Important question for march madness

should we do the 40 game limit like last year or only allow 2 aquasitions per matchup?

plz post which u want.

2 Acquisitions per week is so few. With a 40 game start limit it stops people from streaming but allows them to pick up whoever they need.

i would prefer the game played limit but if the aquisition limit is easier to police then i wouldn't throw a fit

40 limits. more strategy.

If we're going to leave it at 40 starts per matchup, the waiver period needs to be reduced because otherwise everyone will be on waivers the whole week. I say two acquisitions per matchup. 1. It's easier to police and we don't have to go through every league at the end of the week to see if someone went over the limit. 2. Why even do the last 5 rounds of the draft, because those players are going to be the ones getting dropped anyway. It takes the strategy out of the draft if you can just leave without finishing it.

streetwiz14 wrote:

2 Acquisitions per week is so few. With a 40 game start limit it stops people from streaming but allows them to pick up whoever they need.

40 game start limit only encourages streaming.

Nebraska wrote:

streetwiz14 wrote:

2 Acquisitions per week is so few. With a 40 game start limit it stops people from streaming but allows them to pick up whoever they need.

40 game start limit only encourages streaming.

i think both ways limit the steaming, the point of streaming is to get as many starts in as possible and 40 is just about perfect to limit that.

i also may want to pick up player A cuz player B got hurt , but i cant because i only get 2 per week....thats no good, this isnt football......

Injured players are what the 2 acqs. per matchup are for. That's the whole point of them. I'm pretty sure you're not going to have that many players get hurt every week. I don't mind the 40 starts, but my whole point is that if we do it that way, we need to reduce the waiver period time, because the 40 people that get dropped every day will be on waivers forever, and by that time, the team that drops them will be swapping those players back again. Last year, we had it at 36 starts per matchup and it worked perfectly fine, there is no point in raising it to 40. Having it at 36 stops the insane amount of streaming.

Nebraska wrote:

Injured players are what the 2 acqs. per matchup are for. That's the whole point of them. I'm pretty sure you're not going to have that many players get hurt every week. I don't mind the 40 starts, but my whole point is that if we do it that way, we need to reduce the waiver period time, because the 40 people that get dropped every day will be on waivers forever, and by that time, the team that drops them will be swapping those players back again. Last year, we had it at 36 starts per matchup and it worked perfectly fine, there is no point in raising it to 40. Having it at 36 stops the insane amount of streaming.

but blake think about it, if i only have 30 players playing one week, and he has like 37, he will probobly win just b/c he has more.... 40 start limit is fairer

i agree with Nebraska, make the waiver period longer and 40 starts is fine

Hmm I got the e mail for this poll AND had asked at on time to get the Boise team but never was contacted to have a team so... do I have one and just don't know about it?

dkatterer wrote:

Nebraska wrote:

Injured players are what the 2 acqs. per matchup are for. That's the whole point of them. I'm pretty sure you're not going to have that many players get hurt every week. I don't mind the 40 starts, but my whole point is that if we do it that way, we need to reduce the waiver period time, because the 40 people that get dropped every day will be on waivers forever, and by that time, the team that drops them will be swapping those players back again. Last year, we had it at 36 starts per matchup and it worked perfectly fine, there is no point in raising it to 40. Having it at 36 stops the insane amount of streaming.

but blake think about it, if i only have 30 players playing one week, and he has like 37, he will probobly win just b/c he has more.... 40 start limit is fairer

Then thats ure fault. It happend to me last year. Oh well. Its like having a bye week in the NFL.

Matt Hill wrote:

dkatterer wrote:

Nebraska wrote:

Injured players are what the 2 acqs. per matchup are for. That's the whole point of them. I'm pretty sure you're not going to have that many players get hurt every week. I don't mind the 40 starts, but my whole point is that if we do it that way, we need to reduce the waiver period time, because the 40 people that get dropped every day will be on waivers forever, and by that time, the team that drops them will be swapping those players back again. Last year, we had it at 36 starts per matchup and it worked perfectly fine, there is no point in raising it to 40. Having it at 36 stops the insane amount of streaming.

but blake think about it, if i only have 30 players playing one week, and he has like 37, he will probobly win just b/c he has more.... 40 start limit is fairer

Then thats ure fault. It happend to me last year. Oh well. Its like having a bye week in the NFL.

yea but if you have 5 people with bye weeks in football on your team, you can pick up 5 new one's to start.....

i voted so you can keep track of who voted. and as of what i voted it is none of your buisness

thanks steve, but people who are active on the topic know what you voted, so it doesn't really matter. we like it when you give input but if you don't want to, that's fine.

Nebraska wrote:

thanks steve, but people who are active on the topic know what you voted, so it doesn't really matter. we like it when you give input but if you don't want to, that's fine.

yea. lol

also fixed your name