FanGM

Assuming we're going to do these again, we need to adjust how the numbers are figured.

I would say if you're an "A" rated player being offered an LTC it's either the top 3 (not 10) at your grade... or, the top 10 at your position across the league.


Last year, if you were signing a linebacker, it was cheaper to LTC an A+ linebacker than a B rated linebacker... and the numbers weren't even close.


Allowing teams to lockup the best of the best for next to nothing does not seem realistic.

Here's some more options....


93+ rated players must be franchised, instead of LTC'd
93+ rated players must be LTC'd at the average of the highest 15 of their position
93+ rated players can be LTC'd at 2mil per year less than the franchise tag



No matter what we choose, no rookie contracts should ever be averaged into LTC figures. I know it might be difficult, but it doesn't make sense to use them. They drastically drag the value down off of the elite players.

Another option...

15% discount off of franchise if contract's expiring. 25% off franchise if there's one year left.


So, instead of using our averages, we use the real NFL's contracts to prevent our best players from being locked up long term for next to nothing.

I'd like to add in for discussions, the pay of MLBs versus OLBs in the LTC/Franchise scope of things. They are mixed in together now, but I strongly feel that they should be seperated, as Inside Linebackers, (even elite ones) do not get paid nearly as much as elite OLBs / edge rushers.
I believe the average of OLBs unfairly raises the number on ILBs.

As for Jared's options for LTCs, I like the second one...

93+ rated players must be LTC'd at the average of the highest 15 of their position

RebelFan wrote:I'd like to add in for discussions, the pay of MLBs versus OLBs in the LTC/Franchise scope of things. They are mixed in together now, but I strongly feel that they should be seperated, as Inside Linebackers, (even elite ones) do not get paid nearly as much as elite OLBs / edge rushers.
I believe the average of OLBs unfairly raises the number on ILBs.

I'd agree, but at the same time, you can have the same grade here with three MLB, since the sim doesn't differentiate.

People dishing out awful contracts are going to deter others from using the LTC then. Example is David Harris in CFFL. He's making 22,500,000 this year. If we take into consideration that figure is going to largely grow the $$ for LTC for ILB. Who in the CFFL is going to want to use a LTC on a ILB in the CFFL? The LTC is supposed to benefit you too. I agree it is something that needs to be changed but taking the top 15 salaries is not an option I am sold on right now.

I'd agree that's a problem. Using franchise numbers and basing it off of that might be the easiest and most reliable way to generate numbers.

Here's a thought to prevent grades being a problem.


If expiring contract, ltc cost determined by % of franchise numbers. For each point a player is away from 100 one percent is taken from the ltc offer. (A 90 would get 10% off franchise number)


For contracts with one year remaining, then two percent comes off.


Same way we do signing bonuses on top. So ltcs are still cheaper, but teams with super stars aren't getting the breaks while teams with b+ guys get screwed.

Jared A wrote:I'd agree that's a problem. Using franchise numbers and basing it off of that might be the easiest and most reliable way to generate numbers.

Here's a thought to prevent grades being a problem.


If expiring contract, ltc cost determined by % of franchise numbers. For each point a player is away from 100 one percent is taken from the ltc offer. (A 90 would get 10% off franchise number)


For contracts with one year remaining, then two percent comes off.


Same way we do signing bonuses on top. So ltcs are still cheaper, but teams with super stars aren't getting the breaks while teams with b+ guys get screwed.

I could definitely support this. That seems to be a more fair way to accomplish it. Even if you have a player who is a 99 then, you still end up with a discount based on no player ever reaches 100 overall so no LTC would ever reach 100% of the franchise numbers. I like this proposal a lot. May have to cap it though some how. For instance I have Andre Smith on my DFFL Jets. He is an 89 this year but I am almost certain that he will be somewhere around 92-95 in next years madden to start due to the season he just had. He is an 89 now. It should not seem fair that I get to sign a guy at an 11% discount when once new updates come out, I would probably only be able to get around 5-8% discount. Hope that makes sense. I mean yeah it screws me over on my own team but if we are going to do this I needs to be done fairly and correctly.

True, but at the same time, he could get hurt or under perform next year. I think there's variables on both sides... But this is probably my favorite option also. And, potemtially the simplest.