Rule Poll#2

Steve Solbo · Post by **Steve Solbo** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:41 am

Roster Size: 12? 14? 16? Unlimited with a appearance caveat?

Steve Solbo · Post by **Steve Solbo** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:46 am

Realize, this may make it outright impossible to juggle people, or could increase the amount of 12 on 12 or 14 on 14 challenges.

Shawn Mullen · Post by **Shawn Mullen** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:05 pm

We had trouble getting 12 players. So I voted to keep it at 12.

Steve Solbo · Post by **Steve Solbo** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:13 pm

People realize that just because roster size would increase, would not mean you would have to have 14 or 16. Nor would the minimum change of 6...

Bill Stewart · Post by **Bill Stewart** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 4:37 pm

Keep at 12, but allow for roster changes IF the incoming player was never on any other roster for any part of the season. Therefore if a player leaves a roster, he's done for the season.

This would allow teams to keep 12 players throughout the season if one player realizes he can't keep the year-long commitment at some point during the season.

J_Disc · Post by **J_Disc** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:09 pm

I like the appearance minimum for finals (number TBD), but I'm also fine with 12 person teams -- so I didn't vote. I'd rather see more teams than bigger teams.

Stephen Ditter · Post by **Stephen Ditter** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:24 pm

I agree with jdisc, more teams rather then bigger teams. If the rosters increase by too much I fear that teams starting up at T-land or Panthorn might be hurt by members going elsewhere.

-ditterman

zak brown · Post by **zak brown** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:34 pm

I think a bigger roster would be good so there is a better chance for a bigger outcome on a specific day, instead of trying to figure out when 24 people have the same day free. And if 14, 16 are free the same day we'll have a big fun day!... more is better..unless your on a boat

Clayton Davidson · Post by **Clayton Davidson** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:12 pm

Bigger rosters... I might be the only person experiencing this(because team wick almost always represents with 10-12 playas) but sitting out at a team challenge because the other team couldn't bring enough players sucks.

Pete Tolvanen · Post by **Pete Tolvanen** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:37 am

Clayton wrote - "Bigger rosters... I might be the only person experiencing this(because team wick almost always represents with 10-12 playas) but sitting out at a team challenge because the other team couldn't bring enough players sucks."

So you are really advocating a larger minimum number-of-players-per-match requirement?

If rosters expand to ~20 then the minimum requirement would likely go up to 10-12. You could still be sitting if Wick brought all 20 and other teams brought the minimum (and it would be that much harder for courses that don't have an established weekend league to gather more players that will show for away matches).

We could leave rosters at 12 and require at least 9 for matches but rosters were expanded to 12 (from 8) to resolve availability issues so I don't see that working.

Wick could split into 2 teams of 6 hard-core guys each if playing time is the prime concern.

Andy Gallerani · Post by **Andy Gallerani** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:42 am

I think that raising the minimum per challenge would effectively eliminate most new courses from establishing teams in this thing. I know that for Devens if we had to get 9 for each challenge then we wouldnt have any shot at meeting that for anything more than 1 match, if that. If rosters were expanded i think that the minimum should be kept at 6 so as not to discourage new teams from joining, especially if we do end up having more than 1 challenge per month. I personally would like to see the minimum number abolished and have captains agree on what number is available for the challenge with the intention of having as many as possible but not making it mandatory.

Steve Solbo · Post by **Steve Solbo** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:48 am

Im not raising the minimum. It will stay @ 6, as I realize the concerns of teams like Devens and others...

I dont think roster size was ever limited to 8 either, 10 was the smallest it ever was I believe.

I think 14 is a good number. with 6 still being the minimum..

Rob Tatro · Post by **Rob Tatro** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:21 pm

Steve-O wrote:I think 14 is a good number. with 6 still being the minimum..

I just looked at the poll results so far though and it seems as if others feel differently ... just saying :wink:

Pete Tolvanen · Post by **Pete Tolvanen** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:34 pm

What are the arguments for increasing rosters to 14 if the minimum requirement stays at 6?

(and I like a minimum requirement as without it we'd have gotten something like 2 guys wanting to go to Devens for our Feb challenge. With the 6-minimum requirement there was some small sense of 'commitment to team' to cajole people into playing).

Joe Yaskis · Post by **Joe Yaskis** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:37 pm

ten was the smallest. Keep it at 12 so other teams can form and gobble up some talent.

Steve Solbo · Post by **Steve Solbo** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:54 pm

yaskis wrote:ten was the smallest. Keep it at 12 so other teams can form and gobble up some talent.

agreed.

NEFA DISCussion

Rule Poll#2

Roster Size Bigger?Smaller?

Rule Poll#2