I'm in the same boat. I've spent hours on this and haven't been able to make a lineup with people who actually compete the events regularly and would likely compete twice. Not sure it's possible. It was fun to try but I see a lot of 0.00s in my future. 🙂

This is good feedback, thank you! We will talk with our fantasy partner and see what ideas we can come up with. Maybe we can have an autofill option so you start with a full roster and then you can tweak it rather than grind out research for every position. Of course, we're open to other ideas. Thank you! 

Would it also be possible to add the option to have incomplete lineups?? I’m in the same boat trying to make a lineup at work with no privacy(three people share one computer) and I had a hard time filling my lineups. I got to where I had 2000 left and two spots so I tried to fill one with 2k and just have an empty spot and it wouldn’t let me submit an incomplete. So I had to put two random 1000 athletes  that I already know won’t compete 

Also allowing incomplete lineups would make it possible to save your progress and come back later to continue. I had to restart a couple times 🫣

@deborah-brooks We continue to try and work through this problem. The biggest issue is that with incomplete lineups, people can "game the system" and leave blank spaces in their lineups and then use that extra money to add higher-priced ringers. We need to make a structural change to the system where it will only validate fully complete lineups for play, which is taking some time and consideration. 

One tip I used when picking my lineup was knowing athletes that put up two scores is the goal. So grabbing two athletes from opposing play-in teams (and great values) would guarantee one of them would advance and lock-in two useable scores. That also concedes the other will be a single competition athlete. I came to this realization at the last minute otherwise I would have shared for others to use. 

Appreciate your thoughts. We're constantly working  and tweaking things to make the game better--and this feedback helps.

@coop Re: choosing athletes who will get two scores, one thing I did was choose athletes whose teams were in the play-in round and who were also individual qualifiers, because they'd compete in the regional semifinals even if their teams did not advance past the play-in.

In terms of allowing incomplete lineups without gaming the system for ringers, maybe one way to do it would be to have placeholder spots that cost the same amount as the lowest tier (e.g. "No Selection" for 1000). 

I like that idea of a placeholder spot. Thank you! 

I definitely preferred the format last year of highest score for regionals instead of cumulative because there are so many amazing athletes I would love to put in my lineups that only competed once, and it’s also way easier for people who don’t have a lot of time to research to pick athletes that will definitely get them a score. I also think it makes it way more competitive and exciting because it’s a lower barrier to entry.

@genevieve-francis This is good feedback, thank you. We will take this into consideration.