strait8
01-30-2003, 12:25 PM
I know that I brought this up before and not many people commented. I really believe the multiplier effect on Coaches (x7) and scouts (x45) is out of whack with the overall budget.
Highering an in demand coach or good scout will do more to harm your performance than over spending on a free agent.
I am in the year 2013 of a careeer with the San Diego.
On my Balance sheet for 2012 costs look like this
player salaries 80,890,000
player bonuses-52,900,000
Coaches salaries 92,890,000- Head coach salary 13270000 (x7)
Scouting costs 64,350,000-Scouts salary 1430000 (x45)
Total cost for 53 players who should should get the lions share are costing 133.7 million. The approximately 15 coaches and administrative staff of say 8 and total scouting staff maybe 6-8 are getting 157.1 million. It seems unrealistic.
In 2013 I resigned my scout (10th season) who is the best in the league and had offers from 5 other teams to a $2,080,000 salary for 3 years as he is 62 now.
I signed a new coach (no previous experience) to a salary of 9,170,000. There are ten coaches making more money up to 18 mil per year. here are the 2013 budget numbers.
player salaries 81,180,000
player bonuses 63,360,000
Coaching Costs 64,190,000
Scouting costs 93,150,000
A raise of 600,000 added 30 million to my scouting costs. A drop in coaching costs of 4 million subtracted 28 million from my coaching costs.
I e-mailed Jim about this. His reply was as follows:
"Since the estimated costs are always a constant percentage
based on the cap, I fail to see where there's a problem with $15 million coaches a few years down the road. If teams are determined to overpay for their staffs, they'll overpay."
I am the only person who does not see the logic in penalizing someone for hiring a sought after coach or scout.
The multiplier effect makes every 100,000 you spend on a scout cost 4.5 million. Every 100K you spend on a free agent cost less than than 100K because you amortize the bonus portion of 100K out over the length of the contract.
If this were the case Tampa would not go after Gruden, Dallas would not go after Parcells, Detroit would stick with marty morningwhig because the hit from signing Marriucci would probably put them in the red.
Two things seem to stick out in this.
If you have a stadium under 70000 you can not make money if you pay a coach more than 5 million and a scout more than a million. The total cost of 80 million would have you severly in the red.
If you do not want to get fired for poor performance you have to hire mediocre or untested or young inexperienced coaches and scouts whose salaries are not being bid up by other teams.
Am I (and possibly Marvin Glazer) the only ones think that this is an unrealistic penalty in the game?
Highering an in demand coach or good scout will do more to harm your performance than over spending on a free agent.
I am in the year 2013 of a careeer with the San Diego.
On my Balance sheet for 2012 costs look like this
player salaries 80,890,000
player bonuses-52,900,000
Coaches salaries 92,890,000- Head coach salary 13270000 (x7)
Scouting costs 64,350,000-Scouts salary 1430000 (x45)
Total cost for 53 players who should should get the lions share are costing 133.7 million. The approximately 15 coaches and administrative staff of say 8 and total scouting staff maybe 6-8 are getting 157.1 million. It seems unrealistic.
In 2013 I resigned my scout (10th season) who is the best in the league and had offers from 5 other teams to a $2,080,000 salary for 3 years as he is 62 now.
I signed a new coach (no previous experience) to a salary of 9,170,000. There are ten coaches making more money up to 18 mil per year. here are the 2013 budget numbers.
player salaries 81,180,000
player bonuses 63,360,000
Coaching Costs 64,190,000
Scouting costs 93,150,000
A raise of 600,000 added 30 million to my scouting costs. A drop in coaching costs of 4 million subtracted 28 million from my coaching costs.
I e-mailed Jim about this. His reply was as follows:
"Since the estimated costs are always a constant percentage
based on the cap, I fail to see where there's a problem with $15 million coaches a few years down the road. If teams are determined to overpay for their staffs, they'll overpay."
I am the only person who does not see the logic in penalizing someone for hiring a sought after coach or scout.
The multiplier effect makes every 100,000 you spend on a scout cost 4.5 million. Every 100K you spend on a free agent cost less than than 100K because you amortize the bonus portion of 100K out over the length of the contract.
If this were the case Tampa would not go after Gruden, Dallas would not go after Parcells, Detroit would stick with marty morningwhig because the hit from signing Marriucci would probably put them in the red.
Two things seem to stick out in this.
If you have a stadium under 70000 you can not make money if you pay a coach more than 5 million and a scout more than a million. The total cost of 80 million would have you severly in the red.
If you do not want to get fired for poor performance you have to hire mediocre or untested or young inexperienced coaches and scouts whose salaries are not being bid up by other teams.
Am I (and possibly Marvin Glazer) the only ones think that this is an unrealistic penalty in the game?