League Expansion: This commish needs your help!

[rwren 2]

After 7 seasons, our league is moving from 10 to 12 teams. (I know..I know..we're real men now) Obviously, there are differences that need to be considered and planned for. For example, more teams means less available free agents so do we shrink our rosters to accommodate, or do we add extra receivers and less RBs. I'm sure there are other considerations that we might not think about. Is there anyone on this forum who has made the jump from 10-12? What other things are there to plan for? Thanks for your help!

 

Here is our current config:

 

QB, WR (2), RB (2), WR/RB (1), TE, K, DEF

Roster size 18

Scoring Offense: 1pt per 15 yrds ru/rec, 1 pt per 30 pass yrds, -2 turnovers, 6pts all TDs.

[KSB2424 3,083]

Honestly it doesn't really matter if the rules are given to the league members before the draft as everyone plays by the same rules. However, personally, I would prolly reduce your total roster size from 18 to 16. This would keep the Free Agent list as very active and more close to what the they are used to. You may want to get rid of the the RB flex spot with twelve teams as you start to run out of RB's but with the way the NFL is going more RBBC I don't think that is as big of an issue as it used to be.

 

IMO nothing really should change but to reduce your roster size from 18 to 16.

[FlaHawker 24]

Honestly it doesn't really matter if the rules are given to the league members before the draft as everyone plays by the same rules. However, personally, I would prolly reduce your total roster size from 18 to 16. This would keep the Free Agent list as very active. You may want to get rid of the the RB flex spot with twelve teams as you start to run out of RB's but with the way the NFL is going more RBBC I don't think that is as big of an issue as it used to be.

 

IMO nothing really should change but to reduce your roster size from 18 to 16.

Actually, I am in favor of larger rosters. I wouldn't reduce it at all. My main keeper league has a 20 man roster. Large rosters put more emphasis on draft abilities. The better drafters will obviously have an advantage. Even though our WW is bare, for the most part, we still try to minimize the luck factor by using a blind bid system to acquire FAs, so there is still an element of strategy involved in bidding for players vs the worst to first WW order system.

[KSB2424 3,083]

Actually, I am in favor of larger rosters. I wouldn't reduce it at all. My main keeper league has a 20 man roster. Large rosters put more emphasis on draft abilities. The better drafters will obviously have an advantage. Even though our WW is bare, for the most part, we still try to minimize the luck factor by using a blind bid system to acquire FAs, so there is still an element of strategy involved in bidding for players vs the worst to first WW order system.

That is fine as well. Like I said in the first sentence it's all personal (league) preference. I was trying to make it where the league members that are used to a certain "style" would not notice much of a change. Reducing the total roster size by two would negate the addition of two teams.

 

Either way it is a personal taste and as long as the league members are cool with it, it doesn't really matter either way.

[oldguru 0]

Honestly it doesn't really matter if the rules are given to the league members before the draft as everyone plays by the same rules. However, personally, I would prolly reduce your total roster size from 18 to 16. This would keep the Free Agent list as very active. You may want to get rid of the the RB flex spot with twelve teams as you start to run out of RB's but with the way the NFL is going more RBBC I don't think that is as big of an issue as it used to be.

 

IMO nothing really should change but to reduce your roster size from 18 to 16.

 

I would want to keep your roster size at 18. I always like to take the number of starters X2 to determine roster size. *Just my personal preference. I wouldn't have a problem leaving the flex, and also adding a 3rd WR. Again just my personal preference. Reducing your rosters, hurts the ability to handcuff or take a flier on an upside player to some degree.. I believe that this does not deplete the player pool to the extent of hurting FA pickups. (now that you are playing by manly rules) I also do not have the time to continually be hitting the WW, which occurs for me with smaller rosters. I generally like large rosters regardless the format. But.....to each his own. I agree with KSB; any format you chose, that is well explained to the owners before the draft, should work out for you.

[rwren 2]

I think the biggest adjustment would be to the RB crop. 2 more teams in our league could result in anywhere from 8-12 RBs removed from the free agent pool and even with RBBC, this position is still at a premium. WRs don't seem to be as much of an issue because there are more of them especially in the same production level, and the majority are a crap shoot week to week.

 

So, it seems in order to minimize this effect comes to 3 possibilities:

 

1. Reduce overall roster size ...eg..18 to 16

2. Reduce starting lineup eg...remove flex or change flex to 3rd WR.

3. Place position limits on rosters, eg...4 running back limit. (hate this one)

 

Any other thoughts on this?

[KSB2424 3,083]

The only reason I advised reducing from 18 to 16 was this:

 

This league has been around for a while and is used to having certain "type" players on the waiver wire. Whether this is your 'style' or not, this league is used to this. By their old rules they drafted and had 180 players on a roster (18 players * 10 teams).

 

By adding two teams; Now they will have 216 players on a roster. That is a subtraction of 36 of the usual top players on the waiver wire. A really big number that would totally change what the league is used to.

 

By reducing the roster size to 16 there will be 192 (16*12) players on a roster. Only a 12 player reduction to the waiver as opposed to 36. That will reduce the amount of change transition as it is closer to what the league is used to. See what I mean?

 

Anyway, it is all relative and like you guys said it is personal taste.

[Gepetto 988]

I think the biggest adjustment would be to the RB crop. 2 more teams in our league could result in anywhere from 8-12 RBs removed from the free agent pool and even with RBBC, this position is still at a premium. WRs don't seem to be as much of an issue because there are more of them especially in the same production level, and the majority are a crap shoot week to week.

 

So, it seems in order to minimize this effect comes to 3 possibilities:

 

1. Reduce overall roster size ...eg..18 to 16

2. Reduce starting lineup eg...remove flex or change flex to 3rd WR.

3. Place position limits on rosters, eg...4 running back limit. (hate this one)

 

Any other thoughts on this?

 

There are plenty of RBs for fantasy purposes for 12 team leagues with 18 roster spots that can start 3 RBs. I've played in a league like this for three years now and it's not a problem. Draft accordingly. There will be good RBs on the waiver wire later in the season when needed.

[rwren 2]

I would want to keep your roster size at 18. I always like to take the number of starters X2 to determine roster size. *Just my personal preference. I wouldn't have a problem leaving the flex, and also adding a 3rd WR. Again just my personal preference. Reducing your rosters, hurts the ability to handcuff or take a flier on an upside player to some degree.. I believe that this does not deplete the player pool to the extent of hurting FA pickups. (now that you are playing by manly rules) I also do not have the time to continually be hitting the WW, which occurs for me with smaller rosters. I generally like large rosters regardless the format. But.....to each his own. I agree with KSB; any format you chose, that is well explained to the owners before the draft, should work out for you.

I agree with just about everyone here that it doesn't matter the format and it is just personal preference. What I want to eliminate is a thing where half way through the season we are regretting that we didn't think things through. I do think the draft is very important, but not at the expense of staying involved throughout the season. If the pool is too dry, then it takes a little fun out of it. Just looking for a healthy balance.

[rwren 2]

The only reason I advised reducing from 18 to 16 was this:

 

This league has been around for a while and is used to having certain "type" players on the waiver wire. Whether this is your 'style' or not, this league is used to this. By their old rules they drafted and had 180 players on a roster (18 players * 10 teams).

 

By adding two teams; Now they will have 216 players on a roster. That is a subtraction of 36 of the usual top players on the waiver wire. A really big number that would totally change what the league is used to.

 

By reducing the roster size to 16 there will be 192 (16*12) players on a roster. Only a 12 player reduction to the waiver as opposed to 36. That will reduce the amount of change transition as it is closer to what the league is used to. See what I mean?

 

Anyway, it is all relative and like you guys said it is personal taste.

You have struck a chord. I am not opposed to change, but I think change is best at incremental levels. I think any of the suggestions offered can preserve the style our members are used to. It's a matter of which change to make and how many changes to make.

[akaoni 0]

If you expand with the same number of roster spots the pickings will be slimmer, to be sure, but there should still be valuable players out there for people who are willing to take the time and put in the work. Players sometimes come out of nowhere to become very valuable commodities (see Ryan Grant a couple of years back). The most important thing is to have a well thought out waiver/player add system thought up that all players agree to before the draft. How you organize it is up to you and your league's preferences but it is very important.

 

In my league we limit adds to 2 a week. We have one waiver wire option early in the week with preference given to teams with the worst records then have a Free Agent first come first serve system at the end of a week. (Trades are unlimited.) This system works well for our 12 team 18 player roster league, but again individual preferences likely differ amongst your owners.

[Ray_T 591]

I agree with just about everyone here that it doesn't matter the format and it is just personal preference. What I want to eliminate is a thing where half way through the season we are regretting that we didn't think things through. I do think the draft is very important, but not at the expense of staying involved throughout the season. If the pool is too dry, then it takes a little fun out of it. Just looking for a healthy balance.

 

agreed.

 

my first question here would be whether this is a keeper/dynasty league or a redraft league.

 

I dont recall reading this anywhere.

 

if it is a redraft league, I think it's no big deal. If you reduce roster size, I recommend you do it by only 1 roster spot.

 

if it is a keeper or dynasty league, I suggest you have an expansion draft where players get to protect 3 or 4 less than they usually do(depending on how many you are allowed to keep), and when an expansion team selects someone from your roster, you get to protect someone else immediately.

 

This way, the expansion draft also works in terms of protecting some of the parity among the remaining teams as well.

 

of course if we knew more details on the makeup and structure of your league, I'd be able to give better advice. but with what I see, this is the best advice I can give you.

[FlaHawker 24]

I agree with just about everyone here that it doesn't matter the format and it is just personal preference. What I want to eliminate is a thing where half way through the season we are regretting that we didn't think things through. I do think the draft is very important, but not at the expense of staying involved throughout the season. If the pool is too dry, then it takes a little fun out of it. Just looking for a healthy balance.

While the FA pool will be bare, it still doesn't mean several unhearlded players won't emerge; thus you will have to be involved in order to get those guys. Plus, wouldn't that increase trading?

 

Last year in my 20 man roster keeper league, I ended up playing 3 RBs--MJD, Turner, and CJ. How did I get CJ? I traded for him with a QB desperate owner.

 

What you can also do is make the league a PPR, which elevates the WRs and puts them on par with RBs in terms of value.

[Ray_T 591]

While the FA pool will be bare, it still doesn't mean several unhearlded players won't emerge; thus you will have to be involved in order to get those guys. Plus, wouldn't that increase trading?

 

Last year in my 20 man roster keeper league, I ended up playing 3 RBs--MJD, Turner, and CJ. How did I get CJ? I traded for him with a QB desperate owner.

 

What you can also do is make the league a PPR, which elevates the WRs and puts them on par with RBs in terms of value.

 

I am in a league where we have 12 teams that start 2 QB's each.

 

injured QB's do lead to some trades, but it also leads to teams asking a kings ransom for backup QB's picked up on the waiver wire the day the QB got hurt.

 

so a team at the bottom of the standings with an injured QB wont bother to trade for another one, but a team in first place might.

 

food for your thoughts.

[shutdown 40]

After 7 seasons, our league is moving from 10 to 12 teams. (I know..I know..we're real men now) Obviously, there are differences that need to be considered and planned for. For example, more teams means less available free agents so do we shrink our rosters to accommodate, or do we add extra receivers and less RBs. I'm sure there are other considerations that we might not think about. Is there anyone on this forum who has made the jump from 10-12? What other things are there to plan for? Thanks for your help!

 

Here is our current config:

 

QB, WR (2), RB (2), WR/RB (1), TE, K, DEF

Roster size 18

Scoring Offense: 1pt per 15 yrds ru/rec, 1 pt per 30 pass yrds, -2 turnovers, 6pts all TDs.

 

You really have to decide what your want your league to prioritize.

 

Do you want to reward owners who draft shrewdly or do you want to have action in the free agent pool throughout the year. I'm a bigger fan of making the draft more important than a chance free agent pickup. I run a 14 team league with 17 player rosters. This creates a slim market for free agents and makes the later round of the draft important for finding impact players because there isn't going to be much available to you if you screw up your draft. However a lot of leagues like to have an active free agent market. If this is the case, you'll want to drop that roster size to at least 17.

 

Something you may want to consider is that the talent available in a 10 team league falls off drastically when going to 12 teams. There won't be the very good players available in the free agent pool like you guys are probably used to. Injuries and bad draft decisions can no longer be mitigated by free agent claims. You may want to gradually move your owners into this by dropping your roster size down to 17 this year. As your league grows accustomed to lack of talent on the waiver wire this year you can consider moving back to 18 next year to place even more emphasis on the draft.

[shutdown 40]

I think the biggest adjustment would be to the RB crop. 2 more teams in our league could result in anywhere from 8-12 RBs removed from the free agent pool and even with RBBC, this position is still at a premium. WRs don't seem to be as much of an issue because there are more of them especially in the same production level, and the majority are a crap shoot week to week.

 

So, it seems in order to minimize this effect comes to 3 possibilities:

 

1. Reduce overall roster size ...eg..18 to 16

2. Reduce starting lineup eg...remove flex or change flex to 3rd WR.

3. Place position limits on rosters, eg...4 running back limit. (hate this one)

 

Any other thoughts on this?

 

If you like trading I'd avoid option 3. It keeps teams from stockpiling bench strength from which to trade from.

 

As an aside, I noticed last year that due to the virtual extinction of the "every down back" that there are many more viable RB's in the draft than in prior years. If you keep the flex position I'd leave it as a WR/RB option.