Modification to TE/K/D Rule - Passes 7-3

[Nittany Dodgers]

We had discussions last season about modifying the rule that requires each team to carry at least 5 players that are among the TE, K, and D positions. More roster penalties have been assessed for violations of this rule than any other.

I had brought up a suggested modifcation last year that would change the wording to say 5 dedicated roster spots to the TE/K/D, which keeps the spirit of the rule in play, but also eliminates the ticky tack penalties for only having 3 or 4 at these positions. Basically, it still restricts that teams cannot have more than 13 QB's, RB's, and WR's as things currently are, but eliminates the penalty for not carrying 5 players at the TE/K/D positions.

I think we should vote on this rule change now and impliment it for the 2007 season before things get further along.

So vote in the poll, and lets see if we can clean this up.

[Flaxwless]

I would be opposed to changing this rule because we added 500cbs to the cap and an extra roster slot or two to implement the rule.

If we no longer require 5 TE/K/D then I believe we MUST remove the 500cbs added to the salary cap b/c current market prices have been set with the 5 PK/TE/D rule in place. If we do not then expect an increase in skill position prices again and in the end people will skimp out on backups to the TE/K/D again to fill the other positions.

Again if you guys want to remove that rule... fine with me, but I believe in needs to be in conjunction with at least lowering the salary cap from 10,500 back to 10,000.

The roster spost can be left alone b/c if they decide to allocate their resources to the 13 spots for skill positions, then of course their back ups would suffer.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Doesn't bother me. I don't feel passionate either way about keeping/removing the 500cbs.

[Preds]

still need votes from:

Wonder Mutts
Black Watch Royal Highlanders,
and the new guy in the West Division with an as yet unnamed team

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

still need votes from:

Wonder Mutts
Black Watch Royal Highlanders,
and the new guy in the West Division with an as yet unnamed team

He purposely abstained from voting in this one since he didn't fully understand the issue or the history on it. He said if he really needs to vote on it I can get him up to speed, which is basically going to just mean he's going to vote how I tell him.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

He purposely abstained from voting in this one since he didn't fully understand the issue or the history on it. He said if he really needs to vote on it I can get him up to speed, which is basically going to just mean he's going to vote how I tell him.

I think as a league member, he should vote regardless. Inform him of the reasoning behing the original restriction, and are thoughts to loosen it and let him vote as he feels.

[Flaxwless]

Since it has been abolished... what are we going to do with the extra 500cb to the salary cap and extra roster spot that we added to put this rule in place?

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

Since it has been abolished... what are we going to do with the extra 500cb to the salary cap and extra roster spot that we added to put this rule in place?

Nothing. The additional roster spot is still soley reseverd for the TE/K/D position, it's just now legal to be vacant. You can still have no more than 13 QB/RB/WR.

The 500 cb's are there to be used as teams see fit.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Preds

Nothing. The additional roster spot is still soley reseverd for the TE/K/D position, it's just now legal to be vacant. You can still have no more than 13 QB/RB/WR.

The 500 cb's are there to be used as teams see fit.

Which would mean teams would allocate the excess funds to the QB/RB/WR... which means price inflation.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

Which would mean teams would allocate the excess funds to the QB/RB/WR... which means price inflation.

The 500 has been used accross the board for 2-3 years now. I doubt you'll see any significnt change of salaried because of the loosening of this rule.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Preds

The 500 has been used accross the board for 2-3 years now. I doubt you'll see any significnt change of salaried because of the loosening of this rule.

But teams had to at least spend 200 cbs on back up TE/K/DEF... now they dont and guess where that goes.... to the skill positions.

Just thought if you remove a rule... you should remove all the changes that went with implementing that rule.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

But teams had to at least spend 200 cbs on back up TE/K/DEF... now they dont and guess where that goes.... to the skill positions.

Just thought if you remove a rule... you should remove all the changes that went with implementing that rule.

My last post before I leave...

We did't remove the rule, we modified it. Teams will still need those 200 cb's to fill backups at TE/K/D to cover byes.

What we can consider, is implementaing a rule mandating that you can not carry less than 5 TE/K/D and also start a guy on bye because you've spent the money elsewhere. Basically require teams to obtain backups when necessary.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Preds

My last post before I leave...

We did't remove the rule, we modified it. Teams will still need those 200 cb's to fill backups at TE/K/D to cover byes.

What we can consider, is implementaing a rule mandating that you can not carry less than 5 TE/K/D and also start a guy on bye because you've spent the money elsewhere. Basically require teams to obtain backups when necessary.

So basically not changing it then?

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

So basically not changing it then?

No, I'm saying impose a penalty for using the cap space on the skill positions, not covering yourself with a backup, and starting a bye week player.

Penalty Scenario
Team is less than 500cb under the cap
and Team has fewer than 5 TE/K/D
and Team starts a bye week player at TE/K/D

NO Penalty Scenario
Team is more than 500cb under the cap
and Team has fewer than 5 TE/K/D
and Team starts a bye week player at TE/K/D

This wouldn't be difficult to track, and solves your concerns. Only a few times each season do we see someone start players on bye at those positions, and those cases would be easy to look at to see if the team should be penalized or not. The amount of penalty we could discuss (I'd say 250).

[Amish]

I like that last suggestion by Preds. It makes all of us have foresight at those positions and not neglecting our starting lineups.

Joel

[Nittany Dodgers]

I don't have an issue with Mike's suggestion, other than the tracking scenario. Who's tracking? What is the time frame for the penalties? IE, I think we should address this similarly to the scoring revisions in that things should happen the same week. I know teams are responsible for tracking their own rosters and whatnot, but I'd hate to see a situation where a team is penalized for one of these three weeks after the fact.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I don't have an issue with Mike's suggestion, other than the tracking scenario. Who's tracking? What is the time frame for the penalties? IE, I think we should address this similarly to the scoring revisions in that things should happen the same week. I know teams are responsible for tracking their own rosters and whatnot, but I'd hate to see a situation where a team is penalized for one of these three weeks after the fact.

Just checking in quick from Hawaii. Had a great time yesterday with Jim and his family. Jim and his family (Jody, Ezra and Emily) are "Good People" folks. Highly recommended you look them up if you visit Hawaii. They were great to us. Really enjoyed our time with them.

Anyhow, the question at hand, I agree with Brian that it would be something assessed wihin the 1 week where scoring corrections and whatnot are legal. I think the onus for detecting an offender should fall on the opponent. If you see a guy start a TE/K/D on bye, look at their cap, if their 500 cbs or less, notify the league and the team will be find. I would also think anyone else could comment on a team in violation as well. We can self police this fairly easily IMO.

As for the fine, what do you think, 250cbs?

I get on my cruise this afternoon, so won't have net access, or very limited access for the next week.

Aloha!

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

Just checking in quick from Hawaii. Had a great time yesterday with Jim and his family. Jim and his family (Jody, Ezra and Emily) are "Good People" folks. Highly recommended you look them up if you visit Hawaii. They were great to us. Really enjoyed our time with them.

Anyhow, the question at hand, I agree with Brian that it would be something assessed wihin the 1 week where scoring corrections and whatnot are legal. I think the onus for detecting an offender should fall on the opponent. If you see a guy start a TE/K/D on bye, look at their cap, if their 500 cbs or less, notify the league and the team will be find. I would also think anyone else could comment on a team in violation as well. We can self police this fairly easily IMO.

As for the fine, what do you think, 250cbs?

I get on my cruise this afternoon, so won't have net access, or very limited access for the next week.

Aloha!

I could agree on the self policing aspect. Basically, anyone who spots this type of situation can point it out.

As far as the penalty, I think 250 is our standard penalty, but that seems excessive. I would think something in the range of 150-200 would be more in order (basically, the amount it would have taken to sign a backup at one of these positions).