(10-19-2017, 08:17 AM)Molarpistols Wrote:I see what you're saying, but I think it could actually be healthier for the league in the long run. OL isn't a fancy or fun position, most of the people that tend to make one go inactive pretty quickly.
Player retention will probably increase if they get to choose a position they want over picking a position they'll get playing time at. I can't say retention will increase significantly, but it stands to reason that it would increase somewhat.
Aside from OL there are 18 players that would get playing time (11 on D, 6 on O and a kicker (and punter would make 19, but we'll leave it at 18 for maths). We have 14 teams between NSFL and DSFL for a total of 252 active positions available aside from OL. We're at 500+ members right now, but how many are active?
Let's say around 50% on the higher end (probably closer to 30-40%), giving us ~250 active players and they're spread out amongst (23x14) 322 positions currently. Once we run out of positions for actives to have, expansion is always possible, we've done it twice already (counting DSFL as an expansion).
The Otters currently start 7-9 inactive/marginally active players if you count the different formations. 3 of those inactives are on the offensive line, with 2 actives on the OL as well. Replacing OL with better bots and allowing position changes for current OL would effectively cut the number of inactive starters on the Otters to 2-4. I cannot see how that could be a bad thing for teams or the league.
I 100% agree. And if we run out of spots for actives, guess what? We can expand again. I don't think we would run into that problem, but having "too many actives" is literally a non issue. Eliminating the O Line will help the league.