What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

League roster requirements (1 Viewer)

hotboyz

Footballguy
Right now I'm commish of a 12 team ppr we currently start 9 players 1 Qb 1 RB 1WR 1TE 3flex Rb/wr a K and Def/St. 5 bench spots total of 14 players I wanna increase roster size to 18 no one in our leagues Is going for it.

I wanna here what are most of you guys roster sizes and how you feel about deep benches as opposes to short benches

 
I think bench length depends on what you are trying to do. If its dynasty, longer benches make sense because you are usually in dynasty to try and pick and hold players until they develop. I re-draft though, longer benches favor a bigger emphasis on the draft and less player movement later and shorter benches favor quality players being available on the waiver wire and so more roster moves and changes. I think you have to pay more attention in a short bench league, take more action as you typically have less ability to cover yourself for injuries or even bye weeks from your existing roster.

 
I thing longer benches reward owners who put in more work
Couldn't have put it better...short benches reward those who do less homework going into the draft. They also are the great equalizer, and in a hobby where luck plays a large role, it chips away at the skill factor, making it even more dependent on luck.

To answer OP's question, I would not play in a league with less than 18 roster spots.

 
I thing longer benches reward owners who put in more work
Couldn't have put it better...short benches reward those who do less homework going into the draft. They also are the great equalizer, and in a hobby where luck plays a large role, it chips away at the skill factor, making it even more dependent on luck.

To answer OP's question, I would not play in a league with less than 18 roster spots.
Agree on both counts. However, while I likewise loathe short-bench leagues, I would make an exception for a short-bench league with a generous FA auction budget (and no WW). I don't think such a league would necessarily be more or less skillful than a "typical" league, but it would certainly emphasize a different skillset (one with which most people, myself included, don't have a lot of practice).

I'd recommend to the OP that if he can't push through an increase to the roster size, I would absolutely try to move to FAABB if you're not already using it.

 
I thing longer benches reward owners who put in more work
Couldn't have put it better...short benches reward those who do less homework going into the draft. They also are the great equalizer, and in a hobby where luck plays a large role, it chips away at the skill factor, making it even more dependent on luck.

To answer OP's question, I would not play in a league with less than 18 roster spots.
Agree on both counts. However, while I likewise loathe short-bench leagues, I would make an exception for a short-bench league with a generous FA auction budget (and no WW). I don't think such a league would necessarily be more or less skillful than a "typical" league, but it would certainly emphasize a different skillset (one with which most people, myself included, don't have a lot of practice).

I'd recommend to the OP that if he can't push through an increase to the roster size, I would absolutely try to move to FAABB if you're not already using it.
We do use FAABB combined with first come first serve after the bidding part of the wk has passed. I think owners are scared to increase roster size because they use waiver wire as there crutch if they have bad drafts or can't execute trades. The opinion is that it kills the waiver wire. I don't agree I think you just have to be smarter about it. I have suggested we keep our current set up of a 14 rd draft. While allowing owners to have 4 additional spots. In our current set up we have a team minimum of 9 players( have to have enuff to field starting lineup) maximum of 14. I wanna make it max 18 just don't kno how to argue this point to the rest of the owners.
 
I thing longer benches reward owners who put in more work
Couldn't have put it better...short benches reward those who do less homework going into the draft. They also are the great equalizer, and in a hobby where luck plays a large role, it chips away at the skill factor, making it even more dependent on luck.

To answer OP's question, I would not play in a league with less than 18 roster spots.
Agree on both counts. However, while I likewise loathe short-bench leagues, I would make an exception for a short-bench league with a generous FA auction budget (and no WW). I don't think such a league would necessarily be more or less skillful than a "typical" league, but it would certainly emphasize a different skillset (one with which most people, myself included, don't have a lot of practice).

I'd recommend to the OP that if he can't push through an increase to the roster size, I would absolutely try to move to FAABB if you're not already using it.
We do use FAABB combined with first come first serve after the bidding part of the wk has passed. I think owners are scared to increase roster size because they use waiver wire as there crutch if they have bad drafts or can't execute trades. The opinion is that it kills the waiver wire. I don't agree I think you just have to be smarter about it. I have suggested we keep our current set up of a 14 rd draft. While allowing owners to have 4 additional spots. In our current set up we have a team minimum of 9 players( have to have enuff to field starting lineup) maximum of 14. I wanna make it max 18 just don't kno how to argue this point to the rest of the owners.
Two alternatives you can consider:

1) Take away the WW option. In the setup I prefer, FAABB runs twice a week, on Thursday and Sunday mornings, then locks until the following Thursday. You don't place the winning bid on a guy (or you run out of FAABB dollars because you went hog-wild on this year's Eddie Royal in Week 2), you don't get him. If the FAABB is a low enough multiple of the minimum bid (say 50x), it will definitely have an impact later in the season on owners' ability to fish the WW.

2) Put a hard ceiling on the number of add/drops. My biggest-money redraft league allows unlimited trades but only 8 add/drops per owner all season long, and I love it. Not only does it encourage lots of trading, it makes roster management extremely critical, to the point where during the draft, D/STs with later bye weeks will go ahead of better D's with early byes, because the owner knows he'll only have to make 1 D/ST add/drop during the season instead of 2.

Under either setup, owners will start to understand that they can no longer treat FA's as an extension of their bench, then (hopefully) realize that it's pretty freakin' hard to effectively manage a roster with only 5 bench spots and they'll see the wisdom of a larger roster.

It'll probably take a season to get the message across, though.

 
Most of my leagues have 15-16 roster spots.

I think that going from 14 to 18 rosters spots is a huge change in the league dynamics and that is why the other owners don't want to change.

Short bench leagues and deep bench leagues require different strategies because of roster/bench size. People join leagues in which they like how they're setup. Going from one to the other changes everything.

 
I thing longer benches reward owners who put in more work
Couldn't have put it better...short benches reward those who do less homework going into the draft. They also are the great equalizer, and in a hobby where luck plays a large role, it chips away at the skill factor, making it even more dependent on luck.

To answer OP's question, I would not play in a league with less than 18 roster spots.
Agree on both counts. However, while I likewise loathe short-bench leagues, I would make an exception for a short-bench league with a generous FA auction budget (and no WW). I don't think such a league would necessarily be more or less skillful than a "typical" league, but it would certainly emphasize a different skillset (one with which most people, myself included, don't have a lot of practice).

I'd recommend to the OP that if he can't push through an increase to the roster size, I would absolutely try to move to FAABB if you're not already using it.
We do use FAABB combined with first come first serve after the bidding part of the wk has passed. I think owners are scared to increase roster size because they use waiver wire as there crutch if they have bad drafts or can't execute trades. The opinion is that it kills the waiver wire. I don't agree I think you just have to be smarter about it. I have suggested we keep our current set up of a 14 rd draft. While allowing owners to have 4 additional spots. In our current set up we have a team minimum of 9 players( have to have enuff to field starting lineup) maximum of 14. I wanna make it max 18 just don't kno how to argue this point to the rest of the owners.
Two alternatives you can consider:

1) Take away the WW option. In the setup I prefer, FAABB runs twice a week, on Thursday and Sunday mornings, then locks until the following Thursday. You don't place the winning bid on a guy (or you run out of FAABB dollars because you went hog-wild on this year's Eddie Royal in Week 2), you don't get him. If the FAABB is a low enough multiple of the minimum bid (say 50x), it will definitely have an impact later in the season on owners' ability to fish the WW.

2) Put a hard ceiling on the number of add/drops. My biggest-money redraft league allows unlimited trades but only 8 add/drops per owner all season long, and I love it. Not only does it encourage lots of trading, it makes roster management extremely critical, to the point where during the draft, D/STs with later bye weeks will go ahead of better D's with early byes, because the owner knows he'll only have to make 1 D/ST add/drop during the season instead of 2.

Under either setup, owners will start to understand that they can no longer treat FA's as an extension of their bench, then (hopefully) realize that it's pretty freakin' hard to effectively manage a roster with only 5 bench spots and they'll see the wisdom of a larger roster.

It'll probably take a season to get the message across, though.
I like this idea but I don't think it's anyway I could get this rule to fly. Any rule change gotta be approved by league owners. But limiting Add/drops would make people more interested in deeper rosters. Also maybe we could add some sort of FA pick up deadline sort of like a Trade dealine Like no FA PICK UPS AFTER WEEK 6

 
Starting only 9 players is too little for a 12 team league. Should at a minimum be starting 10 players and I actually prefer 11 players.

1 QB

2 RB

3 WR

1 TE

2 Flex

1 K

1 DF

To start only 1 RB minimum devalues the RB position even more than it already is.

Starting only 6 RB/WR/TE is way too small we do that in our 16 team leagues not 12.

At a minimum you should go at least 7 of them for a 12 team league.

 
5 bench spots is redonkloulus. 20 man roster is small enough, prefer either a taxi squad for rookies or a bigger roster size but at very least 20 roster spots.

 
If no one in your league wants it then don't do it. There's lots of other ideas in here to throw out to then but I doubt they're going to go for it. As much as it sucks and I agree with everyone here about the benches being to short as the commish you should only be reflecting the views of the league as whole. Not trying to push things on them.

On top of that if you're posting on forums before the actual NFL draft, you likely have the most to gain from the deeper benches. If no one else wants deeper benches they probably understand that too.

I'm guessing it's a league that's all your buddies?

 
If no one in your league wants it then don't do it. There's lots of other ideas in here to throw out to then but I doubt they're going to go for it. As much as it sucks and I agree with everyone here about the benches being to short as the commish you should only be reflecting the views of the league as whole. Not trying to push things on them.

On top of that if you're posting on forums before the actual NFL draft, you likely have the most to gain from the deeper benches. If no one else wants deeper benches they probably understand that too.

I'm guessing it's a league that's all your buddies?
Pretty much buddies league 16 yrs old of course I think it benefits me I work harder than everyone else. But I win regardless but as founder of the league I'm always trying to find something to add always trying to minimize luck
 
I would generally go with 1.5 bench spots per starter. So you can back every starter up (if you choose, not that you should) and still be able to take some flyers.

 
I like larger leagues (both of my main ones are 20)....it rewards owners when it should matter the most....at the draft

I want to be able to grab and stash a guy (let's say a Keenan Allen type from last year) ahead of time because I did my homework, instead of being at the mercy of the waiver order which I am probably at the end of......and then some guy who does hardly anything jumps on him after he starts producing...

and I disagree that larger leagues limit WW/FA add/drop movement.....I am constantly trying to make my team better and playing keep away every week....

in the "real" NFL....you hardly ever see any in season trades and there isn't that much player movement.....the draft should be the biggest part of the season, and longer benches support that....

12 teams

WW on WED then first come first serve add/drops till gametime

20 roster spots

start 1 QB/1RB/2WR/1 TE/2 FLEX (RB/WR/TE)

1 PK

1 DST

in the league I commish we have a rule that anybody you take from round 17 on you can keep forever as long as they never leave your roster.....it makes the end of our draft a huge deal and a ton of fun.....makes the draft really important....as it should be.....and encourages owners to do their homework and stay involved through every round.....

makes every roster spot valuable....we had a guy draft and stash Vick when he was in prison......it paid off for him (for a year at least)...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Also, for me, the social interaction is a big goal of an FF league. Assuming it's not a contest league anyway.

So I would much rather owners be talking trades to fill holes than I would have them knowing they can get players off of waivers. I think the added interaction is a plus.

 
We start:

1 QB

2 RB

3 WR

1 TE

1 K

1 DST

Must have:

1 back up QB

2 Back up RB

2 Back up WR

1 Back up TE

1 Back up K

1 Back up DST

 
We start:

1 QB

2 RB

3 WR

1 TE

1 K

1 DST

Must have:

1 back up QB

2 Back up RB

2 Back up WR

1 Back up TE

1 Back up K

1 Back up DST
these are the type of leagues I tend to avoid......I can't stand positional requirements, limits, etc.....it levels the playing field and benefits bad fantasy players....I don't want people telling me who I have to draft.....these type of leagues are for the guys who used to get pissed back in the day of the stud RB theory and people like me or whoever went RB/RB/RB and dominated......I may value WR6-8 way more than TE2...."we want to make sure it is nice and pretty and friendly and everybody has two kickers and two defenses, and two TE's and two QB's"......

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My main league is 12 teams with 20 man rosters.

We can keep 2 players but only for 1 season after the player was drafted then the player must be put back into the draft. Keeper players cost you whatever round the player was drafted in the previous year.

I drafted Cordarell Patterson in the 10th round last year. I can keep him for the 2014 at the 10th round price. In 2015 he must go back into the draft (even if I trade him to another team)

We draft so that most teams will have 18 players on the roster (could be more or less depending on draft day trades) and have 2 free agent pickups without having to drop a player

We have limited free agency. One pick per team per week (unless you trade for additional picks)

The original order free agent order is the opposite of the 1st round of the draft.

So if you are picking 12th in the 1st round of the draft you own the #1 free agent spot, 11th in the 1st round of the draft you own the #2 free agent spot and so on. Again this is just the original free agent order.

Each week after the 1st week the free agent order changes based on who made picks the previous weeks.

Let’s say the original free agent list looked like this…

1. Seahawks

2. Broncos

3. 49ers

4. Patriots

5. Panthers

6. Browns

7. Chargers

8. Bengals

9. Chiefs

10. Eagles

11. Packers

12. Cardinals

Now lets say that the 49ers, Panthers, Chargers and Eagles were the only teams to pick up free agents during that 1st week. The free agent order for week 2 would be

1. Seahawks

2. Broncos

3. Patriots

4. Browns

5. Bengals

6. Chiefs

7. Packers

8. Cardinals

9. Eagles

10. Chargers

11. Panthers

12. 49ers

The teams that didn’t make picks all move up

The teams that did make picks get put down at the bottom of the list but in the opposite order in which they made their picks

The only roster requirement that we have is that each team must have a legal fantasy starting team on their roster at all times.

 
We start:

1 QB

2 RB

3 WR

1 TE

1 K

1 DST

Must have:

1 back up QB

2 Back up RB

2 Back up WR

1 Back up TE

1 Back up K

1 Back up DST
these are the type of leagues I tend to avoid......I can't stand positional requirements, limits, etc.....it levels the playing field and benefits bad fantasy players....I don't want people telling me who I have to draft.....these type of leagues are for the guys who used to get pissed back in the day of the stud RB theory and people like me or whoever went RB/RB/RB and dominated......I may value WR6-8 way more than TE2...."we want to make sure it is nice and pretty and friendly and everybody has two kickers and two defenses, and two TE's and two QB's"......
I never minded it. IMO it actually seperates the good from the bad...I'm not a fan of people just throwing mud at the wall and then claiming they're good at drafting. There's a certain strategy I appreciate in leagues like this. You want a good RB? You have 4 shots, make them count.

 
We start:

1 QB

2 RB

3 WR

1 TE

1 K

1 DST

Must have:

1 back up QB

2 Back up RB

2 Back up WR

1 Back up TE

1 Back up K

1 Back up DST
these are the type of leagues I tend to avoid......I can't stand positional requirements, limits, etc.....it levels the playing field and benefits bad fantasy players....I don't want people telling me who I have to draft.....these type of leagues are for the guys who used to get pissed back in the day of the stud RB theory and people like me or whoever went RB/RB/RB and dominated......I may value WR6-8 way more than TE2...."we want to make sure it is nice and pretty and friendly and everybody has two kickers and two defenses, and two TE's and two QB's"......
I never minded it. IMO it actually seperates the good from the bad...I'm not a fan of people just throwing mud at the wall and then claiming they're good at drafting. There's a certain strategy I appreciate in leagues like this. You want a good RB? You have 4 shots, make them count.
yeah I have no problem with these leagues or the people in them....to each his own.....but I disagree about the good/bad thing you mentioned....when you know ahead of time how many are going to be drafted at each position and each team is limited in how many of each they can get, it brings everybody closer together skill wise, not further apart....and as far as throwing mud at the wall.....some people are actually good at drafting and it isn't throwing mud against the wall.....when you lose flexibility in drafting it brings drafters closer together, not further apart.....these leagues have everything wrapped up in a nice little bundle.....some people like that, cause there's probably a comfort level knowing your still gonna get yours no matter what and others guys can't really load up and leave you on the outside looking in somehwere......

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I love the ideas you guys have thrown at me I'm run this thread past my league mates. The whole 5 man bench seems so restricting. How can you have 9 starters and only 5 backups that's seems more like a baseball lineup

 
I love the ideas you guys have thrown at me I'm run this thread past my league mates. The whole 5 man bench seems so restricting. How can you have 9 starters and only 5 backups that's seems more like a baseball lineup
If it's a league with your buddies and you're pretty sure it'll still be around in a few years, then phase it in if you want. Bump up the roster size by 1 every year until you get to 17 or 18, or whatever.

If you want it to happen faster, just put in that hard ceiling on add/drops or cut the FAABB to something like $20 ... one season of that and people will be screaming for bigger rosters. Pretty good bet you might ruffle a few feathers doing it that way though ... :violin:

 
a big part of the reason we go with the

"after round 17 you can keep them forever as long as they never leave your roster" thing

is that it really encourages people to try and hit on sleepers and to actually keep them on their roster for awhile....it helps avoid those last few roster spots just being recycled WW additions and subtractions each week.....people have to really think about dropping those players.....kind of best of both worlds....it keeps people involved all the way through the draft, makes people do a little extra homework, allows us to have bigger rosters, and if you hit on a alte pick you get rewarded, sometimes big time.....

 
I think that's it I really want people to have to do more work and not rely so much on the waiver wire. I will admit to being one of the biggest users of the waiver wire but that's because I don't have enough roster spots to pick someone up and hold them.

 
Just got in a discussion with one of the owners one of his biggest reasons for not wanting expanded rosters is he says it kills Fa. He says if u have a great draft but get hit by injury bug how else do you fix your team. I said u still use fa and make Trades. He says there won't be anything left in fa that's worthwhile. To me there shouldn't be that much left In fa. If they are good players they should be rostered! Then he says so if no one will trade with how else do you salvage your season? You don't?? That's the risk you take when you draft your team.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My one league is 10 Team, 10 Player keeper and starts 1-2-2-1-1-1 1 Flex and has 21 roster spots.

My other one is 10 Team, 2 Player Keeper and starts 1 QB 2 RB 2 WR/TE 1 K 1 D and 1 Flex and has 16 roster spots (plus 2 IR that has to be designated as out).

 
Just got in a discussion with one of the owners one of his biggest reasons for not wanting expanded rosters is he says it kills Fa. He says if u have a great draft but get hit by injury bug how else do you fix your team. I said u still use fa and make Trades. He says there won't be anything left in fa that's worthwhile. To me there shouldn't be that much left In fa. If they are good players they should be rostered! Then he says so if no one will trade with how else do you salvage your season? You don't?? That's the risk you take when you draft your team.
I agree with the other owner. The small roster really keeps owners on their toe. But with the bye week, it is almost impossible not to drop someone you like, my guess is in your league, someone has to start someone on bye or hurt to avoiding dropping them. 14 is kind of low, maybe you can try 16 first to see how it goes?

 
My 12-team, 6-player keeper league uses 9 starters and 9 bench. That is the lowest we will go. It does not hinder the waiver wire at all as I and others have been able to aquire key players that way over the years....some turned into keepers. Trades have not been hampered either as we have at least one blockbuster every year. It is very managable. It sounds like your league mates don't want to work very hard to do well at this hobby.....

 
Ruffrodys05 said:
My 12-team, 6-player keeper league uses 9 starters and 9 bench. That is the lowest we will go. It does not hinder the waiver wire at all as I and others have been able to aquire key players that way over the years....some turned into keepers. Trades have not been hampered either as we have at least one blockbuster every year. It is very managable. It sounds like your league mates don't want to work very hard to do well at this hobby.....
:goodposting:

even with 18-20 roster spots there should still be plenty of WW/FA activity as every team should be looking at ways to continually improve their team, add depth, play keep away, stash handcuffs, anticipate bye weeks for PK/DST,etc.....usually those that like smaller rosters don't want to work very hard and want to be able to pick up a quality player at the drop of a hat instead of doing the work ahead of time, or be able to get the backup of their stud RB who just got injured without having to "worry about somebody else snagging him at the draft"......larger rosters force you to be a better all around fantasy player.....you have to prepare well (know all players), draft well, WW well, and FCFS add/drop well......anybody can draft Charles and then try to get K. Davis after he gets hurt in a small league.....but in a larger league you will have to decide when/if Davis is worthy of being drafted and stashing cause somebody else might think he is.....

 
My league uses no roster limit and no position limits. It's the best! Each team has a contract cap (in our case 120 years) which can be doled out however an owner sees fit. Some teams have 40-something players and others get up over 60 players (Oh yeah, we are IDP btw). The contract cap keeps it fair and owners can run their teams their own way as it should be.

I doubt I will ever play in a league with set limits again and no way would I want to play with less than 25 roster spots in a league that doesn't use IDP.

If there are obvious starter caliber players on your waiver wire I don't know how you can claim skill has anything to do with winning your league. Just my opinion.

Oh, and since most everyone claims to love trading...using this setup (and 24 teams) we had 111 trades in 2012 and 215 trades in 2013. Woohoo!

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top