Jump to content


Photo

Anyone else having this issue?


3 replies to this topic

#1 thunderfrog42

thunderfrog42

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 November 2018 - 08:03 AM

Our league is set-up, like many I assume, where we have a window each week for free agent acquisitions via blind bidding using an annual FAAB (free agent acquisition budget), followed by a FCFS waiver period where each player added is at a cost of a flat $10 fee.

 

league is setup as follows:

Under Accounting Set-up

'After accounting balance is': over $40 due

'Do Not Allow Owners to' : Perform Add/Drop

 

This is basically to prevent owners from running up too big of a tab

 

Our problem comes about under the following common scenario:

 

An owner adds a player(s) via FCFS, but doesn't specify a player to drop (for any of a number of valid reasons). 

This move puts him over the $40 limit.

Then when he later attempts to drop a player to bring his roster back to legal, he is prevented because he is over the $40 limit.

 

The whole idea of putting restrictions in place once an owner has a debt of $40 is to incentivize him to pay his balance before he can make any more moves.  Dropping players isn't really any advantage to him, so I really don't want him to ever be restricted from doing that.

 

What would be ideal would be if, under the Accounting Set-up, MFL separated the "add" and the "drop" as two separate items, so that I could say once an owner is over $40, prevent him from performing "adds", but not check the box preventing him from performing "drops"... (if that makes sense).  Rather than tying the two transactions together as an "add/drop".  

 

Anyone else encounter this, and if so, have you come up with a work-around, or is it worth submitting to MFL as a programming change ticket ?

 

I know the easy answer is "well just have the dude pay his $40..."  but as you can imagine, if you are an owner and a balance due is preventing you from picking up players, you are highly incentivized to pay up.  But if having a past due balance is simply preventing you from dropping players, there's not much incentive to get on the ball and pay up.  Who doesn't like having a few extra players on their roster as a safety net or trade bait?   I get the following all the time when I attempt to slap wrists for someone having an oversized roster come gametime -- "Well it's not my fault, the system wouldn't let me drop anyone because I'm over $40 past due.  I tried, but it wouldn't let me..."

 

 



#2 Telly33

Telly33

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 November 2018 - 09:55 AM

Why do you allow rosters to be oversized?  In my leagues the system doesn't allow over 16 players at any time.  Only exception is on a trade where it's not an equal amount of players on each side.  And in that case I just have them drop the excess player immediately.



#3 bonscott

bonscott

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,786 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 November 2018 - 01:31 PM

I'm all for you putting in a feature request ticket.  The answer is always no if you don't ask.  :)

 

Personally I've not encountered either issue since 1) We have strict max roster size (same as Telly), you can never go over it so there is no oversized roster to ever worry about.

and 2) We don't restrict owners based on what they owe.  If you charge $10 per transaction then I'd guess you are a "big money league", correct?  In both my local leagues there is a $150 buy in and then $5 per transaction.  It's not unusual for a team to owe $100+ in transactions by the end of the year, sometimes over $200.  Only once in 25 years across both league have we had someone ghost on us and owe money (and he really ghosted, as in real life too).  I find in big money leagues everyone is a big boy or big girl and there is little incentive to just cut out and not pay.  If it does happen then you're kicked out and the league will just need to absorb the debt if we can't collect.

 

For me, I'd recommend not having the lock on owing something as small as $40 when you charge $10 per transaction.  Make it at least $100 I'd say.  Or nothing at all, trust your owners, unless you have a history of people skipping out I guess.

 

Good luck!



 


#4 thunderfrog42

thunderfrog42

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 November 2018 - 08:59 AM

Why do you allow rosters to be oversized?  In my leagues the system doesn't allow over 16 players at any time.  Only exception is on a trade where it's not an equal amount of players on each side.  And in that case I just have them drop the excess player immediately.

When we went to blind bidding, our owners found the 'tiered' bidding/'priority bidding' too confusing.  So we opted to just go without all the tiers and 'if-then' structure and simply go with the player going to the high bid.  Originally everyone specified a player to cut as part of their bid, but a few situations popped up where a failed bid then prevented the owner from acquiring their plan B (I know, it's complicated) so long story short we found that if you simply placed a blind bid on a player without necessarily specifying a player to drop it gave you more freedom, and then you could make appropriate cuts after blind bidding closed.  Of course, in order to allow this, we had to change the setting to (temporarily) allow oversized rosters.  Not the perfect system, but that is the reasoning...



I'm all for you putting in a feature request ticket.  The answer is always no if you don't ask.  :)

 

Personally I've not encountered either issue since 1) We have strict max roster size (same as Telly), you can never go over it so there is no oversized roster to ever worry about.

and 2) We don't restrict owners based on what they owe.  If you charge $10 per transaction then I'd guess you are a "big money league", correct?  In both my local leagues there is a $150 buy in and then $5 per transaction.  It's not unusual for a team to owe $100+ in transactions by the end of the year, sometimes over $200.  Only once in 25 years across both league have we had someone ghost on us and owe money (and he really ghosted, as in real life too).  I find in big money leagues everyone is a big boy or big girl and there is little incentive to just cut out and not pay.  If it does happen then you're kicked out and the league will just need to absorb the debt if we can't collect.

 

For me, I'd recommend not having the lock on owing something as small as $40 when you charge $10 per transaction.  Make it at least $100 I'd say.  Or nothing at all, trust your owners, unless you have a history of people skipping out I guess.

 

Good luck!

Yeah, that's not a bad take on it... In 31 years we've only been ghosted two or three times, so perhaps it is time to loosen the purse strings a little and either do away with the restriction, or at the least bump it up to $100 or so...





Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users