Gauging interest in a custom 20 or 30 team league

Hey everyone,

We’ve had some discussions on Slack previously logistics behind creating a large 20 or 30 team league. The logistics would have to be worked out with @nivshah when it comes to actual functionality but that would be putting the cart ahead of the horse. Basically, this thread is just to gauge interest, because I think it would be extremely fun to be in a league that deep.

What are everyone’s thoughts?

1 Like

I hate to be a naysayer, but this sounds like a nightmare to me. Even reducing OF from five to three and eliminating MI you’re still talking about 180 hitters, 100 SP, and 100 RP in lineups, with probably 1.25x to 1.50x needed to actually fill games/IP caps. Keeping 40 roster spots would mean 800 players are rostered, which is equivalent to all 30 MLB team 25 man rosters plus 50 minor leaguers, which would result in insanely shallow free agent pools. A 20 team league in FGPTs would just end up being a war of attrition, with the teams that can fill the most games and throw the most innings winning.

To avoid being completely negative, I think a 14 or 16 team league would be feasible, and could offer a bit more depth than a standard 12 team league. Alternatively, a 4x4 or 5x5 league might work with 20 owners, since there is much less disadvantage to not meeting games/IP caps.

count me in if this can somehow be made to work.

I play in a 5x5 that is 20 teams and 45 man rosters. it mostly works because there are no games played/innings pitched rules, so the teams that sell REALLY sell and are often doing things like starting prospects and injured players instead of even trying to accrue stats. you would want to be careful about how you handle that aspect - if you expect everyone to “try” you will need rules to enforce it.

Agree on that concept chy - I think competitive teams will sell highly valuable contracts for multiple games / innings filler. I think it would be helpful too to potentially lower the GP / IP thresholds so you don’t get penalized as much for not getting to 162 games per spot, maybe make more bullpen spots open to get more relief innings from more relievers.

I have to think there’d be a way to do it in theory - the question becomes is there a way to do it that isn’t too much work on @nivshah or a way to price the league so it makes sense for him to put in the effort.

I’m cool with even baby-stepping our way up the team counts - start with 16-18 and if that works, maybe try 20-24 a season or two later. I guess will also depend on how many want in.

What I think we have to consider too, is that we hope to fill this with otto’s most active players. Any inactivity could potentially stagnant the league. Still, it means we can get away with more depth. That is to say, the point of the league would be to manage a real life club, so starting league average to below league average (the bar being set lower than a normal) would be normal and understood.

Cutting roster size to 30, and limiting positions to RL Equivalents would help. Major league clubs definitely have the ability to cover DL spots, / luxury we may not be afforded but that could simply be remedy potentially by more player movement given some teams being in the bottom 30 and others in the top. I think there would be some method that develops in-season to account for that.

I personally think the issue lies more with the acru start up. How to schedule drafts, etc

Basically I don’t think we can view it as a standard Otto with all the bells and whistles. It would be a more gritty slow paced league. Injuries could cripple a season and prices would adjust accordingly. There would also be an incentive to stay competitive as rebuilding would be more difficult.

We could also incentivize the league, not just with the cash prize but by developing a community, a website, awards, etc. no reason not to take this seriously while having a stupid fun time

1 Like

I think this might be something we might have to do on a different site first and that we manage on our own.

If we could stock the full 30 we could simply schedule multiple, weekly, drafts with set times, say and hour or two with the requirement that at least 16/30 must attend. That way, even if you miss one, you wont miss too much.

It’s not ideal but we might have to come to peace with the ida this isn’t going to be perfect. Otherwise it’s a slow draft, that is starting now and ending just before the season.

1 Like

I could get behind either solution you just presented.

Furthermore it’s probably better to build say a committe of 5 with a head commissioner to develop and manage the league.

If we can hammer out the details and establish the league, then we can reach out to people to join. People would be more willing to join with all the rules laid out

All of your ideas on point Adam. I like the idea of a Commissioner Committee. Would be good to find a way to provide incentives to more than just 1st place. I think if we really spend some time putting effort into rules over course of the next month or two we can make this work.

I like the idea of weekly, hour long, non mandatory drafts.