Ha, well part of my last job was running the research program for the organisation so I got used to designing and running surveys.
I believe this was discussed last time around ,we had 4 delistments but this penalised the teams that liked to trade. If a coach did 1 trade, two trades , 3 trades etc... no matter what plus 4 delistments that's harsh ! Trades would be at a bare minimum thus taking out half the fun of too serious
I can't see the logic in this at all. Coaches make trades to improve their list. Why would being forced to make delistments deter coaches from trading? "oh I've already had to drop my 4 worst players, if I trade too that will really hurt me" I don't get it.
Haven't searched the forum but fairly sure that's what happened when we first introduced 4 delistments before we moved to 4 player changes.
I know we've got rule votes coming up. Just wanted to add a couple for consideration. 1. Reduce the time between draft picks to 6 hours maximum, with a shutdown period between midnight and 6am. Slow drafting just creates more slow drafting, as coaches stop checking in so often. It would be great to have more coaches visiting the site frequently throughout draft periods, to potentially increase trade activity. 2. As previously discussed, removing the compulsory delist number for the season. I don't believe the rule is achieving what it was set out to. Of the 61 players delisted in the 2024 PSD and 40 players delisted in the 2024 MSD, how many have been re-drafted? A handful and often late in drafts?