12-14-2018, 11:26 PMluketd Wrote:

12-14-2018, 10:09 PMArGarBarGar Wrote: Expand and you will have more spots open for rookies to actually play sooner than their third season after being drafted.

This and promote active players than TPE fillers. Of Course inactives that are worth something with high TPE is great, but I think an incentive to have active players in the league will make it better as well

What if Inactives hit regression faster or harder? (Or if there was a base inactive regression for every season a player is inactive).  Alternatively, players could auto retire after a certain number of seasons inactive.
That could give GMs incentives to replace their Inactives with Actives, without just pulling their strong players out from under them immediately. 


In either case we'd have to be respectful to the fact that teams make an investment by picking a player.  So if we take away or devalue a player, that artificially sets a team back by negating their investment.
It's like the two competing methodologies.  Should we tax what we don't want (Inactives) or should we subsidize what we do want (Actives) in order to make it more appealing to have Actives over Inactives.

I just completed my first season on the site, so I don't have the context to know if these are good ideas.  Figured I'd put them out there in case they make sense.