2018 Rule Proposals

Moderator: TrueDawg

sprtsfrk208
Starter
Starter
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 7:46 am
Location: Michigan

Re: 2018 Rule Proposals

Postby sprtsfrk208 » Thu Jun 14, 2018 4:21 pm

Catch and release penalty definitely increased to either 30 or 40%.

sprtsfrk208
Starter
Starter
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 7:46 am
Location: Michigan

Re: 2018 Rule Proposals

Postby sprtsfrk208 » Thu Jun 14, 2018 4:27 pm

TrueDawg wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:59 pm
TrueDawg wrote:
Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:10 am
Jim proposed:

We should expand the off season roster to 21.
Nobody's commented on this... thoughts?

I'd be okay with it. The current roster limit is 19 during the season and offseason, so this would give us 2 extra spots in the offseason.
Agreed

sprtsfrk208
Starter
Starter
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 7:46 am
Location: Michigan

Re: 2018 Rule Proposals

Postby sprtsfrk208 » Thu Jun 14, 2018 4:31 pm

jimscafs25 wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 5:08 pm
I don't think we touched on playoff seeding/format.

I think the easiest solution is just dropping the conferences. The 4 division winners qualify, then the 2 highest scoring teams of the remaining non qualifiers. 2 teams with the best record get byes.

Id even go as far as letting the #1 seed choose his opponent in the semis, but im willing to be bet that doesn't fly here.

Didnt see this. This method or potential points are fine with me. Both should give us the best 6 teams.

Xulu Bak
Captain
Captain
Posts: 997
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 8:08 pm

Re: 2018 Rule Proposals

Postby Xulu Bak » Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:55 pm

OnABloodbuzz wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:03 pm
Bidding with years sounds ok, submit salary, years and contract type with each bid.
I'm not opposed. It would certainly be more realistic, but how do you weigh contracts against one another? Does most guaranteed $ always win out? How does that impact bidding "increments?" Does that bidding style apply to FT, TT, and renegotiations as well?

I could get behind the idea, in theory, but am concerned that implementation could be too complicated (i.e., loopholes) and burdensome to be worth it.

Xulu Bak
Captain
Captain
Posts: 997
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 8:08 pm

Re: 2018 Rule Proposals

Postby Xulu Bak » Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:00 pm

monkeybones wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:11 am
TrueDawg wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:41 pm
Xulu Bak wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 7:37 am
That makes sense, although, based on the ridiculous level of tanking that occurred last year two thoughts...

1) Eliminate the draft entirely, dumping rookies into the FA pool

OR

2) Draft Lottery

Yes, either would be a pretty drastic deviation from the real thing (we've modeled as best we can for a lot of rule changes over the years); however, real teams have substantial financial interests that keep them from starting to tank 2-3 weeks into the season.
The tanking is why I've suggested in the past that we use POTENTIAL points (from the Power Ranking report)... we could use that for non-playoff seeding. That way you can't have good players and just not start them to get into the bracket for the #1 pick, then start playing them in an attempt to win the #1 pick. It's probably a truer measure of who has a worse roster/team and puts those teams in the bracket for the #1 pick.

I personally hate the idea of a lottery.
Potential points sounds like the best solution
Potential points addresses blatantly benching star players, but it also penalizes rebuilding teams, when some random on there bench goes off for a big game, and doesn't address teams blowing up their team week 2-3 (which seems like the bigger issue)...

Maybe have a "trade window" (start and end), instead of just a trade deadline?

User avatar
monkeybones
All Pro
All Pro
Posts: 1745
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 2:16 pm

Re: 2018 Rule Proposals

Postby monkeybones » Fri Jun 15, 2018 6:23 am

jimscafs25 wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:14 pm
monkeybones wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 11:10 am
jimscafs25 wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 9:04 am


Nfl teams have 90 roster spots in the offseason. Gives teams enough time to evaluate their teams and deal with injuries before season starts.
I see it as an opportunity to hoard players, cut them right before the deadline then resign the player for a cheaper rate because the total available dollars is reduced.
What's stopping someone from doing that now?
Nothing. But this adds two more roster spots to do it with. I just don't see why we need to have more off season roster spots.

User avatar
TrueDawg
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2908
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:45 am

Re: 2018 Rule Proposals

Postby TrueDawg » Fri Jun 15, 2018 9:31 am

sprtsfrk208 wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 4:31 pm
jimscafs25 wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 5:08 pm
I don't think we touched on playoff seeding/format.

I think the easiest solution is just dropping the conferences. The 4 division winners qualify, then the 2 highest scoring teams of the remaining non qualifiers. 2 teams with the best record get byes.

Id even go as far as letting the #1 seed choose his opponent in the semis, but im willing to be bet that doesn't fly here.

Didnt see this. This method or potential points are fine with me. Both should give us the best 6 teams.
Not an either-or situation here... the quoted post above is referring to playoff seeding for the championship bracket. The "potential points" proposal is for seeding of NON-playoff teams (teams competing strictly for draft order).

User avatar
TrueDawg
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2908
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:45 am

Re: 2018 Rule Proposals

Postby TrueDawg » Fri Jun 15, 2018 9:44 am

Xulu Bak wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:00 pm
Potential points addresses blatantly benching star players, but it also penalizes rebuilding teams, when some random on there bench goes off for a big game, and doesn't address teams blowing up their team week 2-3 (which seems like the bigger issue)...

Maybe have a "trade window" (start and end), instead of just a trade deadline?
How does it penalize rebuilding teams? I would suggest the team with the LOWEST potential points gets the #1 non-playoff seed. They still have to WIN to get the #1 pick.

I dunno... I just think the way we have it setup now, the team that's ACTUALLY the worst doesn't seem to have much shot at getting the #1 pick.

Using record for non-playoff seeding doesn't seem right since we're using points for the wild card... and using either record OR total points scored is subject to tanking. Potential points at least removes the tanking element.

User avatar
TrueDawg
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2908
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:45 am

Re: 2018 Rule Proposals

Postby TrueDawg » Fri Jun 15, 2018 9:50 am

I also think maybe we should look at adjusting the non-playoff brackets.

Right now the top SIX play for the #1 pick and the remaining four play for picks 7-10. Maybe it should be reversed... the top FOUR play for #1 and the remaining six play for 5-10. I dunno if the 5/6 seeds should have a shot at #1.

I might even be okay with the top TWO teams playing for #1... then you have two brackets of four playing for 3-6 and 7-10.

User avatar
TrueDawg
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2908
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:45 am

Re: 2018 Rule Proposals

Postby TrueDawg » Fri Jun 15, 2018 9:54 am

monkeybones wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 6:23 am
jimscafs25 wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:14 pm
monkeybones wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 11:10 am


I see it as an opportunity to hoard players, cut them right before the deadline then resign the player for a cheaper rate because the total available dollars is reduced.
What's stopping someone from doing that now?
Nothing. But this adds two more roster spots to do it with. I just don't see why we need to have more off season roster spots.
It would be easy enough to prevent that... we could implement a rule that if you catch & release a player, you're not permitted to bid on him again during UFA. That's how it is DURING the season... if you drop a player, you're not permitted to bid on him during the waiver process (although you can pick him up again if he clears waivers).

User avatar
monkeybones
All Pro
All Pro
Posts: 1745
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 2:16 pm

Re: 2018 Rule Proposals

Postby monkeybones » Fri Jun 15, 2018 11:10 am

TrueDawg wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 9:50 am
I also think maybe we should look at adjusting the non-playoff brackets.

Right now the top SIX play for the #1 pick and the remaining four play for picks 7-10. Maybe it should be reversed... the top FOUR play for #1 and the remaining six play for 5-10. I dunno if the 5/6 seeds should have a shot at #1.

I might even be okay with the top TWO teams playing for #1... then you have two brackets of four playing for 3-6 and 7-10.
I like the idea of the bottom 4 playing for #1.

User avatar
monkeybones
All Pro
All Pro
Posts: 1745
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 2:16 pm

Re: 2018 Rule Proposals

Postby monkeybones » Fri Jun 15, 2018 11:13 am

TrueDawg wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 9:54 am
monkeybones wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 6:23 am
jimscafs25 wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:14 pm


What's stopping someone from doing that now?
Nothing. But this adds two more roster spots to do it with. I just don't see why we need to have more off season roster spots.
It would be easy enough to prevent that... we could implement a rule that if you catch & release a player, you're not permitted to bid on him again during UFA. That's how it is DURING the season... if you drop a player, you're not permitted to bid on him during the waiver process (although you can pick him up again if he clears waivers).
Agreed

User avatar
TrueDawg
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2908
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:45 am

Re: 2018 Rule Proposals

Postby TrueDawg » Fri Jun 15, 2018 11:42 am

Xulu Bak wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:55 pm
OnABloodbuzz wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:03 pm
Bidding with years sounds ok, submit salary, years and contract type with each bid.
I'm not opposed. It would certainly be more realistic, but how do you weigh contracts against one another? Does most guaranteed $ always win out? How does that impact bidding "increments?" Does that bidding style apply to FT, TT, and renegotiations as well?
This has always been my problem with it... is it total contract amount (salary x years)? What about the contract structure (straight vs. bonus)? it would have to be very clear and easy to determine the winner. Cuz I'm not going to entertain arguments over who wins a player.

This also complicates the bidding process cuz now I gotta figure out what I have to "take the lead" in the bidding. I mean holy $hit, sometimes we can't even make legal bids with the system we currently have.

User avatar
SuperHawks
Role Player
Role Player
Posts: 327
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2015 9:28 pm

Re: 2018 Rule Proposals

Postby SuperHawks » Fri Jun 15, 2018 7:52 pm

TrueDawg wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 11:42 am
Xulu Bak wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:55 pm
OnABloodbuzz wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:03 pm
Bidding with years sounds ok, submit salary, years and contract type with each bid.
I'm not opposed. It would certainly be more realistic, but how do you weigh contracts against one another? Does most guaranteed $ always win out? How does that impact bidding "increments?" Does that bidding style apply to FT, TT, and renegotiations as well?
This has always been my problem with it... is it total contract amount (salary x years)? What about the contract structure (straight vs. bonus)? it would have to be very clear and easy to determine the winner. Cuz I'm not going to entertain arguments over who wins a player.

This also complicates the bidding process cuz now I gotta figure out what I have to "take the lead" in the bidding. I mean holy $hit, sometimes we can't even make legal bids with the system we currently have.
This is exactly why I'd be against this.

Seems like eliminating the BS bids in FA (ie. increasing the catch & release penalty and/or eliminating the ability to trade newly acquired players) would go a long way to this issue working itself out naturally.

OnABloodbuzz
Captain
Captain
Posts: 757
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: 2018 Rule Proposals

Postby OnABloodbuzz » Sun Jun 17, 2018 3:58 pm

TrueDawg wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 11:42 am
Xulu Bak wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:55 pm
OnABloodbuzz wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:03 pm
Bidding with years sounds ok, submit salary, years and contract type with each bid.
I'm not opposed. It would certainly be more realistic, but how do you weigh contracts against one another? Does most guaranteed $ always win out? How does that impact bidding "increments?" Does that bidding style apply to FT, TT, and renegotiations as well?
This has always been my problem with it... is it total contract amount (salary x years)? What about the contract structure (straight vs. bonus)? it would have to be very clear and easy to determine the winner. Cuz I'm not going to entertain arguments over who wins a player.

This also complicates the bidding process cuz now I gotta figure out what I have to "take the lead" in the bidding. I mean holy $hit, sometimes we can't even make legal bids with the system we currently have.
I would still determine the winner by the yearly amount as we do now, not over complicate things. This would make owners put their cards on the table straight away like you would in a contract negotiation, maybe force owners to think about their roster construction a bit more during FA. If nothing else it takes away a little bit of hassle as you won't have to wait on owners to come back and assign a contract.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest