2017 Rule Change Survey Results

[Easy Freese]

Thank you all for responding to the league survey. I want to remind you that while we usually rule changes are done via this survey process, I as commissioner and in consultation with the FSC Board still retain the right to implement rules unilaterally. It is important to remember that ultimately this is a Survey and thus not binding as per the rules. I have chosen not to go against the survey this offseason but there were several extremely close votes that ultimately did not get passed along with others that were not on the survey, that I along with the Board, will be looking at again next offseason and may choose implement if we deem it in the best interest of the league.

That being said,

The results are as follows:

If you have any questions, please post below

(First number will always be # of yes votes, 2nd number is no votes)


1: All teams be required to carry at least 8 prospects at all times - Defeated 4-12

2: International MLB free agent signings aged 23 and above are ineligible to be drafted in the rookie draft. - Defeated 10-6

3: No team can exceed their cap by an additional 25% ($40) for a maximum of $200, and no team can trade more than 25% of their cap ($40)·and be below $120 at any point during the regular season. Teams may exceed these limits during the offseason but must be in compliance once the regular season begins. - Defeated 10-6

4: Allow teams to designate one prospect each year that they can send back to their prospect pool after being called up. Once this prospect is sent back down, he cannot be called up for the remainder of the season. This option must be exercised prior to the trade deadline and can only be exercised on a player called up during the current season. - Defeated 8-8

5: Players coming off their rookie contract can be signed to a max 3-year deal. When this contract expires they become RFA. They cannot be resigned but their manager has the right to bid on and match the winning bid in free agency - Defeated 5-11

6: Increase salary inflation for all players from 10% each year to 25% each year - Defeated 2-14

7: Increase rookie bank from 20 to 25 - Defeated 7-9

8: No assets can be sold for salary cap outright. Salary cap must always be accompanied by a player, prospect, or pick in every trade. - Defeated 7-9

[Hitmen]

The 2 votes with a result of 10-6 I think we should think long and hard about passing those 2 rules.

[Moorestown Big Dogs]

I agree with you Hitman. What I would have liked to see was a period where the rule changes were available to us, so some discussion could have taken place at GroupMe, and everyone could make their arguments for and against. I think that would be a good idea for future years.

[CFL Rejects]

And then what? Next year we pass a rule that is 9 - 7? I agree we should have had an open forum to discuss ideas, but that tends to lead towards hard feelings. So lets just keep things the way they have been going for the last few years. We all joined this because it's fun so why try to change it?

[Giants-of-Jazz]

Well put CFL. I agree 100%. With all the rule changes, propasals, and everyone bitching about this and that (myself included), trying to get rules changed to benefit ones team or simply because they dont like the way we do things, to further complicate an already fairly complicated system is suckin' the fun out of it. I'll freely admit that the contract system isn't perfect, but I also know that it never will be either and I'm fine with that. I think there are alot of people on here that forget that this is free and run by a group of dedicated volunteers. Ive been a part of AML/FSC since the very beginning and we have NEVER had as much chatter about rules as we do now. Alot of these rule changes would completely overhaul the system that has worked perfectly fine for the last 5 years. I'm all for a rule change to fix a found loophole in the rules, but why completely overhaul and ruin a good thing that we have all enjoyed for so long???

[Hitmen]

My point is basically if 10 out of 16 people want a rule to change, to me it should be changed.

[Giants-of-Jazz]

I understand your point Hitman, but then you would just be taking the rules into your own hands. The written rules clearly state it takes 2/3rds of the leagues approval to make a rule change. Not 50% or the majority... Of course, thats part of the problem here. Everyone wants their own set of rules.

[Moorestown Big Dogs]

I really appreciate the fact that it takes 11 of 16, 12 might be even better. Because we are talking about a change. If this was a discussion of what to do in setting up a new league, then majority is appropriate, you need to come to a conclusion. But to change something that already works, and people are used to, should require a much higher bar. That doesn't mean that we should not continue to discuss these issues, and perhaps other owners become convinced that a change should take place, or that a modified version of a proposal satisfies everyone.

[Dynasty Empire]

Which is why the 2/3 rule is in place. While i agree with most of what is being said ,I would say that sometimes loop holes need to be prevented before they are discovered and i think that is where some of these ideas come from.The focus on the rules this off season was mainly to give more clarity and definition to the rules that were already in place. There is nothing worse than a vague rule for commissioners and board members to try and interpret. At this point if you read a rule that makes you question it's exact meaning i would encourage you to contact one of the board members and we will try and clear it up for you and make it clearer in print.