Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2017 7:14:00 GMT -6
As one of the newbies, I don't have the experience with the league as it is to have the total perspective on the rules that many of you have, from first hand experience. That said, I often have strong opinions, and as a recovering lawyer, I am decent at reading rules and systems and finding loopholes, flaws, and opportunities.
1. Salary Cap Adjustments The beauty of a restrictive cap that forces more player turnover is that it helps teams rebuild faster by increasing the quality of available players. It is also increases the challenge of staying at the top. For these reasons I would favor slowing the growth of the cap.
2. Coaches I love the concept of coaches, but after reading the discussion this year and from past years, I am not sure the juice is worth the squeeze as presently constituted. I love the desired RPG aspects of this league and would love to see them enhanced. There is an interesting concept in another set of leagues called impact scoring, where the defensive allignment used has an impact on the other team's player scoring each week. If we really want to enhance coaches, and add strategy we may want to consider allowing coaches to impact scores in more interesting ways. I have not thought out specifics yet, but if there is general interest in the concept i would be willing to draft a proposal. For example: if my coach's NFL team allows less than 50 yards rushing this week, my opponent's RB points are reduced by 20%. If we really wanted to make it fun, we should be able to sign NFL offensive and defensive coordinators as well as head coaches. Maybe we also allow/restrict defensive formations based on who we have as defensive coordinator... break out DT as a separate position, allow 3-4 or 4-3 starting lineup formations only if your coach uses that base formation.. I think an approach like this could take the beautiful complexity of the cap and apply it in roster construction and lineup formation as well, making for a more immersive NFL GM like experience, where hiring choices have significant consequences.
3. HoF Agnostic on this one...would need more details of how it would be implemented.
4. IR/PUP Agreed that we should be able to put suspended players on IR. NFL teams can use IR strategically to free up roster spots even when a player is not *that* hurt. I am in favor of loosening IR rules so we can do the same. Allowing us to return one player from IR without pre stating who, like the NFL, is also something I support.
5. Lineup Restriction Loosening I am also happy to keep this as is.
6. CB improvement The issue with corners, is not just that they are emminently replacable, but that they are so highly variable, and that the best NFL corners often make shitty fantsy corners because they do not get thrown on.
7. Elligton Rule Strongly in favor
8. Harvin Rule A player should get the cap hit back for cutting a retired player who unretires, and they should be restored to the roster as they were before retiring. Player should have the option to cut them at that point with half the normal cap penalty within 48 hours of the unretirement becoming official.
9. Changing extension/franchise rules I will wait before weighing in on this one, because I have not seen it in action.
10. Player Agents to negotiate holdouts/extensions/free agency? I love the vision and idea behind this, i just don't have enough faith in human nature that it could be implemented without owners using their roles as agents to indirectly help their own teams. One idea, if we can find another 16 team league wanting to implement this concept, with no over lap in owners, maybe we could be agents for their league and they could be agents for ours. Another option would be to go full RPG style and have roll a 20 sided die for each free agent to find out how much they value playing for a winner, loyaty, etc, and impact salaries accoridngly.
11. Tier adjustment changes. what is the logic behind basing these on stats rather than fantasy points? seems to make it harder to track...
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. " Like this concept in general. need to think about how exactly it should work. Take more risk, longer contract, more guaranteed money, should be able to get a lower cap hit in the present year. Use of guaranteed money could also change how extensions work.
13. Longer Contracts Agree with the concerns already stated
14. Contract Re-structures would need to be thought through with respect to guaranteed money. One way to work it would be to have a formula for how players value different kinds of money. so lets say the winning bid on a player is X. X would be the sum of current year guaranteed money times a multiplier, future year guaranteed money times a slightly lesser multiplier, year n+1 nonguaranteed money times a much lesser multiplier, etc)
|
|
|
Post by tracker (Boston) on Mar 18, 2017 7:51:13 GMT -6
OK, my punter idea seems to b very unpopular so let me state right now, I was only kidding about that. (not really,but that's my story)
coaches should b eliminated
Ellington rule & Harvin rule are ok w me.
Don't like player agent idea cause I don't like agents
|
|
|
Post by gkrown (Phoenix) on Mar 18, 2017 8:04:31 GMT -6
player agents.
so here's my idea, may get long winded, but i'll try to make it make sense.
we need an incentive for the agent to make the deal... otherwise it's really not worth it for them. my idea is to have a voting system on all player agent deals negotiated. at least 12 people need to vote on each deal, and they'd vote "players favor, even, or teams favor" at the end of the process, for every players favor you'd get a +1, even = 0, and team's favor you'd get a -1. and at the end of the process how many ever + or -'s add up, you get 1mill in cap space. if you dont get a deal done, it's counted as team's favor for fairness (could change or alter this) so if you got 5 player deals, you'd get an extra 5 mil in cap space. this i think would cause player agents wanting to get a deal done, even if it's just an even deal, so you dont LOSE cap space.
this would also cause leaks and each party would make a mini arguement at hte end of the deal. "hey we signed jarvis landry to about wr2 money, it's only upside" "hey jarvis got the 10th best WR money, and he only scores top 20-30 normally, so it's a win" then owners vote, and once we get at least 12 votes, it has a 48 hour window before it closes.
also, i'd suggest we lengthen the hold out time. in NFL i think it's like 10/16 games for the year to still count. 4/13 doesnt have the same sting.... maybe 7 or 8.... like really make the holdout matter.
does this make sense?
we could also add an owner title to this process, awarding the best player agent, or shaming the worst player agent.
i'd be willing to answer any questions on this format/style/idea.
it's also possible this is all too RPG-y and maybe we should wait until chance launches LG ultimate (like maybe he should just launch it this year....)
|
|
|
Post by gkrown (Phoenix) on Mar 18, 2017 8:07:49 GMT -6
guaranteed contracts should allow an AAS system, where we can backload or front load contracts. i have a baseball league i just joined that has this style, i could post over the rules if interested.
|
|
|
Post by 4 Horsemen on Mar 18, 2017 9:59:31 GMT -6
Gary that three weeks of holdouts with Leveon really hurt me though.
Also I think Agents may be to RPG like for LG2 and needs to just be a part of a legion ultimate, but that's been put on hiatus until I have time To get back to it. Might be able to launch a test round this year. It it's so much work. But one of my better ideas once I figure out all the details.
|
|
|
Post by Leeds Cougars on Mar 18, 2017 10:40:42 GMT -6
For the agents, instead of giving to a certain league, maybe have dedicated agents where some players with the time and inclination be the agents and they will be responsible for all agent/contract negotiations, you would need a minimum 3 up to maybe 5-7.
|
|
|
Post by joshburns on Mar 18, 2017 10:55:01 GMT -6
Many of my answers will be “need to see how this plays out” or will be contingent upon some of these concepts getting closer to execution.
1. Salary Cap Adjustments As long as cap is in parity with tiered player salary growth, i think we’re good. What I’d like to avoid is flat rate adjustment (up or down year over year) of salaries or cap.
2. Coaches Really like this feature in the league. Need to see how it affects my decision making process
3. HoF Def need more details
4. IR/PUP Mirror NFL rules as closely as is possible
5. Lineup Restriction Loosening No opinion here at this time
6. CB improvement Tackles for loss are worth double a pass defensed There is no scoring component for a pick six or LENGTH of a pick six Those two scoring components would add value to CB, but not blow them out of proportion
7. Elligton Rule Yep
8. Harvin Rule Seems incredibly rare, but fine by me
9. Changing extension/franchise rules Need to see how this plays out
10. Player Agents to negotiate holdouts/extensions/free agency? Seems very subjective. I don’t trust 4 committees of people to make consistent or consistently fair decisions with so many variables at play. I especially would not like holdouts to last longer.
11. Tier adjustment changes. Need to see this in action
12. Guaranteed Contracts Seems like a whole lot to track administratively, but if there’s a simple way to explain the process that is universally applicable, I have no issue
13. Longer Contracts Current rules seem fine
14. Contract Re-structures Again, needs to be easy to understand and execute, but no opposition.
|
|
|
Post by FullertonArchangels on Mar 18, 2017 10:55:25 GMT -6
1. Salary Cap Adjustments I am open to considering changes. Don't have strong feelings about any changes in particular.
2. Coaches Would like to either make them more relevant somehow or just having a vote to get rid of them all together.
3. Hall of Fame Sounds very interesting and I'm totally into digging in deeper and hashing out something that will work.
4. IR/PUP I like the way it's setup right now. And I also would like to keep the ability to put suspended players on IR.
5. Lineup Restriction Loosening Seems like most people don't want to do this and I agree. Keep as is.
6. CB improvement If there was a way to improve without causing too much of a tilt in their favor then I would be into it. Otherwise, they just might be doomed to be a mostly irrelevant position. It does suck that the best real life CBs tend to make the worst fantasy ones as they don't get thrown at.
7. Ellington Rule I am in favor of this.
8. Harvin Rule I think there should be some change here. Be it that the team that initially retired the player has the option to have them back at original contract or if they just get some of their fees back.
9. Changing extension/franchise rules Not too sure about this but would be open to opening up the discussion more if needed.
10. Player Agents to negotiate holdouts/extensions/free agency? I will say that the idea behind this sounds pretty interesting but I just don't think it is right for this league and seems like it would be really tough to keep track of. Plus the possibility of team bias becoming a problem. Like Chance said, might be better for the next Legion league.
11. Tier adjustment changes. Not too sure about this but will be in favor of opening discussion more as long as there isn't too much added admin work.
12. Guaranteed Contracts Like the idea but definitely think there should be certain restrictions and caps.
13. Longer Contracts Agree with others, potential to hurt some teams and not really a fan of making there player turnover even more longer.
14. Contract Re-structures Interesting thought. Always hesitate to do anything that creates more work for Chance unless it's necessary and universally agreed upon.
|
|
|
Post by Julian (San Francisco) on Mar 18, 2017 17:01:11 GMT -6
So I weighed in before and I think most points are at a stage where they are ready for votes so I'm just going to comment on the things Chance clarified since my last reply. I've tried to suggest concepts that are relatively simple to understand, not too easy to abuse (definitely looking for criticism here if I'm missing things) and most importantly fit within the current system without creating huge amounts more work (e.g., free agent bidding can still be simple highest bid wins on MFL, discounts on salaries are applied in one go and at only certain times, etc.).
3. Hall of fame: continue to be interested and like the rough framework sketched out
10. Player agents: I think the idea of having a four owner committee act as the agent was to try and ensure "fairness" as the group wouldn't come to a decision that helped any one team, but in reality I can't see four owners being able to agree on the right approach even if they are able to take personal biases out of the equation. And unfortunately I'm of the view that people will find it really hard to separate the two. So I think a good idea, but probably one for another league or at least another year.
12. Guaranteed contracts: without agents implementation is a bit harder, but I quite like the idea that the UFA or RFA auction will happen as usual, then after the winner is finalised they can choose both contract length (as is currently the case) and amount guaranteed. These would be posted as usual with any other eligible discounts so Chance could apply it all in one go. For example, for every 10% guaranteed you get a 2% discount on the overall salary (making the numbers up, we'd have to decide on that). So if I win the player auction with a $10m bid, I can say it's 50% guaranteed and get a 10% discount, so he'll sign for $9m, but if I cut him at any time the cap hit is $5.85m each year for the rest of the contract (the 50% guaranteed = $4.5m, plus the usual 30% of the non-guaranteed portion = $1.35 for a total of $5.85m). It's a meaningful saving (if you go for a full 100% guarantee you get 20% off your bid) but a big risk if that player busts/gets injured, etc. We could discuss whether the guarantee voids in any circumstances (suspension, retirement, etc.) but I'm inclined to say it shouldn't, that should be part of the risk. It's difficult right now to see all the ways it could play out/be abused, but I could definitely see ways it goes wrong so I'd be in favor of a cap of, for example, 3 contracts per franchise involving guaranteed money (of any proportion) initially, just to see how it plays out. I also think Chance will have to manually calculate the cap hits when a guaranteed contract gets cut so not having too many by having a max per team probably helps.
10. Extensions: coming back to this after laying that idea out. One simple option from another of Chance's leagues is to say you have a max number of extensions you can give each year, say 2, and for each you can give either an extra 1, 2 or 3 years. If it's 1 year the salary increases by 25%, for 2 years it's 50% or for 3 years it's 75%. It's most likely to be used on players that you got dirt cheap and so you're being rewarded for the great pick/free agent find but the increase brings them at least closer to their "market worth". It's not going to allow people to extend highly paid super stars and keep them off the free market unless you really pay through the nose for it, pushing for a title or something. An alternative would be to mix guarantees in, so for example if I'm giving a one year extension but make it 100% guaranteed I get a 20% discount along with the 25% increase. We'd need to decide whether that should be a discount before the 25% is applied, after it is applied or if it nets off so it's a 5% total increase. Maybe adding guarantees is getting too complicated at that point so it could be separated out as below...
14. Contract restructures: I'm struggling to come up with a relatively simple idea that involves a real trade off for the owner, I'm also a little hesitant if the trade off is simply shifting the cap hit to future years purely because of owner turnover implications. One simple option is there is a period during the beginning of the offseason (probably the same time that extensions and franchise tags are allowed to be handed out) during which an owner could increase the amount of guaranteed money a player is getting in return for the same discounts as if that player was just signed in free agency. There could be a limit on the number of restructures you can do, or it can just be part of the total limit on contracts with guaranteed money. For example, Dez Bryant has two years left on his contract and had a good 2016 so he jumped a few tiers and his salary increased to $15m. I only have two other players with any guaranteed money and that hit against the cap is hurting me so I restructure his contact by saying for his last two years he'll get 100% guaranteed in return for a 20% discount on his salary (using the same numbers I introduced above). I now pay him $12m a year, but if I cut him I don't save anything against the cap until his contract was due to expire.
Thoughts? I think one key point here that will force us away from our general goal of things being "more like the NFL" is my concern of not allowing owners to kick the salary cap can down the road too much and feel the pain later because no one worries that an NFL team is going to stop trying or quit (insert Cleveland joke here) but unfortunately we need to be careful we don't let ourselves dig big holes. If people think I'm being too cautious there, it opens up other options for restructures, but that's my view at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by 4 Horsemen on Mar 18, 2017 17:21:43 GMT -6
I 100% agree Julian, on the being cautious part. I do think the agents thing is going to be nixed (by me) and we can look at these ideas you put forward. They are really good.
I guess my biggest concern is that guaranteed money introduces extra work for me as you are correct, I will have to into the system and adjust any waivers that happen with guaranteed money, so a limit on how many is probably a good thing.
I'll let other owners weigh in though.
|
|
|
Post by zach (Seattle) on Mar 18, 2017 18:03:26 GMT -6
1. Salary Cap Adjustments: I am fine with whatever to be honest.
2. Coaches (make more useful or dump): I know people find coaches difficult to understand, but that's why we are in a cool league like this and not a 10 team free ESPN league. Every year someone complains because they dont want to spend money on an above average coach when they get you 10 points if you pick the correct ones. It's not difficult and its not hard. But whatever, if you want to dump them then fine. I'd rather get rid of them then have to deal with discussing getting rid of them every year.
2b. Allow conditional bidding on coaches: Don't care
3. Player Hall of Fame: Ok, works for me.
4. IR/PUP align with NFL: On board if we want to make a chance, don't mind either way.
5. Lineup Restriction Loosening: Nope, follow the rules. It's not hard to set a lineup and get a player at every position.
6. CB improvement: Some positions aren't sexy...can't make everyone as exciting as coaches....
7. Elligton Rule: Sure
8. Harvin Rule: Sure
9. Changing extension/franchise rules: Example?
10. Player Agents to negotiate holdouts/extensions/free agency?: Nope, if people can't figure out coaches then this will be too difficult. No need to change a good thing. Save this for the next league.
11. Tier adjustment changes: I am down to adjust tiers based on other factors
12. Guaranteed Contracts: Meh, I would leave it the same
13. Longer Contracts: That would be nice
14. Conract Re-structures: Potentially, but limit the number.
|
|
|
Post by vedo0816 on Mar 19, 2017 5:22:23 GMT -6
So I'm only going to address some of the topics due to me being new to this league and not grasping all aspects to really deliver great content at this time. Topic 2. Coaches. I like the coach aspect, only thing I would throw out there to spice it up a little is assist coach promotion to head coach assigned Prestige Points. Topic 3. HOF. I like this also. To add to this, my suggestion would be that any incentive for this would have to go to owner who had played underr contract longest. Topic 7. Ellington Yes Topic 8. Harvin Yes Topic 10. Player Agent Not in favor of other owners negotiating contracts. Maybe have a few renegotiated terms option based off current contract length. I'll go into more detail later.
Sorry I can't offer more at this point
|
|
|
Post by London Redcoats on Mar 19, 2017 9:20:31 GMT -6
Regarding coaches, would be possible to implemented a "points for point differential" which seems to be an option with MFL ScoringPoint Differential (DIF)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. I'm not suggesting coaches should get one whole point per point differential. Perhaps something like 0.25 point per point differential, which would translate a 20 point win into +5 points
|
|
|
Post by 4 Horsemen on Mar 19, 2017 11:48:30 GMT -6
Joe your suggestion at least makes them more interesting. I feel like we need more than just a scoring change though to really make them worthwhile.
|
|
|
Post by Kansas Cyclones on Mar 19, 2017 21:14:27 GMT -6
Don't have a lot of opinions yet, would have to read entire thread but just some thoughts on the topics brought up
2. Coaches (make more useful or dump) - I'm good with dumping coaches. Never really been a fan.
4. IR/PUP align with NFL - Think I prefer it the way it is.
5. Lineup Restriction Loosening? - Agree no reason to change it.
6. CB improvement - Nothing you can do with CB's. It's the one position in IDP that the good CB's suck fantasy wise and the the bad CB's are good cause they get targeted a lot. Dont really see how you can improve this.
10. Player Agents to negotiate holdouts/extensions/free agency? - Wait and see what ideas there are
12. Guaranteed Contracts - Don't really see reason to
|
|