to be a head coach (as opposed to coordinator).

EDIT:
I think this would make more sense out in the open, and have removed and reference to it beind a blind/closed process.

cthomer5000
12-09-2003, 11:00 PM
Ok. We're kind of stalling here, so I'm going to go point-by-point as Cuervo did with suggestions/my thoughts.

I. ORGANIZATION

32 teams. 2 conferences. 4 divisions per conference. This is obviously non-negotiable. The only thing left here is to perhaps seek suggestions for modifications to division and conference names. This will essentially be honorary titles (as they can't be changed within the game).

II. GOVERNANCE

1 Commish, 2 League presidents. I like the FOBL approach to election/removal and would suggest we just copy it in it's entirety.


III. OWNERSHIP

The FOBL is again suggestive but not overly specific with why owners can/should be removed. I suggest that the governing board pre-determine the next 2-3 potential owners at all times. We should probably formalize a system for owners to be on that list. Perhaps something like this:

1. A non-league member expresses interest.
2. A current owner endorses them.
3. At least 1 more owner seconds it.
4.the board evaluates the potential owner, and either denies them or puts them as next on the list (the next in line in some cases, or #5 if that is the case).

I suggest that new owners (those taking over an existing team) get 1 free move of their team. This would be a cosmetic move (renaming the city they play in), and would not effect their actual geographical placement as far as the game engine is concerned.

Perhaps we can suggest owners make a reasonable effort to place their team within the confines of the division they are in? (i.e. not take over a team in the Georgia division, and decide to move them to Montana).

Again, a decision on finances needs to made to determine how to handle the in-game process of team movement/stadium renovation-construction.

IV. GAMEPLAY


I think simming games twice a week would be a good pace, with a slow down for the playoffs (sim once per week).

V. FREE AGENCY

This should be handled entirely in game. We night need to put some minor rules in palce to ensure no disgruntled owner intentionally signs a cap-busting deal for the next owner to deal with (i.e., insanely huge signing bonus to a terrible player).

We may need to set roster limits from end of regular season until the off-season. Teams with cap space that have been eliminated from the playoffs can sign as many players as possible as is.
example: When I don't make the playoffs, and have excess cap space, I'll sign 5-6 players of low experience. They are then restricted FA's in the following off-season. This is a distinct advantage if we ignore financials, as teams will have no reason not to spend every last dime of cap space each season. A hard and fast "never more than 53 active players in-season" rule would probably take care of everything. An additional "no placing anyone on IR after your season is finished" would be a good secondary rule in that event.

VI. TRADING

I like the idea of not being able to trade draft picks beyond the next draft. In the event that owner is removed/quits, the next owner wont be at a major disadvantage.

should we allow trading of franchise players?
restricted free agents (essentially a sign-and-trade)?

VII. ROSTER, POSITION, AND INDIVIDUAL PLAYER SETTING RESTRICTIONS

I talked a lot about this above. I'd probably be in favor of a hard and fast 53 man active roster during the season (I mean 53 eligible for the active roster, obviously 46 in the technical "active roster"). For example, you could have 60 players if 7 or more were on injured reserve.



VIII. AWARDS

We should vote on 1 all-pro team (first team only). Perhaps a simple 1st, 2nd, 3rd vote for every position with the players receiving 3, 2, and 1 points respectively. A lobbying period would be allotted before voting, so that owners could make the league aware of their most deserving players.

I'd also suggest:

Comeback player of the year
coach of the year
And the standard FOF awards.

IX. HALL OF FAME

I think we should ignore the in-game HOF and induct our own. I like the FOBL settings on this. I wouldn't mind an real-life baseball like setup, where there is a high # of minimum votes needed. Perhaps a special HOF committee could be established.

X. AMENDMENT PROCEDURE

Definitely need one, as I'm sure changes will be made during the first season or two.

XI. TECHNICAL MATTERS

As cuervo said:
We should cover things like league settings (inflation, injuries), how cities are chosen and designated in the city file, etc.

Inflation %, starting salary cap, injury% are all very important decisions to be made. I'd be fine with a flat cap, but would go with the majority.

My reasoning for a flat-cap: We could easily track all-time player earnings, without adjusting for inflation. It might be nice to know you just forked over the largest signing bonus EVER, or that your QB has now taken home more cash than any player ever.

Again, I'd be fine either way though.

APPENDIX A: FINANCIAL SYSTEM

We somehow need to decide whether the bottom line will count, or whether we will ignore financials altogeher.

Samdari
12-10-2003, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by cthomer5000
I think the auction process might be a little more fair, and not as difficult as most think. Here's how it could work:

You have 100 dollars each year to spend on your entire staff to spend on your scout, coach, and coordinators combined. Everyone has the game file, and for stage 1 you submit your choices and amounts via messageboard.

Owner A
Coach Joe Blow 50 dollars
O.C Hugh Jass 20 dollars
scout Name Name 10 dollars

Owner B
Coach Joe Blow 40 dollars
O.C. Hugh Jass 25 dollars
scout Name Name 9 dollars


Owner A would get his head coach and scout, while owner B would get the offensive coordinator.

We could devise some sort of pay-increase rule in order to re-sign your guys. Maybe something along the lines of

When a staff members contract is up, you can do the following:
A. Let him enter the free market, where anyone (including you) can bid on him
B. Retain the staff member by giving them a 25% pay increase (in our outside the game cap).

That way, you can't keep your staff together forever, forcing you to eventually make tough decisions - and giving everyone a crack at the top coaches/scouts eventually.

We could also set some sort of rule like a 3 year max length on contracts, with 3 being the default unless specified to be shorter.

I think this idea has merit, but wonder if it operates outside the framework of a game. Does anyone even know yet if a commissioner can "force" a coach to be hired by a certain team? Say one owner decides that scouts are his thing, offers the highest price on any scout for the best available in an offline auction, but then in-game the scout does not take the highest offer his owner allows. Not only does he not get the best scout, but missed out on all the others that were taken in the auction, and instead of the best, ends up with the worst scout available.

Subby
12-10-2003, 07:43 AM
cthomer -

With respect to sims, I think your idea to "slow-down" in the playoffs by only simming once per week will probably slow things down too much. You are talking about a real-life month where a majority of the league is not simming.

Sticking to two sims per week for the playoffs is probably preferable - then you can maybe live sim those games to make them "special".

cuervo72
12-10-2003, 07:47 AM
Hmm, I tend to think that if there is a mechanism for doing something within the game (such as hiring coaches) we should utilize it and not make things more difficult on ourselves. But the idea was interesting, so don't think that I'm competely discounting it.

I'm not sure exactly how much more difficult things will be for teams that are in smaller cities; I don't know how the game factors in population a) of the city and b) of surrounding areas (teams 100 miles, 500 miles away or whatever it is). If this is too much of a problem, we could artificially inflate (or deflate) the populations of some teams in the city editor. This is something we may want to think about, maybe setting a minumum of 500k possibly. But even so, with built in revenue sharing from the TV contracts, towns like Green Bay seem to make out pretty well.

For the rest of the financials....what we might consider doing is having each team start out with an initial "war chest" so to speak. In game gains/losses can count against that war chest, and the amount in the war chest may have a bearing on what the owner can spend in total for the team (I think if an owner wishes to have a stronger coaching staff he should be able to do so, but in some cases will do so at the expense of his roster, so C + R <= T , but C and R are flexible). Similar in a way to FOBL's owner cap. If a team starts to lose money, their OC might shrink. Or we could ignore them altogether. But I'd personally like finances to play a role.

As far as the cap goes, I don't think there should be a flat cap, i.e. no inflation. It's not realistic and as some have discussed (ask Fritz about this one) it can take away some strategy. I also think that it might lead to some real cap hell, but I don't know for sure because I haven't tried it.

Simming - here I think we need to figure out how long a game season will be in real time. 2 sims a week and 1 playoff per week would put just the regular season alone at a little over 12 weeks, or about 3 months. I don't know how long preseason and the offseason will be (I personally would like to sim each preseason game separately as I roster jockey a lot in the preseason), but we might be pushing 4 calendar months for a season. This may or may not be reasonable, just throwing it out there to think about.

FA and trading - valid points about picking up FA's after a season is over, I think a rule about that and IR after you are no longer playing may be in order. Of course, doing this could hurt your financials if you use them, so that would be something to consider. As for trading, I don't think we should put any restraints on draft picks. IMO, those are going to be key to any deals anyhow. If an individual trade is out of line or if an owner is showing a pattern of rediculously selling off picks, then the BoG can do something about it.

Still not sure about ownership. A defined pecking order may not be bad. The FOBL has a very interesting system (I like to think they choose replacement owners - and they have very low turnover - like they're electing a pope), and I'm not sure if that can be duplicated or not. I'd like to hear what the pros/cons of having a set list are. And I think you're right about new owners being able to move their team, maybe after a full off-season. In this case of course the city file will need to be tinkered with directly, unless if we state that the moves must be made IN GAME (that would be an interesting twist, wouldn't it?). I would think moves and name changes might be subject to BoG approval.

I'm sure I'll come up with more opinions as the discussion continues. We may wish to break this up into other threads to nail down specific sections of the constitution and to keep things a little more manageable.

cthomer5000
12-10-2003, 08:26 AM
1. If we let the game hire staff handling, I would say we are forced to make financials a part of the league. Either using them or ignoring them is fine by me, we just need to know that these two parts pretty much go hand-in-hand.

2. Subby - you're probably right about the sim speed. We might be better off working backwards. How long should a season take (in real time) from start to finish?

3. Cuervo - I like the war chest idea in general. I agree that if I make 200 million profit one year, I should be able to lose 50 mill the next two seasons without real issue.

4. probably a good idea to break up the sepereate sections into threads soon.

5. In-season FA pickup/IR. Again, if we use financials, maybe people should be free to do whatever. If they have to pay for players, you can argue they aren't really gaining anything by bulking their roster up to 65 after the regular season is over. FWIW, in real life I don't believe a team can be over 53 players until the entire season ends... so we might want to have a similar rule. If people are dead set on picking up extras, they can always just IR anyone who's injured at the conclusion of week 17.

Subby
12-10-2003, 08:48 AM
I am guessing that, realistically, the IHOF off-season will take a solid month. That allows for FA, drafting, training camp, and the exhibition season.

Two sims per week during the regular season gives you another two months. Tack on two weeks for playoffs.

That makes close to 4 months per game cycle - so simming at a rate of 3 seasons per real life year. Personally, I like the pace of 4 seasons per real life year, but I don't see how much can be gained here from jamming everything into 3 months. If you sim too frequently, you start losing texture...

Samdari
12-10-2003, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by cthomer5000
1. If we let the game hire staff handling, I would say we are forced to make financials a part of the league. Either using them or ignoring them is fine by me, we just need to know that these two parts pretty much go hand-in-hand.

2. Subby - you're probably right about the sim speed. We might be better off working backwards. How long should a season take (in real time) from start to finish?

3. Cuervo - I like the war chest idea in general. I agree that if I make 200 million profit one year, I should be able to lose 50 mill the next two seasons without real issue.

4. probably a good idea to break up the sepereate sections into threads soon.

5. In-season FA pickup/IR. Again, if we use financials, maybe people should be free to do whatever. If they have to pay for players, you can argue they aren't really gaining anything by bulking their roster up to 65 after the regular season is over. FWIW, in real life I don't believe a team can be over 53 players until the entire season ends... so we might want to have a similar rule. If people are dead set on picking up extras, they can always just IR anyone who's injured at the conclusion of week 17.

As for point 1, there has been much discussion about "ignoring" the financial aspect of the game. Ignoring for a minute the discussion about whether this is desirable, I think that without the game giving the commish options to direct certain things, it is to a certain extent impossible to ignore them. They are there, they are part of the game, and without a global option to ignore financials, they are going to affect our league. I think the best way to ensure that city choices do not give any owners any advantages would be to use the city editor to give each city the same characteristics financially initially.

Cthomer, you use the phrase "if we let the game handle staff hiring..." I am curious, have you seen anything to indicate that it is possible not to let the game handle this? Even if we have an offline bidding process, we would still need to have owners enter their offers into stage files and depend upon the AI coaches accepting those offers, right?

I am not a big fan of "absolute" fixed rosters. If a team loses a player to a season ending injury, they should be able to replace him. Maybe some sort of restrictions on IR would be more appropriate? Either a limit on number of IR players, length of injury requirements before being placed on IR, or a simple "commish must approve IR moves" rule.

cthomer5000
12-10-2003, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by Samdari
As for point 1, there has been much discussion about "ignoring" the financial aspect of the game. Ignoring for a minute the discussion about whether this is desirable, I think that without the game giving the commish options to direct certain things, it is to a certain extent impossible to ignore them. They are there, they are part of the game, and without a global option to ignore financials, they are going to affect our league. I think the best way to ensure that city choices do not give any owners any advantages would be to use the city editor to give each city the same characteristics financially initially.

Cthomer, you use the phrase "if we let the game handle staff hiring..." I am curious, have you seen anything to indicate that it is possible not to let the game handle this? Even if we have an offline bidding process, we would still need to have owners enter their offers into stage files and depend upon the AI coaches accepting those offers, right?

I am not a big fan of "absolute" fixed rosters. If a team loses a player to a season ending injury, they should be able to replace him. Maybe some sort of restrictions on IR would be more appropriate? Either a limit on number of IR players, length of injury requirements before being placed on IR, or a simple "commish must approve IR moves" rule.

Here's what I mean about financials:

Will making a profit matter? Will we care if a team routinely loses 100 million per year? Assuming the game will have your owner start restricting you (as it does in single player), then we have no choice but to observe and abide by the financial aspect of the game. If the owner aspect is turned off in MP (i don't know if it is or not), then we could essentially ignore finanicals if we chose to do so....there would ultimately be no point in trying to make a profit.


As for fixed rosters, I have no problem with 53 active players on every team. Teams should be able to IR as many players as the game allows (around 14 I think), and fill their needs as necessary. I just don't think that non-playoff teams should be able to beef up to 70 players the second the playoffs begin. If they do that, they can then have like 20 RFA's on their roster the next season. In summary, you can have 63 players if 10 are on injured reserve. That's just one take on it.

The issue is "can teams go over the standard 53 man roster (active, uninjured players) once their season has ended? We can either say:

a. No - no team can go over 53 active players at any time during the season.
b. Yes - they have to pay the players anyway, so there is a consequence to signing this extra players.