Passed: Roster increase for 2003

[Nittany Dodgers]

Should we increase the roster to 18, require teams to carry a backup in two of the three positions of K, TE, and/or D, increase the cap by 500cb, and contract years by 2?

[Flaxwless]

Voted on.

[Preds]

Originally posted by Nittany Dodgers
Should we increase the roster to 18, require teams to carry a backup in two of the three positions of K, TE, and/or D, increase the cap by 500cb, and contract years by 2?

I think this is a very REASONABLE proposal. Last year we voted down a 2 man roster increase 7-5 that was a cap increase of 1,500 and a whopping 5 contract years.

This proposal is much more reasonable with a slim cap increase and only 1 contract year for each additional players. Further, the requirement of backing up 2 of 3 among TE, K, or D just makes a ton of sense IMO.

So why do we have 3 negative votes? 2 years in a row we've seen that the 16 man active roster is too limiting for this style league, especially for playoff runs. Whats your reasoning behind those no votes? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Flaxwless]

I agree with you Mike.

This increase is very minimal. It will only serve to have backups for every position if the owner chooses.

If they decide to use 2 of the 3 spots for back up they have one extra slot but no extra years so to speak since it would be tied up to the back ups. The cap increase is so small that it would hardly be noticed.

16 roster spots for a leage that starts 9 is very small. Especially considering that we start 3 WRs.

This vote needs to pass. It only makes sense.

[Preds]

Now that this motion has passed, I think we should up the minimum roster size by 2, from 13-15 to keep things consistent. Any arguments for or against this?

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally posted by Parkwood Predators
Now that this motion has passed, I think we should up the minimum roster size by 2, from 13-15 to keep things consistent. Any arguments for or against this?

I don't think this is absolutely necessary (the starting lineups haven't changed), but I won't be against it if there is a consensus.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

At first I was going to say this was necessary... but then I thought a bit more about it.

If we HAVE to carry one "starting lineup" spot for each posisiton (9)... and we HAVE to carry 2 backups at the K/TE/D position... then we're at a mandatory 11... so the 13 minimum limit still seems to fit. I don't think we need to increase the roster min., but this is definitely NOT worth fighting over. I'll do whatever.

[Flaxwless]

I think we need to up the roster minimum just to keep it consistant. If not people will choose not to back up and have and extra 2 contract years and $500 to play with.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

I think we need to up the roster minimum just to keep it consistant. If not people will choose not to back up and have and extra 2 contract years and $500 to play with.

I don't see your point. Choosing not to back up is not a choice any more... it's mandated. We have to carry at least one of every position (starting 9), and we have to carry at least 2 backups in the K, TE, D categories. Whether we increase the minimum roster limit or not, there's no getting around this.

Bottom line, it doesn't make much of a difference. I'm just in favor of less restrictions, when at all possible.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Sorry, for asking a silly question but what are the totals after this has passed. I think it is $10,500 cb's, 38 cap years and 18 players. Is this correct?

Also, what are the DS numbers?

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally posted by Philadelphia Freedom
Sorry, for asking a silly question but what are the totals after this has passed. I think it is $10,500 cb's, 38 cap years and 18 players. Is this correct?

Also, what are the DS numbers?

You are correct on the active squad numbers. The DS for this year is 4 players, 2750 cbs, 12 years.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Thanks!!