|
|
Post by Admin-Bears on Nov 22, 2014 10:34:35 GMT -8
We played last year with 18 coaches and two vacant teams. We currently have 3 vacant teams and I want to pose a question to you guys:
IF we do not fill the vacant teams, should we contract to 18 teams or leave the two vacancies until filled? Vacant teams can give you a chance to play without scheduling with your opponent, as those games are played vs CPU. I'll leave it to you guys and I am fine either way. Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by bengals21 on Nov 22, 2014 11:26:49 GMT -8
Definitely keep the 20 teams. The vacancies will get filled at some point, I'm sure. I don't like the idea of "all-star" teams.
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by kennymain on Nov 22, 2014 13:05:05 GMT -8
Im for either way, I think Pat can use cap to prevent "All Star teams" and it might be better to have a smaller league with better ownership rather than try and fill in teams with guys that half-heartly join. i guess i would rather see the league strink a little rather than have vacant teams standing if the vacancies cant be filled.
Kenny
|
|
|
|
Post by bengals21 on Nov 22, 2014 18:14:44 GMT -8
Good point about the salary cap.
|
|
nickm
New Member
Posts: 2 
|
Post by nickm on Nov 22, 2014 19:05:40 GMT -8
I think we should reduce the teams. With the salary cap we should be good. Also the two teams that were vacant at the beginning of the season never got filled, so I don't see a whole lot of guys into retro replays with draft teams! just my two cents. If at a later time we get more interest we could expand, again with the salary cap there won't be all star teams. Plus on top of that the draft will be a lot more interesting.
Nick - Minnesota Vikings
|
|
|
|
Post by Len on Nov 22, 2014 19:21:46 GMT -8
I'd say stick with 20. As time goes on and the league gets a little history under its belt, people will take notice.
|
|
|
|
Post by spartacusz on Nov 24, 2014 13:42:59 GMT -8
The league should be manageable if we don't attract any new coaches, but I bet we find some.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin-Bears on Jan 9, 2015 13:56:35 GMT -8
I'm sort of leaning toward going with 18 teams. I looked through the teams that would be disbanded and they only introduce a total of 19 players rated 7 or higher. That's barely 1 per team and I don't think that will skew things too much. I would also raise the cap about the same as the value of a very good 7-8 rated player (about $5M) to make up the difference.
The only question, IF we go this way, is whether to have three 6-team 'conferences' or stay with two conferences, each with a 5 and 4 team division. I would probably advocate for 6 overall playoff teams (three division winners and 3 WC's), but would not bat an eye if you guys want 8 (4 div winners plus 4 WC).
|
|
