Expanding Rosters

Pete Violet · Post by **Pete Violet** » Wed Sep 14, 2011 3:42 pm

Whether a team was allowed to bring 20 to a challenge and play some in the 1st rd and others in the 2nd rd during finals and reg season

or

a team was only allowed to play the same 16 for both rounds

Either way, their are only 32 positions competing. 16 players in the 1st rd and 16 in the 2nd.

the only difference I see is that it would be easier to include all and a better chance that we would have 16 qualified for finals.

Titan Bariloni · Post by **Titan Bariloni** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 9:34 am

both options seem fine..I could see still keeping it to 16 though as a more structured format

Adam Whitten · Post by **Adam Whitten** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 11:54 am

I don't think finals will be an issue if we have the 4 alternates qualify because there will be a set roster size anyway for finals. Yes all 20 can come but you have to choose what rounds they play. That would also leave some people to help around during the first round of finals to get a smooth transition into the second round when scores come in.

Dave Hickson · Post by **Dave Hickson** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 9:39 pm

Adam Whitten wrote:I don't think finals will be an issue if we have the 4 alternates qualify because there will be a set roster size anyway for finals. Yes all 20 can come but you have to choose what rounds they play. That would also leave some people to help around during the first round of finals to get a smooth transition into the second round when scores come in.

I see your point. 2nd

But I do think we should keep it to the 16 and 4 format for the regular season.

Pete Violet · Post by **Pete Violet** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 10:28 pm

I thought of this today regarding this topic

Borderland has 2 teams - with expanding rosters it allows for some on b2 to move up to A - that's good I guess :roll:

However, the 4 alternates on that team are gonna be in limbo between the 2 teams if ... its not treated as a "roster of 20".

Therefore, we may be changing our vote on this topic.

Steven Dakai · Post by **Steven Dakai** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 6:45 am

I would think that any player must commit to one team for the season. Name the people on your roster,up to 20, and they are your "property" for the season. If a player wants to be released to play with another team they would have to ask the commish first.
Otherwise its the "Direnzo Bedroom" policy that didnt fly.

Pete Violet · Post by **Pete Violet** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 7:07 am

Steven that is not what I meant - before the season - players may move up to the a team. However, what would be the point if you were moving up just to be a sub (its possible you would never be called on.)

Dave Hickson · Post by **Dave Hickson** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 7:28 am

Well there are 6 votes in the b pool for option 2. That's not counting you Pete. Just because the b pool voted on option 2 dose not mean the a pool will.

Matt DeAngelis · Post by **Matt DeAngelis** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 7:30 am

I see this as a roster increase to 20, however, only 16 can compete in any given challenge.

Dave Hickson · Post by **Dave Hickson** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 7:42 am

Yea if that's how you want to run your team. It definitely gives the captains a new element in running there team. I will let my alternates know they are alternates. That way they understand there situation on the team when they don't play.

John Dickison · Post by **John Dickison** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 10:58 am

Sorry if I didn't reply earlier -- thought this was a B Pool Only question.

I'm OK with expanding the rosters in A Pool provided each round within a challenge is still capped at 16. So you can bring more than 16 if you want, but extra players will sit.

I believe the intent here is to help teams that have had low participation at a given challenge (e.g. only 10 players show). I don't want to increase players per round. Perhaps number of players that actually play in a given challenge could be increased with agreement between captains, but if no agreement, 16 would be the max per round.

20 Players is a 4 player (25%) increase. That seems a bit much, so my vote would be to got to 18 (+2) in A Pool.

I'm assuming we'd still allow up to 2 roster moves per season, so that provides additional flexibility.

Would any/all Women would count against expanded roster? Or just 1st woman with unlimited women alternates (as last year)?

Bill Newman · Post by **Bill Newman** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:07 am

I agree with JD expand to 18 as a compromise....in a pinch I'd vote yes to expand to 20 more the merrier

BN
TCL Brewery

anything else I need to vote on??

Pete Violet · Post by **Pete Violet** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 7:50 pm

I know we have talked about some rules for B pool and some for a pool. .. I am wondering if this is one that should be the same throughout. If b pool had larger rosters than a pool and a team moved up it would have to drop players.

Dave Hickson · Post by **Dave Hickson** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 8:23 pm

Pete Charron · Post by **Pete Charron** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:23 pm

Pete Violet wrote:I know we have talked about some rules for B pool and some for a pool. .. I am wondering if this is one that should be the same throughout. If b pool had larger rosters than a pool and a team moved up it would have to drop players.

Agreed. I feel like 2 more versus 4 more is really just nitpicking... I mean realistically who cares if its a 25% increase in roster size. It's not ACTUALLY an increase because you can only field (at least as it stands now) 16 max per challenge.

I think it only allows more flexibility for teams to maneuver. I also think that hypothetically, and this might be pushing it, but you could go with your 18 players keep 2 alternate spots open and acquire 2 more people throughout the year as alternates without it counting against your roster moves. Seems fair to me.

If a captain wishes not to utilize the 4 alternate spots than that's fine they can bank them and utilize it later without being penalized. The feather in the cap being once a new player plays for your team they automatically fill one of those spots or what steve said..

Steven Dakai wrote:I would think that any player must commit to one team for the season. Name the people on your roster,up to 20, and they are your "property" for the season. If a player wants to be released to play with another team they would have to ask the commish first.
Otherwise its the "Direnzo Bedroom" policy that didnt fly.

Derek Brazauskas · Post by **Derek Brazauskas** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 11:09 pm

Kory Roy wrote:disagree, if all 20 qualify for finals all 20 should be eligible to play one of the 2 rds at finals just my opinion, after all they did put in the required challenges

But they are only alternates.

Kory Roy · Post by **Kory Roy** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 11:21 am

yes they are just alternates but odds are based on what i saw last year they would potentially play just as much if not more then a teams starters since i dont think many teams had all 16 at all events. im just saying they may be alternates but they are also part of the team and contribute to a team potentially getting to finals so if they do in fact qualify they should be rewarded for their efforts and allowed to compete at finals just my opinion.

Eric Maurer · Post by **Eric Maurer** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 11:32 am

I would also take into account that not all teams have a completely full roster, or plan on filling all of their vacant spots. It might just mean more people sitting out.

Pete Violet · Post by **Pete Violet** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 5:37 pm

If someone knows upfront that they are an alternate - then they know they will be sitting if everyone ahead of them on the pecking order is available. I would say the potential to play is better than not being on the team at all.

Dave Hickson · Post by **Dave Hickson** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:03 pm

Pete Violet wrote:If someone knows upfront that they are an alternate - then they know they will be sitting if everyone ahead of them on the pecking order is available. I would say the potential to play is better than not being on the team at all.

I will encourage all my alts to show for every challenge. I will want them to play match play rounds against each other or against the other teams alts. This will determine there pecking order when I need to. And this will get them ready for the big show.

Dave Hickson · Post by **Dave Hickson** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:11 pm

Eric Maurer wrote:I would also take into account that not all teams have a completely full roster, or plan on filling all of their vacant spots. It might just mean more people sitting out.

Intentionally not filling roster spots? That's sounds selfish. This change adds stability and structure to our league. I don't think you get that. Tolland disc golf must be booming. Grow the sport.

Matt DeAngelis · Post by **Matt DeAngelis** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 7:00 pm

Dave Hickson wrote:
Eric Maurer wrote:I would also take into account that not all teams have a completely full roster, or plan on filling all of their vacant spots. It might just mean more people sitting out.

Intentionally not filling roster spots? That's sounds selfish. This change adds stability and structure to our league. I don't think you get that. Tolland disc golf must be booming. Grow the sport.

Glad I'm. The only one that scratched their head when reading that! Not filling all roster spots seems strange. Not everyone plays for wick or thorn!

Derek Brazauskas · Post by **Derek Brazauskas** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 7:04 pm

Matt DeAngelis wrote:
Dave Hickson wrote:
Eric Maurer wrote:I would also take into account that not all teams have a completely full roster, or plan on filling all of their vacant spots. It might just mean more people sitting out.

Intentionally not filling roster spots? That's sounds selfish. This change adds stability and structure to our league. I don't think you get that. Tolland disc golf must be booming. Grow the sport.

Glad I'm. The only one that scratched their head when reading that! Not filling all roster spots seems strange. Not everyone plays for wick or thorn!

2nd E. Mau whats going on down there?? ........just bustin

Todd Lapham · Post by **Todd Lapham** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 7:12 pm

Ok it seems like we've got most of the votes. It looks to me like the winner is:

16 players (15 males, 1 female) with optional 4 person alternates that don't count as roster moves if they're plugged in.

Max is still 16 v 16 at challenges, however.

Dave Hickson · Post by **Dave Hickson** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 7:14 pm

Can't wait!

Eric Maurer · Post by **Eric Maurer** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 7:54 pm

As for not filling roster spots... If we had locals worthy of playing I'd certainly pick them up. Sure if we had 4 or 5 950 rated players magically appear I'd take em all day. I'm not picking up more players just to fill a roster.

Dave Hickson · Post by **Dave Hickson** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 8:15 pm

Maybe change the minimum per challenge to 10 now that we have 20 roster spots.

Pete Violet · Post by **Pete Violet** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 8:27 pm

Eric Maurer wrote:As for not filling roster spots... If we had locals worthy of playing I'd certainly pick them up. Sure if we had 4 or 5 950 rated players magically appear I'd take em all day. I'm not picking up more players just to fill a roster.

Is 950 the standard? guess we have our work cut out for us later this year. :roll:

Eric Maurer · Post by **Eric Maurer** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 9:11 pm

Dave Hickson wrote:Maybe change the minimum per challenge to 10 now that we have 20 roster spots.

We have 16 roster spots, with room for 4 alternates. Challenge max is still 16 v 16. I would not be in favor of changing the minimum required at a challenge.

Eric Maurer · Post by **Eric Maurer** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 9:12 pm

Pete Violet wrote:
Eric Maurer wrote:As for not filling roster spots... If we had locals worthy of playing I'd certainly pick them up. Sure if we had 4 or 5 950 rated players magically appear I'd take em all day. I'm not picking up more players just to fill a roster.

Is 950 the standard? guess we have our work cut out for us later this year.

LOL I just threw the 950 out there. What I'm sayin is that the talent in this area has been picked clean.

NEFA DISCussion

Expanding Rosters

Re: Expanding Rosters

Re: Expanding Rosters

Re: Expanding Rosters

Re: Expanding Rosters

Re: Expanding Rosters

Re: Expanding Rosters

Re: Expanding Rosters

Re: Expanding Rosters

Re: Expanding Rosters

Re: Expanding Rosters

Re: Expanding Rosters

Re: Expanding Rosters

Re: Expanding Rosters

Re: Expanding Rosters

Re: Expanding Rosters

Re: Expanding Rosters

Re: Expanding Rosters

Re: Expanding Rosters

Re: Expanding Rosters

Re: Expanding Rosters

Re: Expanding Rosters

Re: Expanding Rosters

Re: Expanding Rosters

Re: Expanding Rosters

Re: Expanding Rosters

Re: Expanding Rosters

Re: Expanding Rosters

Re: Expanding Rosters

Re: Expanding Rosters

Re: Expanding Rosters