Post by 4 Horsemen on Mar 18, 2016 10:54:01 GMT -6
1. Salary Cap Adjustments - Inflating too fast? ----------- See in Polls Thread, voting now open 2. Coaches (make more useful or dump) --------------------- See in Polls Thread, voting now open 2b. Allow conditional bidding on coaches 3. Player Hall of Fame ------------------------------------ See in Polls Thread, voting now open 4. IR/PUP align with NFL ---------------------------------- See in Polls Thread, Voting now open 5. Lineup Restriction Loosening? -------------------------- No Support, will not be put to vote 6. CB improvement ----------------------------------------- No Change this year, but open to discussion for future improvements. 7. Elligton Rule ------------------------------------------ See in Polls Thread, Voting now open 8. Harvin Rule -------------------------------------------- See in Polls Thread, Voting Now Open 9. Changing extension/franchise rules --------------------- See in Polls Thread, Voting Now OPen 10. Player Agents to negotiate holdouts/extensions/free agency? --- Not going to happen for this league 11. Tier adjustment changes. 12. Guaranteed Contracts ---------------------------------- See in Polls Thread, Voting Now Open 13. Longer Contracts -------------------------------------- Enough opposition in discussion to cut from needing a vote 14. Conract Re-structures --------------------------------- See in Polls Thread, Voting Now Open
Post your thoughts.
Last Edit: Mar 23, 2017 22:03:42 GMT -6 by 4 Horsemen
Post by Julian (San Francisco) on Sept 8, 2016 11:16:34 GMT -6
Align our IR/PUP with the changes to the NFL's system. At the beginning of the regular season you can place players on IR without designating one in particular as PUP (max total is still 5), then after week 6 if you want to move one back to active you can (if you placed the full 5 on pre-season then one has to come back to active since max season-ending is 4).
After the regular season begins though the PUP slot would work the same as it does now, if you're moving someone there you have to say so and if you do you effectively lose the right to take any pre-season IR guys back after week 6.
Reason for all this is now that the NFL doesn't have to designate anyone to return but can bring anyone back there is a weird guessing game that could be seen as "more strategy" but I don't think so.
Edit: I'm not sure my suggestion above works as well as I initially thought, but the overall principle applies of potentially aligning the systems. Back you only get one designate to return player a year, but don't have to select them straight away or something.
Post by gkrown (Phoenix) on Sept 9, 2016 17:19:54 GMT -6
we NEED to make coaches have some sort of decision or impact, or just remove them. some ideas i came up with in the shower....
what if we made coaches have a specialty? my thinking. chance can break it down, or we can hold a vote each offseason, and give each coach a specialty. qb coach / rb coach / wr-te coach dl coach / lb coach / db coach i understand we'd have 2 extra coaches, insert one on offense and one on defense any category.
when these coaches win, they give us a 10% boost to that categories points when they lose, they only give a 5% boost (this also can apply to if you start them on their bye)
what this does. a) gives us a tier to coaches, bellicheck will be the most valuable ___ coach. b) each team only needs one coach, but someone can horde multiple coaches and try to play the matchups c) it gives you some flexiblity in which coaches you wanna target. Chance has 3 top 5 RB, so he's obviously going to go HAM for the #1 RB coach (the tier/rating would be a personal thing... do you find rex ryan or the titans coach more likely to win? both would probably be RB coaches)
how do we implement this? 1)probably requires more work for chance, but ultimately if coaches dont get more power/validity/purpose we should just remove them 2) end all coach contracts in 2016 OR 2017 if people throw a fit. 3) if we need to continue through 2017, make all coach contracts end in 2017, and if anyone has lets say pete carroll signed until 2018 @ $3million, we make his 2017 salary $500k 3a) ya they'll be mad they wasted some cash, but now in 2017 they have a top coach for 500k
Post by gkrown (Phoenix) on Sept 9, 2016 17:32:38 GMT -6
so at the begininng of hte off season we'd break up coaches into one of the following 6 categories. the 2 left over coaches can be thrown into whatever on offense/defense, maybe qb/db or something. so we'd have 32 coaches broken up into 6 categories, and the coaches would give a 10% or 5% bonus to that positions score for the week.
this would cause us to think harder on which coaches we chase, as well as give us some flexiblity if we make coaches give the 5% even during bye weeks, we could really open the strategy as someone can roll w/ one coach or 4 coaches. theoretically someone could try to capture 3 high price coaches and rotate them weekly and really determine how they build their roster/lineup weekly.
you wanna be careful going ham on coaches as if they're fired you're stuck w/ them on the hook (just like the real NFL)
i know this would give chance more work, but honestly i think it could be really fun and totally worth it. and if chance wants he can assign the job to add up the totals and give them to him each week, which would relieve some stress/work and he can still double check them!
Post by Julian (San Francisco) on Sept 12, 2016 12:12:20 GMT -6
Phoenix, I love your enthusiasm to make coaches more relevant, but unfortunately I think what you're suggesting isn't miles away from what I was throwing out there last season and there was basically no support for increasing the role of coaches. I think you'll get more interest in an up/down vote on whether to keep them at all. As for the time frame, it has to be beyond the length of current contracts I think, but that's another issue.
Post by 4 Horsemen on Sept 13, 2016 23:15:06 GMT -6
I want to incorporate a Player Hall of Fame, there was a league on Reddit that had it and I think it would be a cool thing to integrate. Will discuss more in the off-season but I think it would be part of the progressive pot.
Post by gkrown (Phoenix) on Sept 14, 2016 19:07:38 GMT -6
even if we arent paid for it. there should be a hall of fame for sure. if you're gonna make it include money, i assume we'll have guidelines. if it's not for money just make a 3man committee who decide on HOF guys imo.
Post by Julian (San Francisco) on Nov 10, 2016 0:32:23 GMT -6
Allow an owner to bid on a 3rd coach but in the event they win the auction they need to have dropped at least one of their 3 coaches (to get back under the 2 coach limit) within [12] hours.
I guess the main issues of allowing this is that coaches are an absolutely finite resource and allowing some flexibility around this bidding could allow people to abuse it but I'm not sure I can see too many ways that can be issue.
Post by gkrown (Phoenix) on Nov 11, 2016 13:45:58 GMT -6
they'll be like kickers and seattle will hoard them.
in lg1 i think we have conditional waivers where we can waive someone with the idea that we're replacing them in free agency. if we lose the player we targeted our waiver doesnt go through.
i dont see why we cant do this here?
i REALLY dont want to lose coaches, but we need to revitalize them. I'm afraid we have enough indifferent people to where they rather remove them than think of anything beneficial to keep them. it saddens me. #makecoachesgreatagain
they'll be like kickers and seattle will hoard them.
in lg1 i think we have conditional waivers where we can waive someone with the idea that we're replacing them in free agency. if we lose the player we targeted our waiver doesnt go through.
i dont see why we cant do this here?
i REALLY dont want to lose coaches, but we need to revitalize them. I'm afraid we have enough indifferent people to where they rather remove them than think of anything beneficial to keep them. it saddens me. #makecoachesgreatagain
Either some kind of conditional drop or giving owners 24 hours to get back down to 3 coaches would work. I don't like people having to do speculative drops.
MFL supports point differential so we could use that to make them way more interesting:
"This is the difference in score between the team and the opponent. It can be positive or zero or negative. For example, if a team wins a game 20 to 17, then the point differential is 3. If a team loses a game 30 to 21, then the point differential is -9 (negative 9). This rule can be used to score a "WIN" or a "LOSS" or a "TIE" for a team position or an individual player. A point differential of 1 or more is considered a WIN. A point differential of -1 or less is considered a LOSS. A point differential of 0 is a TIE."
Post by London Redcoats on Nov 13, 2016 8:22:30 GMT -6
I'd like to propose two new rules:
Ellington rule If a player hasn't played ten games in a season they should still be eligible to drop a tier (maximum one tier drop per year).
Harvin rule If a player has been waived due to retirement their previous team should be able to re-claim them under their remaining contract conditions.
Post by tracker (Boston) on Nov 15, 2016 13:51:53 GMT -6
I would eliminate coaches & replace them w punters OK with a Hall of Fame Bidding on a 3rd coach while 2 already on roster is akin to bidding on a positional player while ya still have a 40 man roster. It doesn't add up & I worry/think about it every time I cut a player to go for another. I would align IR/PUP with NFL Salary cap adjustments r inflating to fast.
Post by Julian (San Francisco) on Nov 15, 2016 14:19:48 GMT -6
We can discuss more in the offseason, but I feel obliged to say something since I originally compared the 2 coach rule to the 40 player rule. Difference with coaches is that while the max is 2, you also need a minimum of 2 to guarantee being able to start one every week in the season. So by being forced to cut one to go after another you are forced to risk being able to even start a legal lineup if you don't get the player. You might be able to re-bid on the guy you cut (if his salary was low enough to allow it) but it's an awkward situation either way.
Conditional waivers is probably the most sensible suggestion so far.
Post by 4 Horsemen on Nov 25, 2016 13:41:17 GMT -6
Don't worry I will never add punters to any of my leagues. If you couldn't tell from the lack of Kickers in Legions Front Lines, I don't care much for kickers/punters.
Post by Julian (San Francisco) on Jan 29, 2017 2:39:53 GMT -6
Drop the free agent salary penalty that comes with the Personnel Genius title. I'm not sure how many people are even aware of it and though I understand the thought, it's kind of annoying to be penalized for winning something, mostly though it just doesn't really work when salary discounts are entirely self-enforced.
Post by Julian (San Francisco) on Mar 17, 2017 13:20:56 GMT -6
Some thoughts:
1. Salary Cap Adjustments - Inflating too fast? - this doesn't bother me too much, as long as it's inflating too fast and not contracting players can't really be caught out by it and it somewhat reflects the real NFL 2. Coaches (make more useful or dump) - I think we've tried to come up with ideas to make them more useful but nothing has really caught on. I'm fine keeping them doing their thing, but also wouldn't be against a straight up dump them vote to see what the majority thinks (presumably would want it to come into effect in a few years for fairness) 2b. Allow conditional bidding on coaches - I'd vote for this 3. Player Hall of Fame - a cool idea. Mostly comes down to more admin for Chance so if he's willing I'd be in favor 4. IR/PUP align with NFL - I think there are two options: (i) keep as is, or (ii) scrap our PUP and instead have standard IR except one player each year can be designated to return, this would align somewhat with the NFL without getting into the preseason PUP/NFI etc. complexity. Don't know if people will like it because the current short-term IR/PUP option gives some flexibility, but a straight up vote is an easy way to find out. 5. Lineup Restriction Loosening? - strongly against this. The lineup requirements along with scoring are about as fundamental as rules get and I don't see a need to change it 6. CB improvement - the issue with CBs isn't so much their low scoring as it is their inconsistent scoring. If we do something to juice their scoring (give them premiums for solos/assists or something) it won't really make them any more consistent so they just become another kicker but with a greater potential to decide games...not sure we want that. 7. Elligton Rule - would be in favor let's have a vote 8. Harvin Rule - rumors are always flying but I can't think of one example where this would have made a meaningful impact in fantasy football terms so it seems like a hassle to track/enforce for no real gain 9. Changing extension/franchise rules - not sure I've seen any suggestions here, but someway to potentially extend people would be nice, maybe a set number of extensions to hand out each year at a higher salary similar to Legion 1? 10. Player Agents to negotiate holdouts/extensions/free agency? - not sure how this would work in practice but I like the sound of it...does also sound like more work for Chance though 11. Tier adjustment changes - I wouldn't be against something based on actual fantasy scoring so there is some consistency and fewer opportunities to game the system but don't feel that strongly 12. Guaranteed Contracts - what would the upside be of offering a guaranteed contract? I definitely wouldn't want to switch to all contracts being guaranteed 13. Longer Contracts - not keen. As much as I like the idea of some options for extensions being included, I think longer contracts on it's own will just result in far less player movement and far more opportunities for owners to get stuck with a bunch of contracts that screw their team that leads to owner turnover 14. Contract Re-structures - not sure how it would work...am intrigued but not sure what the exact idea is
Post by 4 Horsemen on Mar 17, 2017 22:02:30 GMT -6
Alright, not a lot of action so far so I'll dive into all of the ideas that I have proposed and maybe after the weekend we will have enough discussion to actually propose some changes:
1.) We currently adjust the cap up or down based on overall tier movement. So if the leagues net tier player movement is 20 we move the cap up by 4 million. So far every year we have adjusted up. While it does make sense to adjust up as many people salaries are increasing. It seems to be slowly getting out of hand as far as free cap money each year. I am thinking of proposing that we change it to .12 per 1 player moved up or down.
2.) With Julian on this, open to actual fun ideas for coaches but personally am leaning towards dumping (in a couple years to make it fair) 2b.) Really don't like this as its hard to track.
3.) Player Hall of Fame. This is something that I think incorporates a change that I am thinking about for league structure. So along with points 9, 10, 12-14. It is a fundemental concept that is still in the works, but to make the Hall of Fame useful the other things need to fall into place (more on that later). What I am thinking for the Hall of Fame is to make it: a.) Yearly nominations by the 16 owners of retired players to the Hall of Fame aa.) One owner must nominate a candidate to be in the Hall of Fame nominees and one other must second it b.) Up to 3 Nominees per year, (player can be nominated 3 times but if after three tries he does't make it then he is not going into the Hall c.) Then I will compile the Legion Data for that player(s) throughout their career (Legion start stats, Awards won, probowls, etc). d.) All 16 owners vote on wether one, some, or all of the nominees make it in (Don't know if we need to define criteria or if its just an opinion thing) e.) Nominees are enshrined if voted in (They are voted in based on the team they played the most years for with a minimum of 4 years for a team to get credit). If two teams had a player for the same amount of time then each vote needs to be placed for the player and for which team (I will break down the stats by team in this situation). This is where extensions, etc. would come in to play as it is hard to roster a player for their real life career much less for four years in this league. d.) Owners with Hall of Fame inductees would get 2 PP and 3% of the Rolling Jackpot.
Let me skip over 9 to start with 10 as it is the base for a lot of my thoughts on the evolution of this league: 10.) Player Agents - I think this could create some really cool activity and really make the off-season more interesting for everyone and add a more lifelike component to contract aspect of this league. Here is what I am thinking: A.) Either by Division or maybe by pairing teams up and divying up positions by alphabetical last names every owner in the league would become a players agent. For this example lets go with divisions as agents. So Legions Elite owners (Currently Austin/Kansas/Virginia/SanFran) would become players agents for 2 positions, lets say QB and LBs. Those 4 owners now represent all QBs and LBs. This representation could affect many things but we could go as simple or as complex as we wanted aa.) Instead of the weird tier related Extension you could now extend any player, but you would have to deal with the agent. For Instance Austin wants to extend Rishard Matthews, well maybe Matthews just came off a career year so the Agents (4 owners) start talking (privately) about what Rishard wants out of his career. Is he looking for a big payout, does he want to continue to play for the defending champions horsemen, what kinda money did similiar tier recievers earn in free agency last year, etc, etc, etc. Austin would make an extension offer, the agents would debate and could come back with a counter, to accept, or maybe they just straight up decline. But it could make extensions really interesting, and give us something to to all off-season. I think we would need to probably limit how many extensions you could attempt per off-season though. bb.) This is where guaranteed contracts could come into play. Offering Guaranteed money might entice an extension to commit for less, or for longer, or whatever, but you would be on the hook for that money no matter what. cc.) You could also extend this into RFA/UFA and have the agents look at each signing and say maybe a player doesn't really want to play for a team that signed them and will holdout for a week or two unless they meet their new demands (maybe have a cap on the possible demands). Or maybe they hated their old team and like the new team that signed them and after signing they tell the team they will actually take less than they were won for in auction. dd.) Restructuring contracts would work in the same way, agents would discuss a players desire. Maybe its Tom Brady making a last hoorah and he is willing to take a pay-cut to help his team out, maybe a player will move part of their current year salary to the next year if it is guaranteed, etc. ee.) Agents could negotiate on behalf of their clients when a tier movement holdout happens. Maybe finding a middle ground in price, or getting less money but guaranteed would get them back on the field, maybe they just want a couple more years added to their contract..who knows.
All that to say I think it could open up endless exciting possibilities, it also could be an element that you guys have no desire for as it does add a bit of randomness and possibly owner strategizing to hurt other teams although I would hope owners would separate from being a team owner from being a player agent. Thoughts on all that?
11.) Their won't be any change to how the tier system works but after three years their are some tier qualifiers that I think need to be changed (like the bottom 2-3 tiers of CB and DL is generally composed of non-rostered players, I think those tiers need to have higher qualifiers to meet them.) It's a lot of work to type out a bunch of players that no one cares about cause they are meh, at best. Will actually propose those actual changes as we move forward.
Post by gkrown (Phoenix) on Mar 17, 2017 22:56:59 GMT -6
4 - make us have 1 pup spot. use it at our need 5 - this would let us create our roster, our way 6 - they feel useless/not needed 7 - yes 8 - yes 9 - would like some changes, dont like knowing another owner could control if i resign leveon bell or not 10- above 11- ? 12- i love added guaranteed money to the equation 13- longer than 5 years? 14- love this w/ guaranteed
Post by Leeds Cougars on Mar 18, 2017 4:15:52 GMT -6
1. I said last year, its easier to have a flat cap rise each year, not based on players tier movements, but an overall % increase each year it will keep things simpler the cap is currently $131m a 2% increase would see the cap rise as follows
2018 $135.6m 2019 $138.3m 2020 $141.06m
A Flat cap rise so everyone will now what the cap will be year on year for the next several years, will make the whole of 10 easier to implement As the cap will be known GM will know what they have to spend over the years (they can keep their own spreadsheet and track) so if they want to front or back load a players contract they will know how they can spread it out.
If doing guarantees then like the NFL if a player is cut/traded the guarantee is pushed into that years salary.
Post by London Redcoats on Mar 18, 2017 5:09:19 GMT -6
1. Salary Cap Adjustments I don't feel strongly about this, but I wouldn't have an issue with us reducing the cap up.
2. Coaches I would be in favour of conditional bidding. Would like a vote on dumping coaches altogether.
3. HoF Love the concept +2pp and 3% of rolling jackpot seems about right.
4. IR/PUP I don't have any issues with the existing IR system. In the NFL a team does not pay a players salary when suspended so I feel strongly that we should be able to put suspended players on IR.
5. Lineup Restriction Loosening Happy to keep this as is.
6. CB improvement Agree with San Fran, difficult to improve them really. I have thought about giving them points based on the passer rating given up (but that sounds like a lot of admin!)
7. Elligton Rule Strongly in favour, perhaps we could have two votes here. One on the principal and one on the details (e.g how many tiers maximum etc)
8. Harvin Rule The thought process here is that a player should at least get the cap hit back for cutting a retired player who unretires.
9. Changing extension/franchise rules What is the LG1 system?
10. Player Agents to negotiate holdouts/extensions/free agency? I think this would be a logistical nightmare and could be a catalyst for collusion.
11. Tier adjustment changes. If we aren't going to move to more of a scoring based system then I don't have any proposals for modifying the existing system.
12. Guaranteed Contracts Perhaps a player will take less overall money if you offer more guaranteed money. This could be a "discount" that is applied after the bidding is completed. There should be limits on the amount and the percentage that can be guaranteed. If the player is cut though you pay the full guaranteed amount + take the cap hit on the rest.
13. Longer Contracts Agree with San Fran, could sink franchises with crappy contracts especially with 12)
14. Contract Re-structures Could be an administrative nightmare, but I suppose the idea here would be that an owner can shift the cap hit into future years. Would be challenging with players moving up and down tiers though.
Shoutbox
Deleted: the 'L' and 'N' are slightly cut off, but it looks good.
Apr 16, 2014 7:41:52 GMT -6
4 Horsemen: should be better now, I extended the forum width.
Apr 17, 2014 16:10:11 GMT -6
Deleted: I'm getting a tiling effect now. I can take a screenshot if you want.
Apr 18, 2014 7:39:17 GMT -6
tracker (Boston): it looks better for now
Apr 18, 2014 11:34:08 GMT -6
4 Horsemen: Fatshack, I am thinking we have wider screens the rest of the league. Mine is tiled as well. I don't think their is a good way to make it perfect for everyone so I think we will just have the tiled effect so that its not cut off for everyone else.
Apr 18, 2014 15:24:04 GMT -6
4 Horsemen: I plan on learning some basic CSS sometime in the next year or so so that I can work on the MFL site and we won't have to pay a designer/coder.
Apr 18, 2014 15:24:40 GMT -6
gkrown (Phoenix): i have hte tiled effect too.
Apr 21, 2014 19:08:20 GMT -6
gkrown (Phoenix): w/ 1.0 too, just kind of figured i have a wide screne
Apr 21, 2014 19:08:23 GMT -6
Deleted: Are there still open slots?
Apr 22, 2014 16:58:01 GMT -6
4 Horsemen: Rainier...not at this time. No.
Apr 23, 2014 15:24:41 GMT -6
gkrown (Phoenix): i know trades arent in full effect yet, but if anyone is looking to make trades i am open for business
May 11, 2014 14:43:02 GMT -6
gkrown (Phoenix): i'd love to grab a 2nd or 3rd round pick this year, willing to give up future picks or some salary relief to begin with.
May 11, 2014 14:43:17 GMT -6
gkrown (Phoenix): also looking to trade down out of the 1st round!
May 11, 2014 14:43:36 GMT -6
4 Horsemen: Just FYI, you are more than welcome to talk trade talks, nothing will happen until the league opens for trading. However, once it does open, if anyone does a trade with a pick for salary cap coverage it will have to be handled on probaords as MFL...
May 11, 2014 15:40:38 GMT -6
4 Horsemen: ...doesn't have capacity to handle cap coverage trades, I will have to input them manually. Other than that all trades will be done on MFL.
May 11, 2014 15:41:02 GMT -6
betterthangoodell (Omaha): As I'm going through and setting up my pre draft rookie picks, there is a designation between rounds. Any player selected in round 1 is not allowed to be put into round 2, will the round one players automatically jump to the front if not selected?
May 11, 2014 21:29:59 GMT -6
4 Horsemen: Omaha, no they will not carry over. I suggest only staying one round ahead. Whoever is leftover from your round 1 list will not automatically go to the top of round two.
May 12, 2014 15:56:30 GMT -6