Worldwide Dynasty Federation Rules and Regulation

I will get you dues later tonight or tomorrow

Wife is having a nerve blocker done here in an hour on her ankle.

 

I'm sending $100 for kailin and me

 

It's 3 years up front.

 

Question... I didn't see it listed anywhere. Maybe I missed it. There are 17 bench spots. Must they all be filled?

 

I think the bench spots need to be filled, but not the practice squad. I believe all "regular roster spots" are mandatory. The practice squad section specifies they are not required.

 

Thanks for pointing this out and I will clarify it in the rules book -

Yes, rosters must be filled at all times, with the exception of the PS and IR. If you choose not to place any players to the practice squad or utilize an IR spot, that will not be considered an incomplete roster.

 

@IrishDawg42 had a good question about rookie contracts for this season -

This season's rookie contracts will follow the round that they were drafted in the actual draft, with UDFAs getting vet minimums.

 

League buy in requires the first 3 seasons - $150 per owner

This solidifies the league throughout the length of the original contracts designated by this group of owners.

 

Actually, what I was asking for clarification on whether the players drafted in the first 3 rounds of the actual draft (which carry two year contracts), if they count against the 12 allowed (2) YEAR contracts. In other words, if you draft 6 2023 rookie players, that were drafted in the first 3 rounds of the real draft, in this roster, would you have 12 remaining 2 year contracts for current veteran players, or only 6?

 

So 13 starters, 17 bench is the minimum. But if you place a player in taxi or IR then you must sign someone to replace on your bench?

 

If you are IRing a player or PS a player, then you must sign a player to the bench in a corresponding move.

With the PS rules for this league allowing an owner to move a player in or out of that spot at will, the only reason to move a player into one of those spots would be to open up availability on the regular roster.

 

Apologies, I misunderstood the context of your question.

I'll have to get back to you on this when I get home. I have a couple things wrote down for this based on the number of available players from the draft (total eligible players from first 3 rounds) so I don't want to give you an answer that I will have to retract or correct.

 

And, for the record...

I appreciate you guys finally digging into the nuances and getting me some feedback on the rules book.

 

Ok, this is what I have for the question of rookie contract length for year one and how it applies to owners' allotment of 2-year contracts:

There are 87 total players that could possibly have two-year contracts in this draft class.

We have a 12-team league. In a normal offseason draft, owners would be able to acquire no more than 3 players with available two-year contracts (trading for additional picks excluded).

As it applies to this draft - If each owner were capable of taking any 3 players that would have been drafted in the first three rounds of the NFL draft, that would essentially mirror our first offseason draft class.

I believe the best way to approach this would be to give each owner the opportunity to draft up to 3 rookies from this class that have 2-year eligibility and have those 3 players exempt from the overall contract count.

Every rookie drafted after that, regardless of round in the actual NFL draft, will automatically be on a one-year contract. Owners do not have the ability to change the yearly contract of incoming rookies and will need to follow the offseason protocols to extend, tag or sign rookies from this draft class that have 1 year remaining or expiring contracts.

The contracts for the one-year deals would be for the original contract amount against the cap (a player from round one would still have a round one price, even if his contract is shrunk to one season).

 

Correct.

Per the rules:


Initial Draft

The initial draft will be a live, snake draft consisting of 12 teams with 30 rounds.

Trading predraft is permitted.

Draft order will be determined by rolling/resetting the draft order 5 times, which can be tracked in the activity feed.


Conferences and Divisions

Conferences and divisions will be determined by the draft order

Teams 1, 6 and 11 will be in the African division, Southern Conference

Teams 3, 8 and 12 will be in the Asian Division, Southern Conference

Teams 2, 5 and 10 will be in the European Division, Northern Conference

Teams 4, 7 and 9 will be in the North American Division, Northern Conference

 

We have 7 owners paid, 5 to go and we can lock up the draft order, divisions and open up pre-draft trading for anyone interested in doing so.

 

How will you determine positions for players that don't appear on your spreadsheet? Guys like Micah Parsons and Hassan Reddick are guys that could be listed as either LB or Edge. I don't want to specify a player but we may have a guy that we see as one position and others see at another. What decides that?

EDIT: Let me rephrase...

Obviously you will make the decision. The better question is when will that happen? Can we get a heads up before we draft that position?

Who invited this guy ^^^^^?

 

Can you clarify your question (I'm almost asleep, lol).

What exactly is your concern when it comes to player designation?

EDIT: If you are asking about how it applies in a contract situation, if you look in the rules under 'Forced Contract Negotiations', you will find -

Any hybrid player will have a percentage jump according to position of highest increase

This would mean that a player listed as both EDGE and LB would receive the EDGE push (higher percentage).

 

My concern is I draft a guy similar to Reddick, not in your listed players as a DE but you consider him a LB.

 

Designations are determined by FleaFlicker, so if they have a player eligible at both, they can be played at either.

If you choose to start a player at a flex position, that has no determination on what he will be considered when it comes to cap ramifications.

When it comes to contracts it will always side with what the higher percentage increase would be in a negotiation situation.

Is this the basis of your question, or am I misunderstanding?