Someone tell me the downside of this. (MP Salary Cap Idea.)

Ben E Lou · 03-31-2009, 02:40 PM

PROBLEM: Too much cap room.
"SOLUTIONS" UP TO NOW: A bunch of house rules that aren't dealing with the issue across the board.

PROPOSED SOLUTION:

FA1:1-->every team must do renegs/cuts/trades to get down below some percentage of the cap. (Looking at IHOF after FA1:1 in the most recent FA period, I'm thinking 75% is the correct number here.)

If a team isn't there, the commish just starts releasing players, starting with the lowest future potential on the team, until he gets the team below that 75% number.

FA1:2-->every team signs one scrub to a one-year contract with a bonus equal to 25% of the cap.

FA1:3-->Proceed as normal with the rest of FA.

The upside is that it gets to the heart of the matter and eliminates the need for any sort of renegotiation restrictions (which are hard to police and sometimes hard to remember.) This would be a one-time act every season at the time of the season when typically you have the highest percentage of the league paying attentions, so I would think that the extra burden on the commish would be minimal to create exports for delinquents.

What's the downside? I'm not really coming up with one.

JetsIn06 · 03-31-2009, 02:46 PM

I dig this idea, Ben.

I can't think of any downsides either.

JetsIn06 · 03-31-2009, 02:47 PM

dola

Just speaking from a WOOF perspective, I would still like to keep the 3-year minimum signing in FA1, but agree that the last-year reneg rule could be dropped.

JetsIn06 · 03-31-2009, 02:48 PM

double dola..

I guess one other thing that the commish would probably have to do is assign the player to be signed so you don't have two teams going after the same guy.

gstelmack · 03-31-2009, 02:51 PM

Why don't you just sign guys to a 2-year deal each year where the second year is this amount? These guys can't be cut (and you can rename them to help remember: NoCut NewEngland or something). That way you can plan properly for the next season without jumping through hoops. Reneg each year where possible.

Have to think about whether or not the artificial cap restriction is a good idea though.

JetsIn06 · 03-31-2009, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Why don't you just sign guys to a 2-year deal each year where the second year is this amount? These guys can't be cut (and you can rename them to help remember: NoCut NewEngland or something). That way you can plan properly for the next season without jumping through hoops. Reneg each year where possible.

Have to think about whether or not the artificial cap restriction is a good idea though.

Doesn't that give you one less roster spot to work with? I rather do it every year and be able to have 53.

JetsIn06 · 03-31-2009, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Have to think about whether or not the artificial cap restriction is a good idea though.

I think it's obvious that one of the biggest problems in FOF free agency is that players don't ask for nearly enough money. We've tried to do plenty of things to make it more realistic, but I think cutting the cap is going to be the easiest and best solution.

Ben E Lou · 03-31-2009, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JetsIn06

double dola..

I guess one other thing that the commish would probably have to do is assign the player to be signed so you don't have two teams going after the same guy.

Extremely easy to do for the leagues that have any sort of database. Gimme a bit...

Ben E Lou · 03-31-2009, 03:23 PM

0 Oceanside: LG Max Mercer (3/3)
1 Camargue: C Lionel Bode (3/4)
2 Lappland: RG John Wombacher (3/5)
3 Charlottesville: P Eric Alston (5/6)
4 Rome: RDE Melvin Durham (3/7)
5 Atlantic City: P Jackie Carpenter (5/7)
6 Kaiserslautern: LT Oliver Huntley (5/7)
7 Havana: P Steven Grice (6/7)
8 Memphis: RT Horace Gentala (7/7)
9 Hawk Mountain: WILB Derrick Yukich (2/8)
10 Wilkes-Barre: LG K.C. Styles (4/8)
11 Driftwood: SE Roderick Sabo (5/8)
12 Las Vegas: C B.J. Toohil (6/8)
13 Columbus: LDT Charles Winslett (8/9)
14 Delaware: C Jeffrey Norton (1/10)
15 Scranton: SE Jason Stanton (5/10)
16 Hampton Roads: LDE Bryce Scott (5/10)
17 Rusholme: RCB Casey Horn (6/10)
18 Curacao: FL Billy-Joe Hastings (4/11)
19 Raleigh: SE Tom Donovan (5/11)
20 Des Moines: LG Cris Farrell (5/11)
21 Savannah: SLB Moe Stimson (5/11)
22 Stuttgart: K Dwight Bills (6/11)
23 Lincoln: FS Howard Shields (6/11)
24 Mountain View: FB Archie Ford (7/11)
25 Bozeman: FL Lamont Torres (7/11)
26 Palouse Hills: SE Lee Carter (8/11)
27 Toledo: RB Shane Williamson (11/11)
28 Mexico City: LT Brenden Terry (2/12)
29 Lowcountry: RG Donald Purrington (5/12)
30 Copenhagen: SE J.T. Sampson (8/12)
31 Grand Junction: WLB Chad Ramsey (8/12)

Ben E Lou · 03-31-2009, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

9 Hawk Mountain: WILB Derrick Yukich (2/8)

Now THAT is ironic.

Cheesehead Craig · 03-31-2009, 04:09 PM

How about just reducing the % the cap increases each year. One 6 yr TV deal going up at the minimum increase each year would solve a good portion of the problem. What I've seen with leagues that have too much cap is that the TV deals are so lucrative that they increase the cap so much that it's impossible to keep up with. It's not an overnight fix, but it's a long term one that's self regulating. Then at the end of that TV contract see how teams are doing with the cap and adjust accordingly, erring on the low side.

QuikSand · 03-31-2009, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheesehead Craig

How about just reducing the % the cap increases each year. One 6 yr TV deal going up at the minimum increase each year would solve a good portion of the problem. What I've seen with leagues that have too much cap is that the TV deals are so lucrative that they increase the cap so much that it's impossible to keep up with. It's not an overnight fix, but it's a long term one that's self regulating. Then at the end of that TV contract see how teams are doing with the cap and adjust accordingly, erring on the low side.

Well, one problem with this approach (aside the obvious phase-in) is that everything in FOF is pinned to the salary cap. Meaning that if you slow cap increases, you also slow the growth in free agent demands, rookie contracts, renegotiation requests, and so forth. That undermines a pretty good deal of what I think this idea is about.

Ben E Lou · 03-31-2009, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheesehead Craig

How about just reducing the % the cap increases each year. One 6 yr TV deal going up at the minimum increase each year would solve a good portion of the problem. What I've seen with leagues that have too much cap is that the TV deals are so lucrative that they increase the cap so much that it's impossible to keep up with. It's not an overnight fix, but it's a long term one that's self regulating. Then at the end of that TV contract see how teams are doing with the cap and adjust accordingly, erring on the low side.

That's like attacking a forest fire with a standard-sized garden hose. At the end of FA1:1, IHOF had 24 teams with $25M in cap room or more, and our cap is only rising at $3.9M per year. Even if we had it not rising at all, lowering the cap by only $3.9M is meaningless. Also keep in mind that players' reneg demands (the crux of the issue) are based on the current salary cap, so you'd just end up with players requesting the same amount (proportionally) anyway, so the cumulative effect isn't as big as you might think.

Ben E Lou · 03-31-2009, 04:21 PM

Heh. Quik beat me to it, and also mentioned rookie contracts as well.

stevew · 03-31-2009, 04:26 PM

Yeah, sportsdigs had the same basic thought about 6 months ago, and I agree it's a good one.

Chubby · 03-31-2009, 04:51 PM

Downside? It's far from realistic, of course, realism is only used as a reason when it's conveient it seems...

Masked · 03-31-2009, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chubby

Downside? It's far from realistic, of course, realism is only used as a reason when it's conveient it seems...

The catch is that it's hard to counter a non-realistic problem (players asking for too little money) with a realistic solution.

A more realistic solution, say you must pay 50% more than the asking price for all renegotiations, is much more difficult to implement and monitor.

Ben E Lou · 03-31-2009, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Masked

The catch is that it's hard to counter a non-realistic problem (players asking for too little money) with a realistic solution.

A more realistic solution, say you must pay 50% more than the asking price for all renegotiations, is much more difficult to implement and monitor.

Correct on all counts. The core issue is that you can keep players in FOF far too cheaply.

Cheesehead Craig · 03-31-2009, 06:04 PM

Point taken, but you originally stated that there are too many house rules out there but you're simply trying to promote your house rule to replace them.

Is Jim no longer going to make a patch for the game that could potentially solve this so it's an in-game solution?

headtrauma · 03-31-2009, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuikSand

everything in FOF is pinned to the salary cap.

Source? I've seen this mentioned in these forums, but I could find no reference to this in the player guide.

stevew · 03-31-2009, 06:30 PM

If you sign a two year deal with double the bonus you cut him and you dead money is locked in and you only have to do this every other year. You can't get 25 exactly but close. Enough

Quote:

Originally Posted by JetsIn06

Doesn't that give you one less roster spot to work with? I rather do it every year and be able to have 53.

Ben E Lou · 03-31-2009, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheesehead Craig

Point taken, but you originally stated that there are too many house rules out there but you're simply trying to promote your house rule to replace them.

Given that the most popular one (last-year only reneg) could be called "my" house rule, too (the early leagues that adopted it did so based on my testing), I have no idea what your point is, or if it's at all salient. *shurg*

But really, what does it matter? If there's a better way to accomplish what we're trying to accomplish that requires less monitoring and less to remember, why is that a bad thing???

Quote:

Is Jim no longer going to make a patch for the game that could potentially solve this so it's an in-game solution?

By the time 6.2 was released, just about every MP league out there had a house rule trying to deal with making cap decisions tougher. Even prior to 6.1a (December 2007), it was well-documented. WOOF passed the last-year only reneg rule in February 2008. At least two patches and a year and a half have gone by without this beign addressed in-game. I see no reason to believe that this is something that's going to get modified in a future patch, if there is a future patch. It's pretty clear to me that if this ever gets addressed, it will be in FOF7 if there ever is one. And even so, Jim uses very small beta teams. There's no way that a small team can replicate in a short time what will happen to contracts when 32 humans are using the system over 8-10 seasons. If there's an FOF7 and the beta team is small again, I think a smart move by the community would be to set up a very fast-moving test league (something even faster than FOWL) to see if the system holds up. I suspect that what happened here is that because this is only a long-term MP issue, it just didn't show up in any bug or issue reports until it was something beyond the scope of a patch or small update.

stevew · 03-31-2009, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by headtrauma

Source? I've seen this mentioned in these forums, but I could find no reference to this in the player guide.

My source would be 200 plus sp seasons. Its pretty obvious.

Ben E Lou · 03-31-2009, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevew

If you sign a two year deal with double the bonus you cut him and you dead money is locked in and you only have to do this every other year. You can't get 25 exactly but close. Enough

Wouldn't work due to owner restrictions. I have one of the more profitable teams in the FOFL and I can only offer 42.5% of the cap in bonus. Wade checked his IHOF team for me earlier today, because I was concerned that a downside might be that the poor-performing financial teams would to sign two players to get to 25%. His maxbonus is 31.3% of the cap. I guess you could sign two players, but that seems to be making it overly complex.

Ben E Lou · 03-31-2009, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevew

My source would be 200 plus sp seasons. Its pretty obvious.

Yup. That's not in any documentation anywhere that I know of, but most definitely the case.

stevew · 03-31-2009, 07:07 PM

Oh yeah

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Wouldn't work due to owner restrictions. I have one of the more profitable teams in the FOFL and I can only offer 42.5% of the cap in bonus. Wade checked his IHOF team for me earlier today, because I was concerned that a downside might be that the poor-performing financial teams would to sign two players to get to 25%. His maxbonus is 31.3% of the cap. I guess you could sign two players, but that seems to be making it overly complex.

Basically this is one rule to rule them all still. I think you could eliminate all the others.
And you can adjust on the fly if needed.

gstelmack · 03-31-2009, 07:32 PM

I'd much rather see a limit to renegotiations. Pick 3 guys each season to reneg, the rest go to FA where you can make your offers or not and compete with everyone else. Go after the source of the problem: too many guys renegotiate too easily, with not enough willing to test the FA waters no matter what.

TheMeat · 03-31-2009, 07:38 PM

Yes, I like it for sure. An active FA market sure would make things interesting and more realisitc. Especially in a league like the FOWL where the offseason will be the real focus of the season. And implementation really seems like a snap. With the season-in-one day format the roster spot lost to Mr. Pittsburgh McSteelersguy wouldn't hurt and then we'd all know who to sign in the offseason

Cheesehead Craig · 03-31-2009, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Given that the most popular one (last-year only reneg) could be called "my" house rule, too (the early leagues that adopted it did so based on my testing), I have no idea what your point is, or if it's at all salient. *shurg*

You asked for discussion so I'm giving you some, sorry to ruffle your feathers.

Ben E Lou · 03-31-2009, 08:59 PM

Lolz. My feathers ain't ruffled.

stevew · 03-31-2009, 09:23 PM

Can the commish easily make contract offrers for each team? If so you could just find the crappiest RFA and sign and trade him 32 times and have him pocket 25 percent at each stop. Might take too long tho.

Kobeck · 04-02-2009, 01:48 PM

weak assed punters rejoice!

gstelmack · 04-02-2009, 02:02 PM

Thought of one (although you may like it). Doesn't this screw with franchise salaries?

Ben E Lou · 04-02-2009, 02:26 PM

Hmmmm....I *think* it's just salary based, not bonus-based, so it wouldn't do anything.

Ben E Lou · 04-02-2009, 02:26 PM

Oh wait. Come to think about it, it wouldn't matter. The franchise salary is calculated before FA1 starts, and these guys would just be signed in FA1:2 and then released immediately anyway.

QuikSand · 04-02-2009, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Hmmmm....I *think* it's just salary based, not bonus-based, so it wouldn't do anything.

That is also correct, for what it's worth. (He says boldly without even checking for documentation)

Dutch · 04-02-2009, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kobeck

weak assed punters rejoice!

If there were a rule in place that forced all teams to pay their punter 25% of the cap space....it could be easy to police.

03-31-2009, 02:51 PM	#5
gstelmack Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Cary, NC	Why don't you just sign guys to a 2-year deal each year where the second year is this amount? These guys can't be cut (and you can rename them to help remember: NoCut NewEngland or something). That way you can plan properly for the next season without jumping through hoops. Reneg each year where possible. Have to think about whether or not the artificial cap restriction is a good idea though. __________________ -- Greg -- Author of various FOF utilities

03-31-2009, 03:23 PM	#9
Ben E Lou Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Greensboro, NC	0 Oceanside: LG Max Mercer (3/3) 1 Camargue: C Lionel Bode (3/4) 2 Lappland: RG John Wombacher (3/5) 3 Charlottesville: P Eric Alston (5/6) 4 Rome: RDE Melvin Durham (3/7) 5 Atlantic City: P Jackie Carpenter (5/7) 6 Kaiserslautern: LT Oliver Huntley (5/7) 7 Havana: P Steven Grice (6/7) 8 Memphis: RT Horace Gentala (7/7) 9 Hawk Mountain: WILB Derrick Yukich (2/8) 10 Wilkes-Barre: LG K.C. Styles (4/8) 11 Driftwood: SE Roderick Sabo (5/8) 12 Las Vegas: C B.J. Toohil (6/8) 13 Columbus: LDT Charles Winslett (8/9) 14 Delaware: C Jeffrey Norton (1/10) 15 Scranton: SE Jason Stanton (5/10) 16 Hampton Roads: LDE Bryce Scott (5/10) 17 Rusholme: RCB Casey Horn (6/10) 18 Curacao: FL Billy-Joe Hastings (4/11) 19 Raleigh: SE Tom Donovan (5/11) 20 Des Moines: LG Cris Farrell (5/11) 21 Savannah: SLB Moe Stimson (5/11) 22 Stuttgart: K Dwight Bills (6/11) 23 Lincoln: FS Howard Shields (6/11) 24 Mountain View: FB Archie Ford (7/11) 25 Bozeman: FL Lamont Torres (7/11) 26 Palouse Hills: SE Lee Carter (8/11) 27 Toledo: RB Shane Williamson (11/11) 28 Mexico City: LT Brenden Terry (2/12) 29 Lowcountry: RG Donald Purrington (5/12) 30 Copenhagen: SE J.T. Sampson (8/12) 31 Grand Junction: WLB Chad Ramsey (8/12) __________________ The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!

03-31-2009, 04:21 PM	#14
Ben E Lou Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Greensboro, NC	Heh. Quik beat me to it, and also mentioned rookie contracts as well. __________________ The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!

03-31-2009, 04:26 PM	#15
stevew Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: the yo'	Yeah, sportsdigs had the same basic thought about 6 months ago, and I agree it's a good one. Last edited by stevew : 03-31-2009 at 04:26 PM.

03-31-2009, 07:32 PM	#27
gstelmack Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Cary, NC	I'd much rather see a limit to renegotiations. Pick 3 guys each season to reneg, the rest go to FA where you can make your offers or not and compete with everyone else. Go after the source of the problem: too many guys renegotiate too easily, with not enough willing to test the FA waters no matter what. __________________ -- Greg -- Author of various FOF utilities

03-31-2009, 02:46 PM	#2
JetsIn06 Pro Rookie Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Rahway, NJ	I dig this idea, Ben. I can't think of any downsides either.

03-31-2009, 02:47 PM	#3
JetsIn06 Pro Rookie Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Rahway, NJ	dola Just speaking from a WOOF perspective, I would still like to keep the 3-year minimum signing in FA1, but agree that the last-year reneg rule could be dropped.

03-31-2009, 02:48 PM	#4
JetsIn06 Pro Rookie Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Rahway, NJ	double dola.. I guess one other thing that the commish would probably have to do is assign the player to be signed so you don't have two teams going after the same guy.

03-31-2009, 04:09 PM	#11
Cheesehead Craig n00b Join Date: Apr 2006	How about just reducing the % the cap increases each year. One 6 yr TV deal going up at the minimum increase each year would solve a good portion of the problem. What I've seen with leagues that have too much cap is that the TV deals are so lucrative that they increase the cap so much that it's impossible to keep up with. It's not an overnight fix, but it's a long term one that's self regulating. Then at the end of that TV contract see how teams are doing with the cap and adjust accordingly, erring on the low side.

03-31-2009, 04:51 PM	#16
Chubby Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Syracuse, NY	Downside? It's far from realistic, of course, realism is only used as a reason when it's conveient it seems...

03-31-2009, 06:04 PM	#19
Cheesehead Craig n00b Join Date: Apr 2006	Point taken, but you originally stated that there are too many house rules out there but you're simply trying to promote your house rule to replace them. Is Jim no longer going to make a patch for the game that could potentially solve this so it's an in-game solution?

03-31-2009, 07:38 PM	#28
TheMeat n00b Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Alberta	Yes, I like it for sure. An active FA market sure would make things interesting and more realisitc. Especially in a league like the FOWL where the offseason will be the real focus of the season. And implementation really seems like a snap. With the season-in-one day format the roster spot lost to Mr. Pittsburgh McSteelersguy wouldn't hurt and then we'd all know who to sign in the offseason __________________ Owner/GM/Head Coach and Towel Boy for the St. Louis Rams.of the FOWL Owner of the Green Bay Packers of the PFL. First Response Coordinator of Public Relations Disasters for the Balzac Ticklers of the FOOLX. (retired) Owner/GM of the soon to be awesome Fort Worth Fury of the IHOF

03-31-2009, 08:59 PM	#30
Ben E Lou Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Greensboro, NC	Lolz. My feathers ain't ruffled. __________________ The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!

03-31-2009, 09:23 PM	#31
stevew Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: the yo'	Can the commish easily make contract offrers for each team? If so you could just find the crappiest RFA and sign and trade him 32 times and have him pocket 25 percent at each stop. Might take too long tho.

04-02-2009, 01:48 PM	#32
Kobeck n00b Join Date: May 2005	weak assed punters rejoice!

04-02-2009, 02:02 PM	#33
gstelmack Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Cary, NC	Thought of one (although you may like it). Doesn't this screw with franchise salaries? __________________ -- Greg -- Author of various FOF utilities

04-02-2009, 02:26 PM	#34
Ben E Lou Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Greensboro, NC	Hmmmm....I think it's just salary based, not bonus-based, so it wouldn't do anything. __________________ The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)