Ok, seems like there's way too much conjecture over this right now. I'll put together a few polls, and we'll see where things end up. Please keep discussing / commenting, and please make a note when you've voted in each poll, so that we know who has / hasn't voted (just incase outsiders also vote), and can aggregate results accordingly.
I just commented in the vote thread. My 2 cents worth are this: I am generally happy with my squad and spare players (Screw u Swanny). But in the spirit of this competition, if there a a few players which have been hit hard with non-starting players and it would make it fairer for all, then we should consider increasing the squad size - even if the majority vote it down. If we increase our squad sizes and increase the amount of turn over to squads, then we will have a very active trade period.
That bit there that I've bolded was the point of this - to help struggling teams now, and to create more activity in the future. Clearly though I've underestimated or misinterpreted the sentiments of the general 'FU community. My apologies for that. Based on votes thus far: It appears pretty obvious that the majority of coaches only want changes made during the off-season, which is perfectly reasonable and logical. The majority of coaches would like to see some form of mandatory delisting or list turnover, so we'll have to redress this issue (remembering that it was voted down when we first started this league!) I'd like to see the remaining votes cast for the list size issue. While there is a clear leader, the sum total of change versus no change are actually quite close, too close to call at this point in time. If you haven't yet voted, please get your votes in, so that we can then organise things properly, and keep things moving along. Once again, sorry for trying to be proactive, against the (voted) wishes of the general 'FU community.
Sorry to jump in so late in the conversation , ive been using tapatalk and in doing so dont see new topics.....will use the pc more frequently to check up. Really concerned on making drastic changes mid season. Very concerned on having to move on 4 players especially if there is no need to. I drafted for depth during PSD and although ive had players dropped, injured, concussed ive been able to have the depth to field a full team with emergencies. Adding 4 more players seems excessive and will possibly leave MSD null en void. It's a good idea to think that it lead to more trading but i'd say most of us have found trading difficult as we all value our players differently and getting a deal done is extremely hard. If we were to increase team size wouldn't it be better to start with say 2 extra players see how it goes?
According to the poll results 9 coaches out of 16 so far want to keep things just the way they are....I would take from that, that our lists will stay at 26.......that's fair enough, if that's what the majority want.
As it is anyway, we have 468 players... 398 play every week and 270 players are required for each team to have 15... depth can be found if you know where to look, sometimes that means overlooking the cool looking draftee for a player who will get reliable scores.
I'll go have a final look at the polls over the weekend, but yes, I do believe that (nearly) everyone has voted, and the general consensus is to keep things as they are, and only introduce changes after a season is complete. Fair enough on both counts.
That needs a continuation mate.... you can't just leave us all hanging like that! Or was it a procrastination dig at me???