Re: 2018 Rule Proposals
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 4:21 pm
Catch and release penalty definitely increased to either 30 or 40%.
https://forum.dynastyleaguefootball.com/
https://forum.dynastyleaguefootball.com/viewtopic.php?t=162863
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.
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?OnABloodbuzz wrote: ↑Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:03 pm Bidding with years sounds ok, submit salary, years and contract type with each bid.
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)...monkeybones wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:11 amPotential points sounds like the best solutionTrueDawg wrote: ↑Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:41 pmThe 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.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.
I personally hate the idea of a lottery.
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.jimscafs25 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:14 pmWhat's stopping someone from doing that now?monkeybones wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 11:10 amI 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.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.
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).sprtsfrk208 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 4:31 pmjimscafs25 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.
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.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?
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).monkeybones wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 6:23 amNothing. 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.jimscafs25 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:14 pmWhat's stopping someone from doing that now?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.
I like the idea of the bottom 4 playing for #1.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.
AgreedTrueDawg wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 9:54 amIt 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).monkeybones wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 6:23 amNothing. 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.
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.Xulu Bak wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:55 pmI'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?OnABloodbuzz wrote: ↑Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:03 pm Bidding with years sounds ok, submit salary, years and contract type with each bid.
This is exactly why I'd be against this.TrueDawg wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 11:42 amThis 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.Xulu Bak wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:55 pmI'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?OnABloodbuzz wrote: ↑Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:03 pm Bidding with years sounds ok, submit salary, years and contract type with each bid.
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.TrueDawg wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 11:42 amThis 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.Xulu Bak wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:55 pmI'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?OnABloodbuzz wrote: ↑Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:03 pm Bidding with years sounds ok, submit salary, years and contract type with each bid.
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.