Quoting myself, once more...
Of course, I recognize that it's (almost certainly) too late to go down this road in THIS draft. However, credit to VanIslander for at least responding to the suggestion by saying:
Two's better than nothing(!) At least we can consider the conversation started.
I have an opinion- a pretty strong one, about tying coaches to franchises-
I don't like it. At all. Reason being- OPPF is a good place for people new to drafting to get their start. Granted, there's the multi-dimensional element of working out the intersections between Franchise Depth/Scarcity, Positional Requirements, and Ordinal Priority Per Position [a LOT of angles to consider!], BUT in return for that, people only need to figure assessments out to c. 400-500 or so, and not the 1000+ that we had in the most recent ATD. Adding a Franchise Stricture to Coaches in the OPPF-draft adds additional complexity to the equation and requires the application of additional skill. It shouldn't be surprising that the proposal could be popular with experienced participants.
Digression: "McGrath's Law." Back, oh- about four decades ago, the Vermont Chess Association was the perhaps the most dynamic one in America- so much so that it was featured in the National Magazine. It was headed by a fellow named "McGrath." When asked about the ingredients that made that organization so burgeoning, he quipped that a key to their success was the following policy:
1) Listen carefully to how your strongest players want the Organization to be run.
2) Do the opposite.
Proposals such as allowing Trading in the main ATD and tying Coaches to Franchises here reminded me of "McGrath's Law."