S23 NSFL Rules Summit Results

[YoungTB]

6. Move to a sixteen (16) game schedule.
13-6

sadness. pain.

[Raven]

New record era is upon us

[retrospace111]

Records are meant to be broken people that’s how it is in the NFL ???????

[JuOSu]

Honestly, really annoyed with a few of these.

The 16 game schedule is a really terrible idea. Yeah records are one thing and I know people like to have a chance to break old records so I understand it, but more games is not a good thing. This will add a week to the schedule, a week that will be terrible for the league. Longer seasons are terrible for users and will lead to a terrible chain reaction. You will have users burn out more easily. Careers will last a shit ton longer. But most importantly you will see users leave the site because they are stuck on a terrible team for a week longer. Just ask @TomHanks and his SHL team how much fun they are having for another month on a winless team. This is a terrible rule.

But even worse, the inactive award rule was something I felt very passionately about and wrote a long article last season detailing why it is a bad idea. To be honest, I find it appalling that a rule that was voted NO on just last season was up for a vote again. How is that allowed? Can I just bring the same shitty rule every season and hope that one of these days someone votes yes on? Like this is a terrible precedent to set.

[retrospace111]

Honestly, really annoyed with a few of these.

The 16 game schedule is a really terrible idea. Yeah records are one thing and I know people like to have a chance to break old records so I understand it, but more games is not a good thing. This will add a week to the schedule, a week that will be terrible for the league. Longer seasons are terrible for users and will lead to a terrible chain reaction. You will have users burn out more easily. Careers will last a shit ton longer. But most importantly you will see users leave the site because they are stuck on a terrible team for a week longer. Just ask @TomHanks and his SHL team how much fun they are having for another month on a winless team. This is a terrible rule.

But even worse, the inactive award rule was something I felt very passionately about and wrote a long article last season detailing why it is a bad idea. To be honest, I find it appalling that a rule that was voted NO on just last season was up for a vote again. How is that allowed? Can I just bring the same shitty rule every season and hope that one of these days someone votes yes on? Like this is a terrible precedent to set.

We can always do more double headers?

[terriblehippo]

also, for rule 12, what voting was the awards committee supposed to do?

I assume the intent of the proposal was for Awards Committee to both determine the nominees for awards and to do the final voting on those awards. However, I can only guess at the intent behind the proposal, because the way it is written here is exactly how it was written in the submission thread.

[Oles]

We've had some people express interest, which led to the offering of this proposal. If you or someone you know is interested, have them reach out to a member of HO.

I am interested, hence my inquiry into the process

[Oles]

Also I agree on the 16 game schedule hate, we'll now see records fall, and we tried to keep the schedule similar to what it was when we expanded and added chicago/austin, hence why we're at 13 games. 2 more games is another week of the season, no matter how you slice it, and as juosu said, people who are not happy with their team can burn out easier and could go IA because they now are stuck with a team they don't like, and as anyone can tell you if you wanna leave a team you want to get out asap, and now that is dragged out.

I also agree that IA rule is bs, it's one thing for DSFL, but for NSFL the best player should win the award, they shouldn't be punished because they went IA. Someone who leads the league in every stat and would deserve opoty/dpoty or mvp is now screwed out of an award (and possible HOF contention) because of a rule like that.

[Memento Mori]

Passing, receiving, sack, interception records were not being broken anyway because of the changes to the sim rules and the fact that the schedule was reduced from 14 games to 13. I’d get the records argument if we’d always played 13 games, or there hadn’t been multiple changes to the sim rules, but there has. The S22 sim is so different from the era that most records are set. For example, it would take Jay Cue, who led the NSFL in passing yards per game, about 21 games to match Mike Boss’ single season passing yard record. The 16 game era won’t suddenly result in every record being broken, because the other changes that have been made to the sim have more of an effect on how beatable each record is.

A 13 game season is inherently imbalanced. Teams play different numbers of home and away games, which can have a big impact when (like in S22) the difference between making the playoffs and missing the playoffs can often be tiebreakers rather than regular season victories. A 13 game season with 10 teams (like we had from S16 to S21) leads to Team A playing it’s conference twice (8 games), and the other conference once (5 games). A 13 game season with 12 teams (as we had in S22) leads to teams playing its conference twice (10 games) and half of the other conference (3 games). The part that made 13 games acceptable despite the home/away imbalance was that each team played the rest of it’s conference twice and then the same out-of-division opponents. With 12 teams, you play your conference twice (10 games) and the other conference once (6 games).

The competitive reason for playing 13 games is gone, and I don’t understand the appeal of trying to stop records from S1-S3 ever being broken.

[shadyshoelace]

But even worse, the inactive award rule was something I felt very passionately about and wrote a long article last season detailing why it is a bad idea. To be honest, I find it appalling that a rule that was voted NO on just last season was up for a vote again. How is that allowed? Can I just bring the same shitty rule every season and hope that one of these days someone votes yes on? Like this is a terrible precedent to set.

Rule V.D.6 already states that "Players that are determined to be inactive by the end of the regular season cannot be nominated for awards, regardless of stats, unless there are not enough active players at a position to fill nominations."

When people propose rules that modify existing rules, they type them up as such for clarity, hence last season's proposal taking the existing rule and adding "or Pro Bowl" and this year's adding "unless their GMs notify the committee of extenuating circumstances resulting in said player being IA." The votes on those rules don't have any bearing on if the existing rule stays or goes, just if the new modification is made or not.