All that being said, I'm fine with whatever direction you guys want to take this.  I wasn't part of the initial crafting of this idea and my thoughts may not be in line with the vision the creators had for this concept.  Just trying to point out some potential bumps in the road and ideas for making the monitoring aspect less complex.  If you guys can drum up the manpower to do the monitoring and determination of intent on errors/other issues with unassigned players, I'm not against it.  If it doesn't work out perfectly, adjustments can be made for season 2.  Looking forward to getting started, it will be a fun concept to try.  

Another way that you could enforce the rules is if you violate the 20 man rule you will have to release that player or players and replace with tryout camp players for that season. Stiff penalty but it keeps the players in the league and at the same time hurts your team severely for that season. I also think that for the first season some discretion should be used because you could violate the 20 man rule unintentionally. Maybe giving the player a cycle or 2 to correct a honest mistake the first season should be considered

Not that my two cents are worth much but I see too many complications for this idea to become fruitful. In my opinion a loophole in ANY game immediately screams unbalance. 

With that said, if 32 owners can all agree and make this work without major complications I will be very impressed and commend all of you.

Ok, so it looks like there is a good amount of support for the "close the loophole" camp. I'll try to draft up a rule.

Posted by frymaster99 on 1/7/2015 6:59:00 PM (view original):
Not that my two cents are worth much but I see too many complications for this idea to become fruitful. In my opinion a loophole in ANY game immediately screams unbalance. 

With that said, if 32 owners can all agree and make this work without major complications I will be very impressed and commend all of you.

I was thinking along the same lines but figured I'd keep my yap shut.   For once.  But, since you started.......

"See how it goes.." and "Sort it out on the fly..." and "just dive in..." seems like a guarantee for failure.   Those who were already there before this idea was hatched won't be happy and those who joined because of this idea won't be happy.      It's just three months of fuss. 

I'm speaking from experience.  I agreed to take over commish of a world but the 20 owners there had to agree to the very specific rules I laid out before I'd do it.   Everyone was in.  Halfway thru, a cash in trade rule was broken.   Naturally, I said "No, that doesn't work."    Half of the owners who were there when I took over said "But it was only......"    No good for me, no good for them.    Get it down, pound it in, make no exceptions. 

Posted by runnrun on 1/7/2015 5:52:00 PM (view original):
Another way that you could enforce the rules is if you violate the 20 man rule you will have to release that player or players and replace with tryout camp players for that season. Stiff penalty but it keeps the players in the league and at the same time hurts your team severely for that season. I also think that for the first season some discretion should be used because you could violate the 20 man rule unintentionally. Maybe giving the player a cycle or 2 to correct a honest mistake the first season should be considered

Too harsh methinks. I'd prefer to limit damage, rather than severely punish what could be the result of an oversight.

Is it really a loop-hole? If you sign extra players for LT and don't assign them because you already have 20, you have them for their LT contracts, that means next season, you are again going to have to be to 20, so someone must go. I call it a temporary advantage, not a world wrecking disaster. If we are going to keep looking for ways that people are going to screw this world up (and getting your panties all in a bind because someone has a slight advantage for a season), this isn't going to be fun for long. Right now the top teams all have a huge advantage but we all want to play anyway, just get over it and lets move on.

Do you know the owner who gets the temporary advantage for one season will return the next when it's time to pay the piper?

With all the openings on all the teams waiting to fill, I don't think they expected to still be sitting there and not playing, its always a crap shoot.

Posted by wcrebel on 1/7/2015 8:19:00 PM (view original):
Is it really a loop-hole? If you sign extra players for LT and don't assign them because you already have 20, you have them for their LT contracts, that means next season, you are again going to have to be to 20, so someone must go. I call it a temporary advantage, not a world wrecking disaster. If we are going to keep looking for ways that people are going to screw this world up (and getting your panties all in a bind because someone has a slight advantage for a season), this isn't going to be fun for long. Right now the top teams all have a huge advantage but we all want to play anyway, just get over it and lets move on.

It's not just a one season thing.  

If I have 20 players on my 40-man roster, and 5 FA's I signed long-term sitting unassigned, I essentially have 25 guys that are protected.

Those 5 FA's will then be part of the 20 on my 40-man next season, but it's possible that I've signed another 5 FA's to LT contracts sitting unassigned.  Again, I essentially have 25 guys who are protected.

Lather.  Rinse.  Repeat.  Every season.

WiS only gives the big trophy to one team per season and having 23 to start with doesn't guarantee that that person will get it.

Posted by shobob on 1/7/2015 7:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by runnrun on 1/7/2015 5:52:00 PM (view original):
Another way that you could enforce the rules is if you violate the 20 man rule you will have to release that player or players and replace with tryout camp players for that season. Stiff penalty but it keeps the players in the league and at the same time hurts your team severely for that season. I also think that for the first season some discretion should be used because you could violate the 20 man rule unintentionally. Maybe giving the player a cycle or 2 to correct a honest mistake the first season should be considered

Too harsh methinks. I'd prefer to limit damage, rather than severely punish what could be the result of an oversight.

That's the hard part, finding the happy medium.  

If the punishment is too light, then there's little incentive to fully comply.  You take your yearly slap on the wrist and carry on.  If it's too harsh, violators will say "screw this" and leave.

Posted by wcrebel on 1/7/2015 8:36:00 PM (view original):
WiS only gives the big trophy to one team per season and having 23 to start with doesn't guarantee that that person will get it.

True.  But if you have 31 owners trying to comply as best as they can to the spirit of the rule, and one guy trying to game the system and exploit every loophole, guess who has an advantage?

And as I said earlier . . . the further you get away from a hard 20, the less interesting this theme becomes.