Has anyone experimented with "resting" players?

[Fat_Emrys]

Our club's league has teams ranging from rookies up to a couple valued just under $2.5M.

We have four small divisions which does keep inducements low but even so some teams are still getting up to $1 million in inducements for a match against the top sides.

Has any league experimented with the idea of allowing teams to rest a number of players for a match or even capping a team (so they can't field a team valued at more than, say, $500,000 higher than their opponent?

If optional, high TV teams will have to be careful to balance the number of players they field with the amount of inducements they'll no longer be giving up but if teams are prepared to turn up shorthanded it seems a reasonable option to me. Equally, low TV teams might choose to rest a player to increase their inducements (to be able to take on a certain star, for example) or just to free up a roster slot for a star.

Note that I'm not suggesting that any team be allowed to have more than 16 players in their squads and then pick 16 for any game, just that not all of the 16 rostered players necessarily need to turn out in every game.

I'd be very interested in peoples' view on this before I start to lobby our Commissioner (my full-strength halflings could do with hiring Deeproot for an upcoming game and I need a slot to be freed up to do so! ).

[Grumbledook]

initially thought it could be interesting but the following things popped to mind

adds more time pre match to the inducement picking/working out etc
takes away some of the team/roster management from having a high TV team in that you are less likely to retire someone, thus reducing player turnover and the continual bringing through of new players in a team

if you are fine with those points then go ahead, I wouldn't want it in any league I was playing in though, I think the player turnover decisions for retiring players is a good thing to have in the game

if you want to rest someone to give away less inducements then just sack him ;]

[Jural]

I have never tried it.

Theoretically, the argument is as Grumbledook says- it is too easy for the overdog to sit ineffectual members of his squad on a game by game basis- it invites team bloat as well.

However, I think this system is only open for abuse on a game by game basis. If an established team gave a star player or two the season off and then reclaimed them later, there'd be little problem with that in my mind.

[Rhyoth]

I would add to this rule a limitation, like :

"Roll 1d6 for each player resting, if you roll 1, loose this player definitively"

That would prevent some abusive use of the rule (and add a little more fun).

[Ullis]

I would add to this rule a limitation, like :

"Roll 1d6 for each player resting, if you roll 1, loose this player definitively"

That would prevent some abusive use of the rule (and add a little more fun).

I like this version, but 1 in 6 is probably too harsh.

Say, 2 dice:

2: The player is demoralised for being benched and leaves permanently
3: The player comes back but has partied too hard. He misses the next game
4-10 The player comes back
11: The player comes back but has partied too hard. He misses the next game
12: The player is demoralised for being benched and leaves permanently

1/18 chance of losing the player and 1/9 chance of getting MNG on him, so 1/6 chance of adverse effects.

[Toby Wardman]

Ullis's idea of a MNG option is a nice one. You could tweak the probabilities as you saw fit depending on how much the rule was (ab)used in your league.

We're having some serious rethinking about inducements and super-powered teams in our league, so these kinds of ideas are really helpful - thanks!