2015 RULES: Add another LTC, Restructure

[Royce R]

Another rule change that makes a 2nd LTC work a lot better is the 1 year minimum contracts.

So many players have been getting locked down to 3 year contracts. with 1 year no SB I believe our bidding will change in a big way. Putting more players into the free agency pool every year. And the ability to lock a few of the mid range players to mid range contracts with a 2nd LTC still wont be the impact we had with all the minimum 3 year contracts.

With the 2 changes together we are still way better off than before.

If both pass I think our league just because that much better!

[whteshark]

Free agency is supposed to be about fairness but for those teams that are trying to put a decent product on the field every year, they can't compete against teams that are in constant rebuild, cut their payroll to the bare bone, and use free agency to raid other teams with insane contracts so they can trade those players to stock up on draft picks instead of improving their own teams.

They can hand a player a huge SB and a huge contract and trade that player while eating the salary and SB because they have the room to do so.

Some GM's are gaming the system.

Since there are no minimum standards for wins or how much you have to spend, a 2nd LTC would even the playing field for teams in free agency that are actually trying to put a good product on the field every year.

[jerrydlux]

Since there are no minimum standards for wins or how much you have to spend, a 2nd LTC would even the playing field for teams in free agency that are actually trying to put a good product on the field every year.[/quote]


This is something I have thought about the last few days but haven't posted anything...is it possible to add in a salary cap floor? I understand teams could still cut and trade away salary in the offseason and still have a ton to work with but that actually happens in real life.

[Ben C.]

This is something I have thought about the last few days but haven't posted anything...is it possible to add in a salary cap floor? I understand teams could still cut and trade away salary in the offseason and still have a ton to work with but that actually happens in real life.

The trouble is in implementing it. A tanking team could easily offer a terrible player $50 million for one year in order to satisfy the salary cap floor and still tank.

[Strategist]

This is something I have thought about the last few days but haven't posted anything...is it possible to add in a salary cap floor? I understand teams could still cut and trade away salary in the offseason and still have a ton to work with but that actually happens in real life.

The trouble is in implementing it. A tanking team could easily offer a terrible player $50 million for one year in order to satisfy the salary cap floor and still tank.

Exactly I think a win floor is a better idea to have teams field a decent team.

[Goodell]

Salary floors have been discussed/debated in previous off-seasons.

For integration as the NFL does it, it's administrative tracking over MULTIPLE seasons. It is not a floor for every single year in the NFL. It's something calculated over multiples seasons.

With GMs changing year-to-year and the extra tracking over multiple seasons required (and easy ways to get around it just by giving someone a 50M 1 year deal), it wasn't as highly supported or endorsed by league management.

The other thing it does... further inflate salaries beyond the point they're already inflated. If a team not spending much because they're rebuilding is forced to spend 30 extra million on free agents, the prices of those guys (already sky high through competitive bidding) would only jet rocket higher.

Some of the reasons it exists in reality are more about real players getting real money across the board, but here our sim players don't get any real money anyway.

To some it's probably an important thing to have all teams spending more enforcing a floor, and I'm open to hearing that again discussion again this year, but those were the reasons it was discussed and not implemented in the past.

[whteshark]

Ben had a great idea a couple of years ago about a minimum number of wins over a 3 year period to hold onto your team. Maybe that's a debate we should be having again.....

[Goodell]

Ben had a great idea a couple of years ago about a minimum number of wins over a 3 year period to hold onto your team. Maybe that's a debate we should be having again.....

It is an interesting idea that can be debated again, but sometimes that's talking about the same stuff over and over. New thoughts or changing opinions on that definitely welcome.

Here's how previous discussions concluded as I recall. I don't know if things have changed much from that just yet to allow more change in that regard.

From a league management perspective, we aren't probably going to be as much about kicking people out of the game. If anything, we want to have more players, not less. I get why some GMs would want some GMs out, or why some lesser GMs being out might be good overall or something, but from an overall perspective the league would be more focused on growth rather than contraction. More GMs would be welcome from league management perspective, even if not all of them are going to be great. While we haven't grown in a while, that would be the overall hope to continue adding people and growing. New leagues may be pay-to-play leagues, and in that case definitely wouldn't be looking for new ways to kick people out who actually paid money to play.

However, it made sense that some leagues might be different here. I think we concluded that it made sense for the original AFFL league to have stricter guidelines toward staying in that league. If you didn't perform to those league-set levels, you'd be knocked down to another league opening. We've done that somewhat with entry into that league (if not kicking people out of it yet).

I think that makes sense for some leagues to have different purposes and membership rules. If we fully expand, perhaps some leagues become beginner leagues as first stop to learn and then advance to an opening in a higher league. Perhaps a top league of the very best and players can get knocked out of it, etc.

But the organization at this moment isn't setup to reach that level of involvement or growth just yet. I'm still a couple of automated systems away from being able to grow the leagues without creating more work for myself, and some of the other issues that have come up have been higher priorities to resolve in the shorter-term.

That's where I'd like things to eventually go, though, where some leagues could have some different purposes and rules related to performance. Eventually probably has to be the key word there for now, though.

[Ben C.]

Ben had a great idea a couple of years ago about a minimum number of wins over a 3 year period to hold onto your team. Maybe that's a debate we should be having again.....

Yes, and I still support implementing the proposal for the AFFL. For those who weren't around then, the proposal was 10 wins over 3 years is required in order to stay in the league.

I think we are at a point where the AFFL is definitely viewed as the premiere league, especially since we already require GMs have experience in the other leagues before joining the AFFL. I think it would be easy to implement this going forward, as soon as Troy is ready.

[jerrydlux]

I think there could be exceptions to that rule also...Yes teams should be able to get 10 wins in three years but in case they only get 9, maybe other GM's or even Commish vote on whether that GM seems to be playing the game correctly and can have another year or if it is truly time for them to go.