Something I've seen people discussing quite a bit is whether the ISFL could have expanded with more than two teams in this past offseason. Today I am going to argue the case as to why two teams was an appropriate amount to increase, not due to the needs of the ISFL - but instead the needs of it's developmental league, the DSFL.
This season we saw the following numbers of call ups:
Dallas: 8
Kansas City: 8
London: 12
Myrtle Beach: 8
Minnesota: 4
Norfolk: 13
Portland: 11
Tijuana: 7
Total Call Ups: 71 Players
The reason I bring this up is because this can be a general guide to how many players each team will need coming into the next season, assuming they had a full roster the previous season (including use of GM bots, but not filler bots). Keep in mind not every team had a roster without any filler bots last season already as it is, and would therefore need *more* than the listed call ups to fill out their roster, but I digress.
To compare to this, the entire S26 draft class had 60 players picked - a deficit of 11. Teams drafted the following amounts of players each:
Dallas: 8 (0)
Kansas City: 7 (-1)
London: 7 (-4)
Myrtle Beach: 7 (-1)
Minnesota: 8 (+4)
Norfolk: 7 (-6)
Portland: 7 (-4)
Tijuana: 7 (0)
As you can see, every team (except Minnesota who had an unusually low call up amount) had a negative or even net result from the offseason process, a bearable change by all means - but a negative overall none the less. Now what's important here is to bear in mind that while almost every player who gets called up is likely to be at least semi-active and was contributing a good player to a DSFL teams roster, there's a good chance in any given draft that 30% or more players will go IA before the end of their first season and may not be a contributor on the same level, leading to an even greater loss in active talent.
If it has not already made itself evident, my point is that the DSFL in its current state, and under its current rulebook cannot sustain all of the existing teams if the ISFL had gone ahead with a four team expansion. By all means I would agree that the ISFL is the focus of the league, but keeping the DSFL running steadily helps to improve the new player experience and gives rookies a good place to cut their teeth and learn the league.
The only way to allow for another set of teams to enter the ISFL in my eyes without contracting the DSFL would follow one of two paths:
Continued sustainable and increasing recruitment numbers
OR
Loosening of the IA rules for DSFL rosters
Either of these would create space for more teams by creating a surplus of players in both leagues, rather than directly impacting the DSFL by overextending the league's reach.
This season we saw the following numbers of call ups:
Dallas: 8
Kansas City: 8
London: 12
Myrtle Beach: 8
Minnesota: 4
Norfolk: 13
Portland: 11
Tijuana: 7
Total Call Ups: 71 Players
The reason I bring this up is because this can be a general guide to how many players each team will need coming into the next season, assuming they had a full roster the previous season (including use of GM bots, but not filler bots). Keep in mind not every team had a roster without any filler bots last season already as it is, and would therefore need *more* than the listed call ups to fill out their roster, but I digress.
To compare to this, the entire S26 draft class had 60 players picked - a deficit of 11. Teams drafted the following amounts of players each:
Dallas: 8 (0)
Kansas City: 7 (-1)
London: 7 (-4)
Myrtle Beach: 7 (-1)
Minnesota: 8 (+4)
Norfolk: 7 (-6)
Portland: 7 (-4)
Tijuana: 7 (0)
As you can see, every team (except Minnesota who had an unusually low call up amount) had a negative or even net result from the offseason process, a bearable change by all means - but a negative overall none the less. Now what's important here is to bear in mind that while almost every player who gets called up is likely to be at least semi-active and was contributing a good player to a DSFL teams roster, there's a good chance in any given draft that 30% or more players will go IA before the end of their first season and may not be a contributor on the same level, leading to an even greater loss in active talent.
If it has not already made itself evident, my point is that the DSFL in its current state, and under its current rulebook cannot sustain all of the existing teams if the ISFL had gone ahead with a four team expansion. By all means I would agree that the ISFL is the focus of the league, but keeping the DSFL running steadily helps to improve the new player experience and gives rookies a good place to cut their teeth and learn the league.
The only way to allow for another set of teams to enter the ISFL in my eyes without contracting the DSFL would follow one of two paths:
Continued sustainable and increasing recruitment numbers
OR
Loosening of the IA rules for DSFL rosters
Either of these would create space for more teams by creating a surplus of players in both leagues, rather than directly impacting the DSFL by overextending the league's reach.