PS rule #7 is crazy

[Brian-Broncos]

Was catching up on the rules and came across PS rule #7:

7. In the event a practice squad player signs a new deal with a new team or his original team, his previous contract is void and he receives a 1-Year deal.

Aren't most rookies on the PS since we start actual so low? So, if a team has a bunch of points (and some teams do) they could bid on all the rookie PS players just to force the other teams to lose their contracts. This is very abusable, and, in general, doesn't make sense to me since we start rookies so low.

I could maybe see it if the minimum bid matched what the remaining contract is worth (you know the chart, 1 year-2.5 pts, 2 years-4 pts, etc.) and then keep the contract for whoever gets the player, but I hadn't really thought it through yet.

Any history on this one?

[Jerry-Redskins]

The issue is PS players should only be on a 1 year contract as they are week to week in the NFL. I personally feel PS players should lose their contract when placed on the PS and cost points to sign beyond 1 year, but it has been decided to let the original team keep the contract and if someone signs the PS player, they revert to 1 year contract they should be on t mirror the NFL.

[Mitch-Oilers]

You have to make decision... Is having this player on my 53 man roster as a back-up, even though he has slightly lower ACTs, more damaging to my team than having him bid on by another team and losing him?

I put guys on my PS all the time that may have slightly higher ACTs, but are not in my team long term plans.

Basically, don't put anyone on your PS you want to lose.

[Matt-Jacksonville]

You have to make decision... Is having this player on my 53 man roster as a back-up, even though he has slightly lower ACTs, more damaging to my team than having him bid on by another team and losing him?

I put guys on my PS all the time that may have slightly higher ACTs, but are not in my team long term plans.

Basically, don't put anyone on your PS you want to lose.

This....PS isn't for short term starters. Long term projects probably not worth it. PS is for extra insurance and depth. Remember, you will have to cut down to 53 at the end of the season, so you'll have to decide whether to keep these guys or guys on your 53 at that point.

[Brian-Broncos]

Yeah, what all of you are saying makes sense. I think I'm down to not liking it just because it has the potential to be abused. I'd rather that potential not exist.

[Mitch-Oilers]

Something else to remember...

If a team bids on one of your PS players and you decide not to match the bid. The bidding team has to keep the player on their 53 man roster all year and the player loses the contract. Essentially, it could cost the bidding team a lot more to keep the player for the long run.

This is why you more than likely will have a coach contact you for a trade vs straight up bidding on a PS player

[Donovon-Steelers]

Brian, I made the same point to Rich as well. Its valid. If they sign with a new team, then a 1 year contract makes sense. But if someone bids on your PS player, you are already forced to lose them or sign them active all year long, both of which are fair. But why the additional penalty of losing the original contract just because someone put a failed bid on them? If you have a coach with a some empty roster spots and lots more points than his division rivals, he can easily abuse this system and cause unnecessary spending of points or disruption of rosters from his "enemies" even if he really doesn't want the players.

[James-Eagles]

I think you are seeing a potential abuse when really the team with the player is only gaining with the current system.

If we did it like the NFL

1.All players on the PS would lose their contract as soon as put on the PS. Right now the PNFL lets you keep the contract and the only time you lose it is if someone bids on him.

2.NFL there is no matching. PS player can sign be signed by any team at any time. They are basically a Free Agent that practices with your team and is available for week to week call up.

3. PS players can be elvated to play on the active roster week to week but they are still on a weekly PS contract.

4. PS movement. You can only go from Free Agent pool to practice squad. There is no way to go from Roster player directly to PS player. The people who get demote back down to PS are PS players who were active for a week.

If we changed the current system I would say go full NFL.
After Training camp you have to cut down to 53 man roster than you can sign players to PS. All teams are free to bid on any player as much as they want. The player has no contract just sit on your PS. If you promoted player and wanted to demote a player to PS. You would have to basically cut him and resign him to the Practice Squad with a weekly contract.

To some it up simple

46 active players are your active players
7 inactive players are there for week to week changes in roster and deal with minor injories
10 PS Are Free Agents that practice with the team and are paid weekly. They can be used on the Roster week to week but they are still PS player because they don't have a full year contract.

[Jerry-Redskins]

I happen to agree with James on this one. I'd let people push their players to the practice squad the same as now, but they revert to a one year contract. I'd keep the bidding because I believe current PS players probably tell their current team, I'm gonna go this week unless you call me up. Whoever wins the bid gets them on the same 1 year contract. Either team can call them up and sign a restructure at the current cost to give them a contract moving forward, but if back to the PS, 1 year again. Also only think the player needs to be on the active roster the week they are signed away. They can go back to the PS the next week. This also means no trading of PS players. You have no actual rights to them.

It shouldn't be looked at as a way to mess with your enemy. If the players are good enough to play for a team, they should be on the roster and not the PS. Our PS has become a way to stash WR6 or WR7 type players for later and a high pot player for development.

[Rich-League Officer]

To date, there has never been any "abuse" where teams go out of their way to jack up their fellow coach under this system.
The reason is, it's stupid to do so.
It costs points and a roster spot for each signing.
Roster spots are valuable.
In fact, it was the blowing up of the contract that stopped the abuse back in the day.
When it was possible to retain that rookies 4 year deal, teams found it much more attractive to take a chance on another teams prospect.

As was also pointed out, after the season you must cut down to 53.
So, if someone is foolish enough to sign your player for 1 point, blow up his contract and then keep him as one of the 53, he now has to sign that player the following year. It's a very expensive ordeal to jack other coaches up.