Roster On versus Roster Off
we have 35 girls but do not have set teams. It would be so much better if when you created games, nobody was rostered, and you rostered people on versus rostering people off. You could create a button "Check all" if you want everyone rostered. It takes forever to set up each team and parents get confused and frustrated because they get all of these your child has been rostered off this game" emails which then causes them to email managers and coaches because they believe they are rostered off more than they are playing. This could all be resolved if you switched to nobody is rostered, and you add people you want for each game.
Anonymous
shared this idea
-
ben
commented
Great suggestion by Tobias, to show rostered off by date availability is confirmed. Actually, the "Available" status would be a great addition, which replicates how we also use the app. It would certainly be more useful than differentiating between "unconfirmed" and "can't make it" which for most practical purposes is one and the same (people generally can't be bothered to say if they can't come).
It would also be helpful if any player rostered off is made available for selection if someone drops out. We have been left short a couple of times now when players who have been rostered did not know that they could select themselves due to a late drop-out.
To illustrate, below is my workflow:
1) Players sign up to play if available, with automatic rostering off once team is full
2) Manual un-rostering of and using other means to find replacements for late drop-outsAnd how it would work better:
1) Players say if they are available
2) Team is selected based on order of response or manually)
3) Late drop-outs automatically replaced by other "Available" players based on order or response -
Tobias Morris
commented
I agree with this. We select based on who confirmed they can play first so we would need to see the chronological order of people confirming rather than alpahbetical.