Rosters/Lineups - Roster limits for positions.
This feature would allow commissioners to set the maximum and minimum number of players a team can roster at each position at a given time. For example, teams can have a maximum of 3 QBs on their roster or a team can have a minimum of 1 kicker. Currently there is no way to set the maximum or minimum number of players a team can roster at each position.
-
Arie Cohen commented
I completely agree.
We have position limits of 3 QB, 6 RB, 6 WR, 3 TE, 3 K and 3 DEF and everyone is constantly making mistakes and going over. I would like to be able to control position limits as the commish.
Thanks,
AJ -
Anonymous commented
people in my league have eight running backs on team change this s**t
-
emilio commented
why has Yahoo ignored this request for so many years? Come on Yahoo... get with the times.
-
Pai Mei commented
the comments in this thread are very good. It's time Yhoo entered the 21st century and allow commishes to set position limits. Or for a league that uses IDPs.. A minimum # of defense and/or offense would be very helpful.
-
customer commented
every other fricking fantasy website allows private leagues to set their own roster/position limits. But not Yahoo. Welcome to 1983.
And I can't for the life of me understand why any of the bozos have objections to this. No one would force your private league to have position limits... it would be decided by your league whether or not to impose roster position limits. So why are some of you crying? Get a grip.
-
MaveROCK commented
Here's a great topic on the subject:
-
MaveROCK commented
Jose - Nobody is implying that this should be a Yahoo! Default Setting or that EVERY LEAGUE needs to impose limits. However, it works best in some Leagues and Commissioners around the world would find value in having this as an OPTION.
If you don't like limits, then don't sign up for a league that has them...and most other sites do, in fact. CBS has them. ESPN has them. Nobody cries.
The whole point of having a "Commissioner" is to police the teams that refuse to police themselves - we should have ultimate power to enforce any guidelines that help improve the league or maintain competitive balance. You want Commissioners to "cause their managers to draft a different mix of players" when in reality, that's an impossible feat. You know how a Commissioner can "cause their managers to draft a different mix of players", though?
Limits.
-
Anonymous commented
My league plays idp with 4 lab's, 4 db's and 3 D. We always have issues with people hoarding mostly with QB's and lb's. Bench limits don't solve anything in my opinion.
-
MaveROCK commented
Anonymous - I agree. It would work in either scenario!
-
MaveROCK commented
Jim - Very good point! However, easily solved...as a Commissioner, Yahoo! limits you to which settings can be edited Pre-Draft Only or All Season.
For instance, I can change the League's Trade Deadline all season, but I can only remove a Roster Position Pre-Draft. I'd presume that Roster Limits would only be editable Pre-Draft...
Also, if you're drafting an RB that has a high likelihood of being cut from a roster entirely (as your 3rd or 4th RB), then you're doing something very wrong!
-
MaveROCK commented
Some GMs will select and/or pick-up 5-7 RBs that aren't even starters...generally, the term is "hand-cuff" players, but many of these guys aren't even back-ups to the Owner's starter. And, the only advantage it has for that particular Owner is a monopoly on a crucial position, whereas if there were a limit that player might be available to another Owner if his starter gets injured...
Prime example(s): Maurice Jones-Drew was a Top 5 RB going into last season and his ADP was at worst a 2nd Round Pick (due to holdout concerns). So, many people drafted Rashad Jennings just to have him "in case" MJD missed a few games, but in reality had no plans of actually inserting him into the starting lineup. What happened? MJD played on opening night, but nobody dropped Jennings because they didn't need to...it was better having him as an RB5 than a back-up Kicker, right? Well, MJD gets hurt and misses the rest of the season...now, the Owner who wasted a high pick on him has no chance to replace his injured player with a legitimate starter.
Another one, Ahmad Bradshaw (Mr. Glass) was drafted as an RB2 for many teams, but he's injury-prone so other GMs who know that decided to draft David Wilson or Andre Brown as their RB5/RB6 with no intention of ever playing them. Ahmad Bradshaw suffered through another injury-prone season, but the GMs who drafted him were left out in the cold because Bradshaw's replacement was already on a roster from Day 1...
How is that fair or strategic advantage? If there was a limit on the amount of players per position, GMs would actually have to make tough choices between using up their 5th and final RB spot on a legitimate player now or saving it incase they need to pick-up an injury replacement later. You know, GMs would have to actually be "strategic" instead of "hoarding" a prime position with 0 intention of ever playing that player...
-
MaveROCK commented
ESPN allows this functionality...it helps to prevent a guy from stockpiling a crucial position and depleting the depth of other teams.
I can see the concerns, but it's upto your Commissioner to ensure it still allows GMs to be strategic. For instance, 4 RBs would be PLENTY for a team (2 starting RBs and no Flex), but many GMs will roster 5 or 6 RBs; thus, limiting other teams RB quality and depleting the Free Agency options.
By default, it would work best if the limit was set to 2-3 more than the necessary amount per position (i.e. Starting Positions: QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, WR, TE, K, DEF - Position Limits: 3 QB, 4 RB, 6 WR, 3 TE, 3 K, 3 DEF).
-
MaveROCK commented
Can you all PLEASE talk some sense into the idiots that have posted in this thread:
People are actually suggesting this option would make Yahoo! fantasy football worse...
-
Anonymous commented
I concur with MaveRock. However you can simplify it a bit...
1. The defaul league setting would be off
2. If turned on the default limit to be double the amount of starters in each position.
3. Allow Comish to adjust limits to user preferences.
Easy enough to code into the program. -
MaveROCK commented
Suggested Default Roster Position Limits:
QB - 3
RB - 5
WR - 6
TE - 3
K - 3
DEF - 390% of GMs would never even notice there was a Position Limit on their roster...in Standard Leagues, there is no need to have more than 5 RBs on one roster at any given time. Even if every Owner carried the max, that's 50 RBs that are taken!
At that point, you're holding onto pure back-up RBs in the off-chance their starter gets hurt...GMs need to be more active on the Waiver Wire, rather than relying on Draft Day to hoard every possible worthwhile RB over the course of a season.
-
MaveROCK commented
Jim - Very good point! However, easily solved...as a Commissioner, Yahoo! limits you to which settings can be edited Pre-Draft Only or All Season.
For instance, I can change the League's Trade Deadline all season, but I can only remove a Roster Position Pre-Draft. I'd presume that Roster Limits would only be editable Pre-Draft...
-
MaveROCK commented
Adding a second QB slot or reducing the bench is never going to solve the true problem - hoarding players. People need to stop finding convoluted solutions to a simple problem.
In 90% of Leagues (even with Default values), GMs would never feel the effects of this change, but why shouldn't private league Commissioners have the option? People are so averse to change that they freak out and cry - nobody is saying to force this limit onto EVERY league. We just want the option...some leagues probably won't even use it.
-
MaveROCK commented
None - Exactly!
-
MaveROCK commented
James - As noted before, I entirely disagree with the "hand-cuff" philosophy and I've had plenty of success avoiding it. Although, that is an entirely different discussion that is irrelevant...
Owners implore the "hand-cuff" method in leagues where RBs are scarce...they are in deep trouble if their starting RB gets injured because the Free Agent pool is shallow (most likely due to GMs hoarding RBs). However, by imposing a limit that reduces the scarcity of RBs, which ultimately reduces the need to "hand-cuff" your starter...
If you don't have to panic or worry about finding a replacement RB for your injured starter, wouldn't you rather use that spot on a player who might actually contribute to your team's points on a weekly basis? I would.
-
MaveROCK commented
Refer to my previous breakdown:
Starting Positions: QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, WR, FLEX (W/R/T), TE, K, DEF
RBs Per Team: 3, 4, 6, 4, 5, 6, 4, 5, 6, 46 RBs? REALLY? 3 teams carry 6 RBs? Extreme. I'm not advocating setting a 3-RB limit, but 4 or even 5 is more than sufficient.
Let's say in my League, I set a 4-RB limit (double the starting positions)...that means only 8 more RBs would be available and only 5 teams would be affected.
Now, in any league with a W/R/T Flex Position, I'd say a 5-RB limit is a good setting...in that case, only 3 additional RBs would be available and only 3 teams would be affected.
Would that severely alter the League? No. It would, however, free up a few more players at a very important, but scarce position and promote competitive balance. It would also reward GMs who are active, which is a great benefit.