Where are we on cap reduction?

[QuikSand]

I was unable to dig up the thread(s) where the idea got hatched and developed to play MP leagues with an artificially reduced salary cap. However, I now play in multiple ML leagues using this approach, and I'm interested... where are we with this now? Leagues have had a few seasons to adjust in most cases, so we ought to have some sense of what it has meant for our own roster-maintaining, roster-building, free agency, and the like.

Good thing? Bad thing? Ready to try in a different direction? Even deeper cap cut?

[Julio Riddols]

I think IHOF and the BFL have it damn near perfect. I have had to make decisions the past few seasons that I normally wouldn't have to worry about regarding key pieces of my team. The FA pool is way more talented and the top guys still get their money, but sometimes you have to figure out whether re-signing your top players to a second or third contract is worth it compared to finding a reasonable replacement on the market at a cheaper price.. Then you have to give a great deal of consideration to the price you're willing to pay a player on the market when you decide to go for a big name guy.

The cap reduction also allows teams that have been dismantled by the AI to regain ground quickly when a human owner takes over, because they typically have a shit ton of cap room available.

[Ben E Lou]

The CCFL has the most seasons with a cap reduction and is tied with the BFL for the most severe restrictions (25% reduction and no franchising,) so it's my league of reference in this discussion. In terms of league health, participation, vibrant free agency, and competitive balance, I think the cap reduction has been a great thing there. Without any AWOL owners, here's what the top of the FA class looked like this offseason:



...and here's the list of only 10 years and younger players...



Just ran a query to check: most teams carried over between 30 and 40 players from last season, with 20 being the minimum, 47 the maximum, 36 the median, and 35.7 the mean.

As far as competitiveness, the CCFL's big "flaw" was that it started in a way that was probably too advantageous to those who had a better understanding of free agency, so some of the effects of that trickled down for a good 5-8 years. But now that we're past that and the great majority of the league has a strong understanding of what it takes to get a FA to sign with you, we're doing much better on that front. Put another way, at FA1:2, I had $21.4M in "Max For New Player," was active and aggressive in FA, and the best two players I signed in FA1 were Irv Neal (57/57 RT, year 14) and Kurt Smedley (54/54 LG, year 11). I also got a 49/49 year 4 CB in FA2 as a consolation prize with my leftover cap room. But that was it. I missed out on several guys good enough to start for me because the rest of the league stepped up to the plate--something I don't see in leagues where FA isn't as active.

I think CCFL is at or close to the sweet spot for the cap reduction for a normal league. I wonder if the BFL should eventually go to 30-35% to compensate for the lack of cap space used on QBs and WRs. But overall, I'm pretty well sold on this as a great thing long-term. Once people lean into the FA system in FOF (coupled, of course, with the three-year contract rule,) they seem to "get it" much more quickly than drafting or game planning.

[QuikSand]

I, too, think this is probably the best outside-the-game change that this community has made, and I think it makes a world of difference in making a league work better.

If we could just reach in and inflate the contract requests for highly rated receivers, I'd be even happier.

I personally think that one or two notches tighter on the belt would serve us well, but I'm not sure what league would be the best candidate to move in that direction... maybe the CCFL?


Anyway - it's a good thing, thanks to those who thought it up and created the tools to make it work.

[MIJB#19]

That list of FA's doesn't prove anything to me. It tells me that apparently a lot of people still struggle to keep their good players on board, or the league is generally so inactive that it's not worth trying to trade them for semi-decent value before you can't afford everybody anymore. There's also no reason to dig yourself into $50M over the cap with only 25 players signed.


Or is that too harsh on Minnesota, Chicago and Philadelphia?

[QuikSand]

Before leagues started implementing the cap crunch, the only time any free agents of any serious value became available was when an owner was asleep at the wheel.

Now, in my cap crunched leagues, there are generally useful players, especially at the less critical positions, fairly commonly dropped into free agency -- in some cases even when the team would like to keep the player around.

The presence of that kind of quality in the FA pool is evidence by contrast to what would be tougher to go dig up -- the comparable lists from a quality MP league prior to using the cap crunching tool. The first page would be mostly stocked with 40/40 caliber players, rather than 50s, 60s, and up.

To me, that's a massive change in the game, all to the good.

On the issue of being unable to trade old and/or highly paid players for "semi-decent value," I'd argue that's actually both more realistic and better overall.

[Dutch]

I'm always dumping value players into free agency. I love the idea behind it. In the CCFL I even exposed QB Tracy Westerman, but ultimately, at 12-yrs, he was much more valuable to me than to anyone else....so I could get him back fairly easily.

The biggest challenge is resigning those quality guys with one year left...sometimes I want to spend my extra cash on the shiny new objects (free agents) and forget to resign my own guys. Great strategy plays in all of that, of course...so yes, I agree, the 25% reduction such a simple add but adds a lot of complexity and overall if fucking brilliant. Love it.

[Ben E Lou]

Yeah, I'm typically letting my older guys like that hit FA (though I haven't been bold enough to let a QB into the pool). I've got five starters or starting-quality guys headed to FA in the next CCFL offseason, three because I simply can't afford their renegotiation requests, and two because I'm hoping to get them more cheaply in FA than their reneg requests.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'm always dumping value players into free agency. I love the idea behind it. In the CCFL I even exposed QB Tracy Westerman, but ultimately, at 12-yrs, he was much more valuable to me than to anyone else....so I could get him back fairly easily.

The couple of times I tried that, I lost said player, only to notice that the new team didn't really need the player without the cohesion boost (providing it actually exists) and dumped the player into retirement or forced into a career of bench hopping across the league.


The only time I really got into cap hell was when I had the top-rated QB in his prime that was asking for 1/3rd of the available cap space, whilst having too many other players around asking for 10M/year, and even then I managed to postpone it for many seasons and replaced him with a young above average starter rated QB.

[MIJB#19]

Well, it's not like I still have a top-notch team, so I can't say my point is valid in saying that you can get away without letting players run into FA...

[Nemesis]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

That list of FA's doesn't prove anything to me. It tells me that apparently a lot of people still struggle to keep their good players on board, or the league is generally so inactive that it's not worth trying to trade them for semi-decent value before you can't afford everybody anymore. There's also no reason to dig yourself into $50M over the cap with only 25 players signed.


Or is that too harsh on Minnesota, Chicago and Philadelphia?

Another part of it, is that it's more difficult to trade players, when the other GM's know they can usually pick up someone in FA without having to give something up.

Either that, or I'm a terrible trader, and no one ever wants to trade with me, because I've had some pretty damn good talent on the block which never drew interest.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

The couple of times I tried that, I lost said player, only to notice that the new team didn't really need the player without the cohesion boost (providing it actually exists) and dumped the player into retirement or forced into a career of bench hopping across the league.

There's a significant difference between the IHOF's 20% with franchising allowed and the 25% with no franchising that the CCFL has. The IHOF reduction often gives teams enough extra cap room to mess with the modest players who get dumped into FA, while the larger reduction in the CCFL usually doesn't allow that freedom. For example, the QB that Dutch mentions was rated 64/64, in year 12, wanted a lot, and drew no other offers. With the extra cap room I always have in the IHOF, I would have definitely made an offer to that guy.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Nemesis

Another part of it, is that it's more difficult to trade players, when the other GM's know they can usually pick up someone in FA without having to give something up.

Either that, or I'm a terrible trader, and no one ever wants to trade with me, because I've had some pretty damn good talent on the block which never drew interest.

No, it's as you say. It's much closer to the realities of the NFL in that regard. Trading vets is far more difficult than in a standard league.

[Julio Riddols]

You just have to trade guys that are highly valuable. I made a killing off a young WR that wasn't playing well for me this year..

[Pyser]

Cap reduction is 100% the way to go. I've actually lobbied for a bigger reduction in CCFL since we are a mature league now and the cap has grown (2 of the top 3 fa's ben showed above WERE the result of an owner asleep at the wheel i believe, not a cap crunch), but all in all, it has revolutionized MP to me.

[QuikSand]

Blatantly bumping this thread.

If your league isn't doing this, you're missing out on way too much of a serious MP football GM experience.

[stevew]

I wish that there was a way to artificially inflate the demands of the upper tier talent, merely so that the lower tier minimum type salaries would take up a proportional amount of the cap. Absent of that, the current trend in reducing the cap by, what 30% or so, is the best work around.

[aston217]

How do you guys accomplish it? Is it safe? Was it the source of the WOOF problems?

[isaccoubaldi]

Out of the thread but I like to know how works the BFL experiment with the QB-WR nerf file?

[QuikSand]

First - I'm not aware of any problems arising from the cap reduction tool that BELCO uses in his leagues like CCFL, BFL, and WOOF.

In BFL, with the nerfed QB/WR, I think the most interesting question is whether we have dropped the cap enough. Without stud players at those positions to occupy huge chunks of cap space, I feel like that league merits a deeper cutback... we have tweaked this in BFL, I think for the better.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by stevew

I wish that there was a way to artificially inflate the demands of the upper tier talent, merely so that the lower tier minimum type salaries would take up a proportional amount of the cap. Absent of that, the current trend in reducing the cap by, what 30% or so, is the best work around.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but just to clarify how this setup works -- the league cap adjustment tool doesn't actually change the cap in game, it just applies dead cap space to each team. So, the demands of players to renegotiate or to accept rookie contracts are still working properly, but they're based on (say) a $200 million cap... but the league assigns you $60m in dead space, so in practice all you have to work with is $140m. So, the main thing that happens is that early draft picks get pricey, and (most of all) renegotiations become incrementally less attractive, meaning more players end up in free agency.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by aston217

How do you guys accomplish it? Is it safe? Was it the source of the WOOF problems?

Yes, it's safe. No, it was not the source of the WOOF problems. The WOOF file was having problems well before the cap reduction started. It had to be hacked from day 1 and was hacked maybe once or twice more prior to the cap reduction, and I also had to revert and run some old stages again to do some tests to report an issue to Solecismic and didn't properly restore everything when I returned back to the current season. Hundreds of seasons have been run with the cap reduction with no issues.

[isaccoubaldi]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

In BFL, with the nerfed QB/WR, I think the most interesting question is whether we have dropped the cap enough. Without stud players at those positions to occupy huge chunks of cap space, I feel like that league merits a deeper cutback... we have tweaked this in BFL, I think for the better.

Thanks, Quik. BFL give a more realistic simulation?

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

First - I'm not aware of any problems arising from the cap reduction tool that BELCO uses in his leagues like CCFL, BFL, and WOOF.

In BFL, with the nerfed QB/WR, I think the most interesting question is whether we have dropped the cap enough. Without stud players at those positions to occupy huge chunks of cap space, I feel like that league merits a deeper cutback... we have tweaked this in BFL, I think for the better.

I think the 100 Volatility however makes up for the reduced QB/WR salaries. There's a huge danger in giving anybody a high salary in BFL, and I'm sure most teams have some cap space taken up by someone who took a nose dive. I know I'm particularly aware of this right now, as my 1.3 pick got the VSOD and I'm now going to struggle with his huge cap draw for the next five years. But it's not just rookies. It seems most teams are still very close to the cap come FA time, and the few who manage to successfully manage it can make some great moves, trades or late FA signings. But that doesn't seem to be the majority yet.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by isaccoubaldi

Thanks, Quik. BFL give a more realistic simulation?

Right now, I think the BFL is the best overall setup I play in. The best teams still control the air game on offense, and you certainly have to respect the pass on defense -- but with the super-positions cut back, it makes a much wider range of team-building and game-planning strategies viable. Plus, with a steep cap reduction, there are far more difficult decisions to be made with quality players, as they have a tougher assessment of what deal would me it worth their while to skip the open market (without the cap drop, this is just way, way too easy in FOF).

[aston217]

Thanks for the responses! For leagues that might be interested in doing this, is there a released utility somewhere that does this?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Right now, I think the BFL is the best overall setup I play in.

..and the BFL has some openings heading into the new offseason. The Bowl was yesterday. Anyone interested, check out the open teams here: BFL Owner/Team List

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Blatantly bumping this thread.

If your league isn't doing this, you're missing out on way too much of a serious MP football GM experience.

Ben right now is the only one I know with that tool, and being a commissioner and going in and doing that by hand is a PITA. It's not openly available, I've asked about it and never gotten a response.

While I am not disagreeing with your statement, without open access to the tool that makes it possible....

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

If your league isn't doing this, you're missing out on way too much of a serious MP football GM experience.

If your league isn't doing this, you're missing out on way too much of a serious MP football GM experience, and you should man up and join one the BELCO leagues that does it.

Better?

[aston217]

I think if this is genuinely believed to be a tool that improves the MP game experience, it should be shared for the community at large, and not used as an advertising point for one guy's leagues.

Just my opinion. He's well within rights to keep it.

[NawlinsFan]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Ben right now is the only one I know with that tool, and being a commissioner and going in and doing that by hand is a PITA. It's not openly available, I've asked about it and never gotten a response.

While I am not disagreeing with your statement, without open access to the tool that makes it possible....

Totally agree. I asked a while back and also had not response, positive or negative. I agree that he totally has the right to do with it what he wants. It just seemed to have been offered originally as an alternative to provide an additional twist and challenge to the game for the community only to be snapped away.

[Ben E Lou]

I made it known publicly that this tool isn't going to be spread around, so if I've gotten requests since then, I likely wouldn't have bothered to say the same thing again. Also, there is virtually always at least one opening in at least one of the cap-reduced leagues, so the demand doesn't dictate it being spread any further either...

[Dutch]

I guess you're right.

[NawlinsFan]

Yee who has the keys drives the car.

[Dutch]

Or in this case, the bus.

[Firefly]

The beauty of the FOF community is all the sharing that takes place -both info and utilities. Without it, this game would be nothing. Ben's given a lot to the community and he's rightfully gotten plenty credit and gratitude for it. And he's got a right to share or not share anything he wants. All the same, it's an ugly thing to develop a tool to improve a league and to use it to create a my-league-is-better-than-yours kind of thing. It just is. And maybe he gets tons of PMs, but I also feel not answering PMs is kind of shitty, to be honest.

Now, we've all got a good side and a darker side. I guess what's interesting about Ben is we can see both of them without effort.

Note: I don't really crave the tool, but Yoda and Aston are guys who give freely of their time, knowledge and even tools, so I think it's only fair to say it like it is.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Firefly

All the same, it's an ugly thing to develop a tool to improve a league and to use it to create a my-league-is-better-than-yours kind of thing.

This might possibly be the dumbest thing I've ever read at FOFC. (And the stupidity I've read here could fill several volumes.) By this "logic," anyone who does anything to improve a league that they are in must share the time and energy put into it with every other league, or they're some sort of jerk. Wow. ATTENTION, LOGO MAKERS: IF YOU DO NOT MAKE YOUR LOGOS AVAILABLE TO EVERY SINGLE LEAGUE AT NO COST AND WHENEVER THEY WANT THEM, YOU ARE ALL ASSHOLES!!!!!!!!!!

And maybe he gets tons of PMs, but I also feel not answering PMs is kind of shitty, to be honest.

This is an old, old, policy. If I've already answered something publicly or it is better asked publicly to the collective and not one guy (i.e. MANY people might be able to help, not just me,) I usually just don't take the time to write up a response. Several times a week (and often more than once a day,) some dummy is PMing or IMing or emailing me asking why his idiotic game plan idea in FOF doesn't work, or if I will install php and MySQL on his computer so he can use my code in his SP league, or when the next FOF is coming out (which of course I don't know,) or why ____ didn't get suspended for some arcane post he made in some thread that I've never read, or sending some tl;dr foolishness about why he made a ridiculous series of posts that got him suspended, or that I should un-suspend _____ because he's a really nice guy and therefore shouldn't be held accountable for whatever douchebag behavior got him in the penalty box, or why I should fix {you name it} feature in FOF, or insulting me because of a design decision I made in FOF (yes, I get stuff that should be going to Jim because people don't bother to figure out who actually develops the game before they go off on their rants,) and the list goes on. If I've already answered it publicly or if the person is acting like an idiot, I'm usually not bothering to respond to the PMs/IMs/emails. I simply don't have time. (And sometimes I don't have time right then, but just forget later.) I have a wife, a kid, another on the way any day, a job, and a life/friends outside of FOF-world. I run four leagues, sim a fifth, moderate this board, and help multiple leagues out that I'm not in with code and tech stuff when I can. I am at (actually a bit above) my limit for the amount of time I can give to the FOF community. Period. And I do not apologize for that one iota.

Now, we've all got a good side and a darker side. I guess what's interesting about Ben is we can see both of them without effort.

I do appreciate this part. It made me lol. "ZOMFG HE IS THE ONE TRUE DARK JEDI BECAUSE HE DOES NOT TAKE TIME TO HELP EVERY SINGLE FOF LEAGUE IMPROVE ON EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM THAT THEY HAVE!!!11"

[Ben E Lou]

still giggling over the "darker side" comment...that was rich

[RedKingGold]

That might be the best Bentrum I've seen in years.

I especially like how he captured every single silly/stupid FOF/FOFC contact he must receive on a daily basis.

Heavy is the crown.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

That might be the best Bentrum I've seen in years.

I especially like how he captured every single silly/stupid FOF/FOFC contact he must receive on a daily basis.

Heavy is the crown.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

another on the way any day

Congrats!

[Solecismic]

For the record, I do tell customers that Ben is responsible for any shitty design decision in FOF. So my bad. Sorry.

Obviously, the changes made to address lots of complaints that cap management was too hard missed the mark a bit. A tool like this should never be necessary.

Still waiting? The little one is taking her time. But well worth it. Congrats.

[aston217]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

For the record, I do tell customers that Ben is responsible for any shitty design decision in FOF. So my bad. Sorry.

All tool griping aside, congrats on the upcoming kid. You're a lucky man and almost certainly about to get a whole lot busier.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

For the record, I do tell customers that Ben is responsible for any shitty design decision in FOF. So my bad. Sorry.

...and Jim wins the thread.

[aston217]

Perhaps you can answer this, Ben: is it just a one-word hex edit in the league's .FJU file where the salary cap information is stored, with no changes apart from adjusting that number?

[Nemesis]

Wow.

[isaccoubaldi]

I think the BFL is the most innovative League in "FOF world". The draft is under way in this moment so this is a good time to enter if you are interested in cap reduction and something different from QB/WR "superpower".

[Disturbed]

If I was Ben I wouldn't share it either since even his leagues aren't staying full with a waiting list.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Disturbed

If I was Ben I wouldn't share it either since even his leagues aren't staying full with a waiting list.

I get it, Ben built FOF MP and deserves all the respect and credit, but I don't agree that he shouldn't share such a valuable tool. Other people seem to want to keep their leagues alive too and this is a major improvement (fact) that keeps interest levels high. A shame really that it's come to this.

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I get it, Ben built FOF MP and deserves all the respect and credit, but I don't agree that he shouldn't share such a valuable tool. Other people seem to want to keep their leagues alive too and this is a major improvement (fact) that keeps interest levels high. A shame really that it's come to this.

I agree in general that this tool should be shared.

But. I know he has also used this tool to edit teams stadiums to fix their turf and what not. I just wonder what the extent does this tool edit. And if that is why it isn't going to be shared.

That being said, while I think it should be shared, at the same time, it is Ben's (or whoever coded it) decision.