Rival Week Matchups
AVG Response: 4.29
Not much to look at here. I added this question just in case y’all weren’t feeling the rival weeks but it looks like they were pretty popular. They will return in 2018 and I’ll do a better job hyping them up the week before as well.
AVG Response: 0.93
This was pretty split, as 6 people voted to keep rosters at 20, and 8 people wanted at least 1 extra spot. In total, the response average equates to a 1 spot roster increase. However, we’d still have to vote, and as it stands now, 6 people is more than enough to shoot down any amendment vote.
Sidenote: I have been exploring the idea of “Practice Squads”, which would add roster spots but do it in a far more interesting way than just extra bench spots. More on this at a later date, but don’t worry, if you’re that opposed to more roster spots, the Practice Squad idea would still have to be voted on.
AVG Response: 3.36
The majority of us wanted to either keep the status quo (6 votes) or didn’t really care (4). As such, a vote on this is probably a waste of time. I might take an executive look at the rollover amount again, but the base amount of $100 is here to stay for now.
AVG Response: 2.57
Responses here trended from mild interest to strong opposition, with only three people responding with a 4 or 5. This was honestly just a question thrown in because I was curious what the response would be. Now that the idea has been incepted into your minds, we’ll revisit this topic in the years to come ;)
AVG Response: 3.57
Lastly, we have the question that will likely dominate the discussion this offseason. With only three people voting 1 or 2, there looks to be some momentum for a vote to get passed. See below for some additional comments regarding a flex spot.
“ -1 for missed pat/fgs”
Definitely down to vote on this.
We can vote on this again this offseason.
“Drop a bench spot add a flex”
“Removing some roster spots would be interesting. There is little to no waiver potential because of 20 spots”
Reducing bench spots is 100% not happening. Deep rosters are the backbone of dynasty leagues. Hopefully as we get further along and you see players that you drafted 3 years ago start to ball out, you’ll be clamoring for more spots, not less. Regardless, if you want waiver potential, that’s what redraft leagues are for.
“Adding a flex and removing a WR makes sense to me”
“Adding a flex is a much bigger change that i think would have changed how people constructed their rosters. i think it’s fine if we eventually add a flex but i think there should be a year or two heads up”
Regarding the first comment, you’re more than welcome to bring this up as a separate vote. However, I have a feeling there would be significant opposition to removing a WR spot due to the reasoning laid out in the second comment. Adding a flex is one thing, but removing a WR spot to do so would be a massive shift in roster strategy. I agree that there should be a minimum one year delay until the change goes into effect if a vote like this were to pass.
That said, I lean towards disagreeing with the idea that purely adding a flex causes a huge strategy shift. If a team doesn’t have a 7th skill player they feel good about slotting into the extra flex, their roster is likely just weak overall, not because their team is built around 6 amazing players (3WR/2RB/1TE) and nothing else. Having talent depth isn’t really a strategy, it’s just basic roster construction. Just my opinion of course, delaying a flex add (if it even passes) can definitely be voted on.
“I’d be more for IDP, but i think i might be in the minority or add punters”
I’m all for IDP as well, but we are definitely in the minority. As for punters…not gonna happen haha.
Thanks for doing the survey everyone! Again, it looks like adding a flex spot will be the main talking point this offseason. Once our offseason officially starts (after season ending roster cuts), we’ll start the official voting process.