Got an Idea?

Want to see a rule changed? Have an idea for 2015? The offseason is the time to voice it. Over the course of the leagues existence rules have been added, like having yellow and red cards added in 2010, or expanding the rosters in 2012, or the acquistion budget in 2014.

16 comments:

  1. Since you've asked, I want to start a discussion.

    I'm not convinced that the acquisition budget has been a good thing. In previous years, when you picked up a major new player you did it by essentially wagering a player that had some value already. It caused (at times) a cascade down the ranks such that the wagered player was first team material and would get picked up by a new team who'd then drop some good depth, etc. Now, you simply acquire your Clint Dempsey (or whoever), drop underperforming scrubs and move on, creating no real movement in the rest of the league.

    The acquisition budget is also, in my opinion unfairly skewed toward teams that have one guy who'll score every week without fail over those that are more a group effort. Both kinds of roster construction are valid, but if you've got that one guy you're never guessing about who to name as your Captain for the week.

    Discuss?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Any ideas on a fix or new structure? We would need something to change it to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, I think the previous system worked better. But I'm open to other options. Who remembers why we switched to begin with?

      Delete
    2. There was a disagreement about goal keepers and their value under the old bidding system.

      Delete
    3. That's right. Perhaps just disallowing GKs is simpler and more equitable?

      Delete
    4. I fail to see how GK points are any less, or more valuable than points from any other player.

      Delete
    5. @Alamo I agree, but if it's too contentious to allow them as part of a bidding system than perhaps excluding them is the easy solution.

      Delete
  3. I propose an Auto sub rule. As it stands our rosters are 100% locked when the first game of the week kicks off. Sometimes that a Wednesday. That eliminates up to 3 days of news about our players in order to adjust our rosters. Sometimes player announcements don't come out until kick off of their respective match. I think we should be allowed 1 Auto sub in these instances. If a player is scratched at game time, is hurt in training on Friday when our rosters were locked on Wednesday, or whatever ... we get an auto sub for said player. If it happens to multiple players, tough. I think 1 is fair and reasonable given how the schedule breaks down with MLS games. We already have to order them in case of cards coming into play so that part wouldn't be an issue. If there's an unavoidable (on our part) scratch to your lineup, our first sub goes in (and we then only have two bench players for the match).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's not bad sounding. I've definitely been waiting to hear about a potentially injured play and just had to make a best guess before.

      My only real concern is general rules complexity creep.

      Delete
    2. 1. I do like the concept of the idea... but
      2. I don't think it makes for good management to be allowed an auto sub for any 1 player missing action... but
      3. What if you were allowed to designate 1 specific player each week as your possible autosub on your weekly lineup. That leaves the owner the option if he/she has a player they are on the fence about, but not going as far as saying every starter has a backup. Also the reserve player would be your replacement player if said "Autosub" player missing the weeks action. This would force the club owner to have to decide whether it more important to place a key sub as sub#1 or as the reserve.

      Example:

      Starters
      player1, player2, player3(C), player4, player5(AS), player6, player7, player8, player9, player10, player(GK), sub1,sub2,sub3. reserve1 (Would come in if "Autosub" player misses acion)

      Delete
    3. Hmm. I like designating a single player as someone who can be auto-subbed for. I'm not sure about making it the reserve. That slot is almost always (it seems) a hurt player, someone on international duty, someone who's team isn't playing this week, or a backup GK. Not a very useful rule then.

      Delete
  4. The way I envisioned it is as such:

    Thierry Henry was iffy coming out of the Sunday night game and going into next week he's a game time decision. Reports out of training on Tuesday/Wednesday were positive but no word was given. LA/POR play Wednesday night and lock the lineup. At the time of the lineups being locked I have every reason to believe that he'll be playing according to reports. I put him in the lineup. Friday's training session is a bad one and he's ruled out OR NYRB waits until lineups are due before the game and he's scratched.

    I submitted my lineup with him in it. Currently, I'm just SOL.

    I propose that whomever I designate as my first sub would be auto-subbed for Henry. I then only have two bench players available for any potential card situation. I don't get hosed for having my lineup lock 3/4 days before a decision is made, and I get a full lineup playing. Putting the potential player to sub on in the reserve slot takes him out possibly being put on due to cards.

    HOWEVER, sometimes more than one player would fall under this. There's a few options. The sub list could also be an auto-sub order as well and we'd get up to three of them (but then no options for possible card advantage). Or, we get one and it is used on the first player scratched.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I wouldn't have the time each week to monitor all clubs full starting line-ups to see who missed action that week. Just not set up that way. Checking a few players, like 1 each lineup is manageable, but otherwise it becomes a execution factor.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think we need to keep it simple (i.e. not make a change for auto sub), the playing field is even because everyone has to deal with the same thing.

    Regarding allocation budgets, I thought they were great, and a feature that makes the league more realistic. Further, it provides incentive for players to stay involved in the league even when their post season hopes are gone. I also like the strategy involved - if you want to, you can just accumulate cash and not make any acquisitions so that the next time a Clint Dempsey does come to the league you know you will have the most resources, or vice versa.

    ReplyDelete
  7. My preference is to keep the acquisition budget. But what if we had other ways to obtain funds? I suggested last year about possibly using the derbies as another way to obtain funds, but we decided it was better to wait as the system was brand new. What if the winner of a derby got say $10.

    I know not every club is involved in a derby, but I don't think it'd be that hard to create one for each club. In the rare cases of a team having multiple derbies, like me, it'd have to be the derby with your main rival. Like I play Spartan and Alamo, and I think most would agree that my main rival is Alamo. The Founders Cup wouldn't couldn't because that's just between the 4 original clubs, and there's nothing for the others. Unless they wanted to create something similar.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I too like the acquistion budget. It's cool!!!! My vote would always be to keep it. I would like to expand on it like CDG. More ways to get money, More ways to spend it. But, I haven't thought of any ideas to expand it yet.

    ReplyDelete