log in
Week 1 Deadline: Tue Nov 30, 0:00 ET
MFLS Forums
Forums : MFLS Rules and Strategy Forum Thread : Possible Rule Change
    [thread started by Aviators on Sun 4/19 14:57 ET]
    [moderated by 1860 Oakland, SDFC Macross]
  Pages : First, Last
from Aviators
on Sun 4/19 14:57 ET
Reply to This Message
I want some sort of designated or automatic substitution feature added to this game.


Because the lack of quality information on injuries, likely starters, etc. I am beyond frustrated to spend my time researching players' likely availability only to be yet surprised by unexpected absences. I used to want it before Mark got rid of the NA points deduction.

LAG Keane, DAL Diaz, RSL Morales - these were key players and selected as investments by fantasy managers. Why weren't their likely absences broadly addressed in the media or what passes for soccer media in the U.S.?

We need to be able to designate up to three field subs and a GK sub that would replace designated starters who don't play.
from Dynamo Silver Spring
on Sun 4/19 15:15 ET
Reply to This Message
Hal, I'm just as frustrated as you. I had 3 starters not make the
18. But I wholly disagree with adding subs to this game. Auto
subs are like training wheels. We're big boys here and just
have to deal with the odd lack of information on some of these
injuries and omissions. We're all in the same position and have
the same tools at our disposal.

If it were up to me, I'd even bring back the NAP.
from Seattle SC
on Sun 4/19 16:07 ET
Reply to This Message
I think NAP should return, have brought that up in the past and not many agreed. Though like Mark said, all things are equal when it comes to lineups.
from The Laws of Lalas
on Mon 4/20 11:51 ET
Reply to This Message
i am against subs, especially formats that allow you to play a
non-starter on purpose and then autosub in your highest
scoring bench player. although active managers will even have
weeks where lack of info bites them (i had 4 guys not play this
week who i thought would go), in the long run subs reward
non-active managers more than diehards. the NAP would
benefit me most weeks but i am fine with no NAP as well.
from Castle Hill Comets
on Mon 4/20 16:35 ET
Reply to This Message
I had (at least) two guys not play, both forwards: Keane and Villa.
I still finished second best in the division on 29 points. I vote
against auto subs. (And for the NAP!)
from FC Byrd Turgler
on Tue 4/21 15:41 ET
Reply to This Message
I missed out on the NAP having joined in the salad days of Schelotto. Define please.
from Shaolin Mystigods
on Tue 4/21 15:53 ET
Reply to This Message
A player on your starting lineup would receive -1
pt. for each half that he did not play in a given

I support a compromise of -1 if your starting player
did not play in the match at all.
from Pepe Kaka FC
on Tue 4/21 17:10 ET
Reply to This Message
So I started playing on this site a couple seasons
ago, obviously after this NAP rule was eliminated.
This sounds like a pretty dumb rule... why would
you want to bring it back? I could see you doing
this if rosters locked at each game time, so you
could at least see the starting lineups.
Otherwise, (especially during DGWs) it's a total
guess on who is going to play and who is going to
get scratched with late week injuries. Just
sounds like an unnecessary rule when injury info
is already scarce.
from FC Byrd Turgler
on Tue 4/21 17:23 ET
Reply to This Message
PK FC- I agree. I'm speculating that this rule was set to punish 'Ghost Ship teams'. With the growth of MLS and the greater number of roster permutations, I think the NAP is irrelevant to its original intent. Therefore...count me a nay.
from Mohawks
on Tue 4/21 18:16 ET
Reply to This Message
In anti-NAP. It helped when the league had 12 teams and non-
active mangers were able to do well. Now it just seems
from Port City Navigators
on Wed 4/22 14:14 ET
Reply to This Message
To Pepe Kaka's point, I wouldn't mind the NAP if rosters locked
before each game.
from Seattle SC
on Wed 4/22 14:48 ET
Reply to This Message
It wasn't just about ghost teams. It was about active teams roster decisions.

Team A: Knows player likely won't play, instead of using transfer leaves him in and takes a 0.

Team B: Also knows player likely won't play, uses transfer (or starts bad matchup bench player) in the spirit of starting players who actually will play, player ends up getting 0 (or negative pts).

Team A ties or beats Team B because the latter starts players that actually play, punishing for playing the game.

Everyone always thinks solely about their team and "oh, star player that practically everyone has didn't play and none of us knew, NAP sucks because I got negative pts!" when essentially 'everyone' gets negative pts in that scenario. That evens out over the course of the season, equally to everyone. So that isn't what NAP really was about.
from Pepe Kaka FC
on Wed 4/22 15:48 ET
Reply to This Message
Yeah but that example doesn't really make

Team A starts a guy that they know won't play
so gets 0. No risk involved, also no reward.

Team B makes a transfer and takes a risk to
gain more points. Higher reward but more risk.

I don't think people are making transfers for
injured/inactive players in the "spirit of
starting players who will actually start".
Rather, they want the opportunity to score
positive points.

You shouldn't be penalized for not making a
transfer when you only have an average of 1 per
week. If you want to add more transfers for
the season and also have players lock when
their individual games start, then maybe it
would be an okay rule. But when you're forced
to submit a lineup on a Wednesday evening with
the slightest hint if your questionable players
will be active over the weekend, then this is a
pretty arbitrary rule.
from The Laws of Lalas
on Wed 4/22 18:03 ET
Reply to This Message
if anything i would vote for less transfers. i still want to do a
zombie league someday where you cannot make any transfers
and are stuck with original 18. if would be arbitrary perhaps but
i think it would be my best format since i usually overmanage
my team and make stupid transfers that cost me points.
from The Laws of Lalas
on Wed 4/22 18:07 ET
Reply to This Message
also the more i think about it the less i like NAP. not that it
matters since it is a moot point by now. i have played since
2007 and it wasn't even around then. it ain't coming back.

  Pages : First, Last