2017 Rule Change Discussion - Pre-Vote

The league forum for the Tecmo Bowl Fantasy League

Moderators: TrueDawg, monkeybones, Dionosys

User avatar
Dionosys
Captain
Captain
Posts: 806
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 9:21 pm

2017 Rule Change Discussion - Pre-Vote

Postby Dionosys » Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:03 pm

1. Stiffer penalties and regulations regarding roster churning.
-100% penalty to cut during same offseason
-bid limits of 25 players and/or 120% of salary cap.

2. Are DS penalties too stiff?

3. Change when contract years are assigned
-24 hours after winning bid or automatic 1 year given.

4. Fix issue with Thursday night games.
-Team A doesn’t set lineup for team until after the Thursday game to see if a player does well or not. If they do well they leave them in, if not then they still can make changes because lineup was never set.S

User avatar
Dionosys
Captain
Captain
Posts: 806
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 9:21 pm

Re: 2017 Rule Change Discussion - Pre-Vote

Postby Dionosys » Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:09 pm

1. I agree we need stiffer penalties regarding roster churning however I'm against bid limits on amount of players or value of salary cap. That is something that each individual team needs to monitor and be comfortable with for themselves.

I also feel that 100% cap penalty is too much though and I would say double that of the normal cap penalty to 40% is much more fair.

2. I personally feel that the DS set up is working well as it is.

3. Contract years I'm fine with a set date or 24 hours after the bid has been won. That alone may reduce/eliminate issues from roster churning.

4 I've been on the wrong side of this and have had a player who had a good game get put to the bench but my feelings are that if they were in your lineup when the game was played then you take the points that player received, good or bad.

User avatar
TrueDawg
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3986
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:45 am

Re: 2017 Rule Change Discussion - Pre-Vote

Postby TrueDawg » Tue Jun 06, 2017 9:02 pm

1. Yes, stiffer penalties for "catch & release"...that's what we call it in KFFL when you sign and cut a player in the same offseason. 100% seems extreme. Double (40%) seems reasonable.

- Limits on bidding...absolutely not. I mean, why do you hate freedom? It's my roster and my salary cap and I should be able to manage it however I want. I'm a big boy and I can do math. If I bid over my cap and you don't like it, go ahead and let me win the players and force me to make moves to sort it out (it has bitten me in the a$$ a time or two). I also think its everyone's job to make sure owners pay market value for free agents and I may bid up players just for that reason. I'm sorry if it pisses you off that I won't let you have a good player on the cheap. The idea that I can't bump a player's bid because my current bids are over my cap is absurd. Besides, speaking as a commish myself, how the hell would the commish even police this? Trying to trudge through all the FA threads to add up people's bids would be a NIGHTMARE, especially considering how quickly things change during the FA frenzy.

2. I think the DS is fine...we already decreased the salary scale once.

3. I think years should be assigned within 24 hours. NFL teams don't get to sign someone in June and wait til September to decide how long their contract will be. I think this eliminates a couple problems too.

4. If you don't submit a lineup before TNF, I'm not sure MFL will let you put players from TNF into your starting lineup. Regardless...if you wait til after the TNF game starts to set your lineup, TNF players should not be eligible to start. Likewise, any TNF players in your lineup (because you didn't set one and it carried over from the previous week) when the game starts should stay there.

I wonder if we can set MFL to NOT carry over the starting lineup from the previous week...that would pretty much eliminate this problem, wouldn't it?

User avatar
TrueDawg
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3986
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:45 am

Re: 2017 Rule Change Discussion - Pre-Vote

Postby TrueDawg » Tue Jun 06, 2017 9:13 pm

TrueDawg wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2017 9:02 pm I wonder if we can set MFL to NOT carry over the starting lineup from the previous week...that would pretty much eliminate this problem, wouldn't it?
I just checked MFL in the KFFL league and this CAN be changed. I also found a setting to prevent owners from starting players on bye weeks...I think we should consider both.
Last edited by TrueDawg on Tue Jun 06, 2017 9:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

OnABloodbuzz
Pro Bowler
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1231
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: 2017 Rule Change Discussion - Pre-Vote

Postby OnABloodbuzz » Tue Jun 06, 2017 9:15 pm

1. Have a set Free Agency period (ie x number of days/weeks to get a nomination in). 100% cap hit while this runs. Back to the normal cap hits after that and run weekly blind bid waivers until the season starts up and we get into the BB/FCFS waiver routine as normal.

No limits.

I don't know if I brought this up last year? You could look at running free agency through the league site. Only thing to keep an eye on is the minimum bid amount as you can only set 1 min amount, then at the end all you need to do is input years, the site does the rest. Easier to run, players/salaries assigned, easier to use as you can see all bids/time left on one page instead of trawling 30 threads.

2. DS is fine.

3. Ideally it's ASAP after the end of an auction.

4. Players should be locked in once their individual game starts.

User avatar
TrueDawg
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3986
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:45 am

Re: 2017 Rule Change Discussion - Pre-Vote

Postby TrueDawg » Tue Jun 06, 2017 9:29 pm

OnABloodbuzz wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2017 9:15 pm 1. Have a set Free Agency period (ie x number of days/weeks to get a nomination in). 100% cap hit while this runs. Back to the normal cap hits after that and run weekly blind bid waivers until the season starts up and we get into the BB/FCFS waiver routine as normal.
That seems overly complicated and I think sets up "sniping" scenarios like on eBay...why would anyone bid until right before the end of the FA period? I think the current system is fine.
I don't know if I brought this up last year? You could look at running free agency through the league site. Only thing to keep an eye on is the minimum bid amount as you can only set 1 min amount, then at the end all you need to do is input years, the site does the rest. Easier to run, players/salaries assigned, easier to use as you can see all bids/time left on one page instead of trawling 30 threads.
Never knew this was possible. I don't think there's anything wrong with the way we're currently doing it but I'm intrigued. Kindof uncharted waters though...something we'd have to experiment with I think.

OnABloodbuzz
Pro Bowler
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1231
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: 2017 Rule Change Discussion - Pre-Vote

Postby OnABloodbuzz » Tue Jun 06, 2017 11:10 pm

TrueDawg wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2017 9:29 pm
OnABloodbuzz wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2017 9:15 pm 1. Have a set Free Agency period (ie x number of days/weeks to get a nomination in). 100% cap hit while this runs. Back to the normal cap hits after that and run weekly blind bid waivers until the season starts up and we get into the BB/FCFS waiver routine as normal.
That seems overly complicated and I think sets up "sniping" scenarios like on eBay...why would anyone bid until right before the end of the FA period? I think the current system is fine.
I don't know if I brought this up last year? You could look at running free agency through the league site. Only thing to keep an eye on is the minimum bid amount as you can only set 1 min amount, then at the end all you need to do is input years, the site does the rest. Easier to run, players/salaries assigned, easier to use as you can see all bids/time left on one page instead of trawling 30 threads.
Never knew this was possible. I don't think there's anything wrong with the way we're currently doing it but I'm intrigued. Kindof uncharted waters though...something we'd have to experiment with I think.
It's not an ebay type system, it can be if you set it up that way though.

You set up an auction, owners add FAs to the auction at the minimum or whatever salary they like, the commish sets the default time for the auction to be over (x days after the highest bid change).

When the auction is over the player is assigned to the winner and the salary is there, all the commish has to do is input years. The end date I'm talking about is just putting an end date on the nomination process, individual auctions still run a minimum x days. If you like you could just leave the auction open all off season. It's the same process that we do here, just a whole lot easier to track.

I run a league using this set up, did a 34 man start up dynasty last year using it with mostly MFL newbies and it went well, once FA dried up, we ran blind bids until the season started. We just used the same auction process to do our tag/renegotiation process, got a rookie draft starting next week and we'll do another auction after that for the remaining FAs. We have 100% cap hits until the final FA auction is over, after that it reverts back to 20%.

Set up a dummy league, set your league to an email auction and check out the settings if you're curious.

Dre
Pro Bowler
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1410
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 3:52 am

Re: 2017 Rule Change Discussion - Pre-Vote

Postby Dre » Tue Jun 06, 2017 11:48 pm

TrueDawg wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2017 9:02 pm 1. Yes, stiffer penalties for "catch & release"...that's what we call it in KFFL when you sign and cut a player in the same offseason. 100% seems extreme. Double (40%) seems reasonable.

- Limits on bidding...absolutely not. I mean, why do you hate freedom? It's my roster and my salary cap and I should be able to manage it however I want. I'm a big boy and I can do math. If I bid over my cap and you don't like it, go ahead and let me win the players and force me to make moves to sort it out (it has bitten me in the a$$ a time or two). I also think its everyone's job to make sure owners pay market value for free agents and I may bid up players just for that reason. I'm sorry if it pisses you off that I won't let you have a good player on the cheap. The idea that I can't bump a player's bid because my current bids are over my cap is absurd. Besides, speaking as a commish myself, how the hell would the commish even police this? Trying to trudge through all the FA threads to add up people's bids would be a NIGHTMARE, especially considering how quickly things change during the FA frenzy.

2. I think the DS is fine...we already decreased the salary scale once.

3. I think years should be assigned within 24 hours. NFL teams don't get to sign someone in June and wait til September to decide how long their contract will be. I think this eliminates a couple problems too.

4. If you don't submit a lineup before TNF, I'm not sure MFL will let you put players from TNF into your starting lineup. Regardless...if you wait til after the TNF game starts to set your lineup, TNF players should not be eligible to start. Likewise, any TNF players in your lineup (because you didn't set one and it carried over from the previous week) when the game starts should stay there.

I wonder if we can set MFL to NOT carry over the starting lineup from the previous week...that would pretty much eliminate this problem, wouldn't it?
Agree with all of this

Xulu Bak
Pro Bowler
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1120
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 8:08 pm

Re: 2017 Rule Change Discussion - Pre-Vote

Postby Xulu Bak » Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:09 am

Dionosys wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:03 pm 1. Stiffer penalties and regulations regarding roster churning.
-100% penalty to cut during same offseason
-bid limits of 25 players and/or 120% of salary cap.

2. Are DS penalties too stiff?

3. Change when contract years are assigned
-24 hours after winning bid or automatic 1 year given.

4. Fix issue with Thursday night games.
-Team A doesn’t set lineup for team until after the Thursday game to see if a player does well or not. If they do well they leave them in, if not then they still can make changes because lineup was never set.S
1) I'd be fine with a stiffer catch & release penalty, but think 100% would be too drastic. Completely against bid limits of any kind.

2) DS is fine.

3) I'm in favor of assigning years when the player is acquired, but think 48 hours might be more appropriate.

4) Simple solution, eliminate autoset lineups. If MFL doesn't support that, then simply make it league policy. You have to manually set your lineup every week.

User avatar
TrueDawg
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3986
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:45 am

Re: 2017 Rule Change Discussion - Pre-Vote

Postby TrueDawg » Wed Jun 07, 2017 5:35 am

Xulu Bak wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:09 am 4) Simple solution, eliminate autoset lineups. If MFL doesn't support that, then simply make it league policy. You have to manually set your lineup every week.
Yes there's a setting to turn OFF the automatic carry over of lineups from the previous week.

User avatar
monkeybones
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3396
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 2:16 pm

Re: 2017 Rule Change Discussion - Pre-Vote

Postby monkeybones » Wed Jun 07, 2017 6:20 am

Dionosys wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:03 pm 1. Stiffer penalties and regulations regarding roster churning.
-100% penalty to cut during same offseason
-bid limits of 25 players and/or 120% of salary cap.

2. Are DS penalties too stiff?

3. Change when contract years are assigned
-24 hours after winning bid or automatic 1 year given.

4. Fix issue with Thursday night games.
-Team A doesn’t set lineup for team until after the Thursday game to see if a player does well or not. If they do well they leave them in, if not then they still can make changes because lineup was never set.S
1. We need stiffer penalties. I like the idea of 100% during the offseason because teams should only be bidding on players they want. If you bid on a player and drop him in the same offseason you essentially guaranteed 100% of his salary at 1 year. I don't think that's unreasonable. I'd fine going with less but the penalty needs to be significant. We need to eliminate the roster churning teams with lots of cap space can do.

I am not in favor of a bid limit.

2. The DS is setup fine. No reason to change it.

3. I'm fine with 24 hours or 48 hours as others have said. Either way, it should be somewhat immediate instead of waiting until the end of the off season.

4. I think we should just remove the option to automatically carry over starting lineup from the previous week. This would solve the problem.

I think the way we do FA bidding works fine. I don't really like the idea of a timed auction because there are so many ways it could be manipulated and in the end if could come down to an Ebay style bidding war. I say we keep our bidding process the way it is currently setup.

User avatar
monkeybones
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3396
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 2:16 pm

Re: 2017 Rule Change Discussion - Pre-Vote

Postby monkeybones » Wed Jun 07, 2017 6:21 am

TrueDawg wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2017 5:35 am
Xulu Bak wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:09 am 4) Simple solution, eliminate autoset lineups. If MFL doesn't support that, then simply make it league policy. You have to manually set your lineup every week.
Yes there's a setting to turn OFF the automatic carry over of lineups from the previous week.
We need to do this for sure. It eliminates our problem and makes teams more active. If you don't set a lineup you get zero points.

OnABloodbuzz
Pro Bowler
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1231
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: 2017 Rule Change Discussion - Pre-Vote

Postby OnABloodbuzz » Wed Jun 07, 2017 3:08 pm

monkeybones wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2017 6:20 am
Dionosys wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:03 pm 1. Stiffer penalties and regulations regarding roster churning.
-100% penalty to cut during same offseason
-bid limits of 25 players and/or 120% of salary cap.

2. Are DS penalties too stiff?

3. Change when contract years are assigned
-24 hours after winning bid or automatic 1 year given.

4. Fix issue with Thursday night games.
-Team A doesn’t set lineup for team until after the Thursday game to see if a player does well or not. If they do well they leave them in, if not then they still can make changes because lineup was never set.S
1. We need stiffer penalties. I like the idea of 100% during the offseason because teams should only be bidding on players they want. If you bid on a player and drop him in the same offseason you essentially guaranteed 100% of his salary at 1 year. I don't think that's unreasonable. I'd fine going with less but the penalty needs to be significant. We need to eliminate the roster churning teams with lots of cap space can do.

I am not in favor of a bid limit.

2. The DS is setup fine. No reason to change it.

3. I'm fine with 24 hours or 48 hours as others have said. Either way, it should be somewhat immediate instead of waiting until the end of the off season.

4. I think we should just remove the option to automatically carry over starting lineup from the previous week. This would solve the problem.

I think the way we do FA bidding works fine. I don't really like the idea of a timed auction because there are so many ways it could be manipulated and in the end if could come down to an Ebay style bidding war. I say we keep our bidding process the way it is currently setup.
As explained above. It is not a timed auction doing it through the league site. It's the exact same format we have here, nominate a guy, no bids after 48 hours and it's done. It can't be manipulated at all, it is literally the exact same system we use here without having to trawl 30 threads, with easier access and less manual processing for the commish.

User avatar
monkeybones
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3396
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 2:16 pm

Re: 2017 Rule Change Discussion - Pre-Vote

Postby monkeybones » Wed Jun 07, 2017 8:38 pm

OnABloodbuzz wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2017 3:08 pm
monkeybones wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2017 6:20 am
Dionosys wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:03 pm 1. Stiffer penalties and regulations regarding roster churning.
-100% penalty to cut during same offseason
-bid limits of 25 players and/or 120% of salary cap.

2. Are DS penalties too stiff?

3. Change when contract years are assigned
-24 hours after winning bid or automatic 1 year given.

4. Fix issue with Thursday night games.
-Team A doesn’t set lineup for team until after the Thursday game to see if a player does well or not. If they do well they leave them in, if not then they still can make changes because lineup was never set.S
1. We need stiffer penalties. I like the idea of 100% during the offseason because teams should only be bidding on players they want. If you bid on a player and drop him in the same offseason you essentially guaranteed 100% of his salary at 1 year. I don't think that's unreasonable. I'd fine going with less but the penalty needs to be significant. We need to eliminate the roster churning teams with lots of cap space can do.

I am not in favor of a bid limit.

2. The DS is setup fine. No reason to change it.

3. I'm fine with 24 hours or 48 hours as others have said. Either way, it should be somewhat immediate instead of waiting until the end of the off season.

4. I think we should just remove the option to automatically carry over starting lineup from the previous week. This would solve the problem.

I think the way we do FA bidding works fine. I don't really like the idea of a timed auction because there are so many ways it could be manipulated and in the end if could come down to an Ebay style bidding war. I say we keep our bidding process the way it is currently setup.
As explained above. It is not a timed auction doing it through the league site. It's the exact same format we have here, nominate a guy, no bids after 48 hours and it's done. It can't be manipulated at all, it is literally the exact same system we use here without having to trawl 30 threads, with easier access and less manual processing for the commish.
I just re-read what you wrote and I see what your saying. The first few times I read it I thought it was timed since the commish had to set a length but I get that's not how it would be setup.

Personally, I don't see a reason to change it but I would be upset if everyone else decides we should.

User avatar
monkeybones
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3396
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 2:16 pm

Re: 2017 Rule Change Discussion - Pre-Vote

Postby monkeybones » Wed Jun 14, 2017 6:18 am

What about a rule saying if you sign a player in the off season and cut him you cannot resign him and give him more years than the original contract?

I think this would eliminate the following scenario:

Team A has $90,000 in cap space and signs Player X to a $40,000 contract. Team A has no interest in keeping Player X at that price so he gives Player X a 1 year contract. At the end of the UFA period Team A cuts Player X and takes the (proposed) 40% penalty of $16,000. Team A now has $24,000 at the end of UFA and no other teams have that much since most of their money has been spent. Team A bids and wins Player X for $20,000 and assigns him 5 years.

In this scenario, Team A is taking a large penalty in the current year but he is getting a player worth $40,000 on the open market (when teams had money to spend) for $20,000 because he manipulated the UFA system. If we add the rule I'm proposing Team A would get the player for $20,000 but he would only be able to give him 1 year since that's what he gave him initially.

Thoughts?


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests