Yes but I was told very clearly that I was delusional multiple times when I brought this exact problem up 2 seasons ago, therefore it doesn't exist. High TPE inactive players being in the way of actives is clearly not a problem the NSFL has.
Shade throwing aside, it's crazy to me that someone would decide to be a DSFL GM with the goal of winning games with inactives. That's counter to the entire point of the league. What if there was a limit of the number of inactives you could have over a certain tpe amount? Lets say 150 for spitballing purposes. Most inactives that go any real amount over that are going to be on NSFL rosters as backups anyway. And its a low enough number that new players can hit it quickly enough to encourage people to not GM like jackasses while still allowing for genuine holes and issues.
Shade throwing aside, it's crazy to me that someone would decide to be a DSFL GM with the goal of winning games with inactives. That's counter to the entire point of the league. What if there was a limit of the number of inactives you could have over a certain tpe amount? Lets say 150 for spitballing purposes. Most inactives that go any real amount over that are going to be on NSFL rosters as backups anyway. And its a low enough number that new players can hit it quickly enough to encourage people to not GM like jackasses while still allowing for genuine holes and issues.