KRFL - a football simulation league
Forums
KRFL :: Forums :: KRFL Forums :: 2016 League Business
Proposed Rule Addition: Incentive to Win - Salary Bonus << Previous thread | Next thread >>
Go to page       >>  
Moderators: noodles, MarkB
Author Post
Salem
Mon Mar 28 2016, 09:39a.m.
Registered Member #25
Joined: Sun Sep 07 2008, 10:07p.m.

Posts: 763
Current Rule:
There is no current rule.

Proposal:
(I am willing to tweak the numbers based on discussions)
12.4: Teams can increase their 83 million cap based on the amount of wins the previous season. This bonus would be added based on the following amount of wins:

0-3 wins: no bonus
4-6 wins: $2 million added to the cap ($85 million cap)
7-9 wins: $3 million added to the cap ($86 million cap)
10+ wins: $4 million added to the cap ($87 million cap)

Explanation:
It has become clear to me over the past few years that unless you are a very good or great team, you have no incentive to win in this league. We have a great number of teams that become sellers almost instantly when the season starts. As one owner put it last year, teams are trying to recoup their investments, trying to get anything (rookie pick, young player) for one of their highly rated players. An example - last year a 10 rated player got traded for a 4th round rookie pick. 4th round! It is not realistic and it is not enjoyable seeing these super teams develop over the course of the season.

I looked this up - over the last 3 years in the NFL - there have been 4 teams with 13 wins or more. In the last 3 years in KRFL - there have been 10 teams with 13 or more wins. This rule is to incentives teams to win games. There is also an incentive to not tank. If you decide to sell all of your best players, you end up not getting as much money for the draft the following year.

I am willing to tweak the numbers based on discussions....
Back to top
dgonser
Mon Mar 28 2016, 02:21p.m.
Guest

In all of the leagues I'm involved (except one) dumping, tanking, etc is my biggest complaint with simulation leagues.

So, I agree with Salem that this is an area that I'd like to see KRFL fix if only for the sake of other leagues copying our future success.

Here is an example of an anti-dumping rule for another league as I believe that the proposed rule above might headed in the right direction, but isn't enough. I made some quick edits, but the rounds involved and the selection locations would need to be tweaked for the size of KRFL. This proposal only mentions round 1, but other rounds could also be awarded.

Compensatory Draft Proposal

Goal:
To provide incentive for owners who aren’t playoff contenders to field a competitive team and resist the urge to “tank” a season.

Challenges:
To reward teams which field competitive teams week in and week out.
To not “pile on” to the worst teams making it even harder to rebuild.
To not penalize the top teams for succeeding.

The Proposal:
The current rules for resolving draft order are unchanged.
GM’s who are 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th in draft order at the end of the season are awarded a Draft Pick on March 1st (after the completion of the free agency period and before the rookie draft).
GM’s who are 1st through 8th and 13th through 16th are NOT awarded a Draft Pick.
The pick IS tradeable, but not until it is awarded on March 1st.
The Competitive Balance Draft occurs at the end of round 1 during the regularly scheduled minor league draft. For example, a GM who is 9th in draft order will have the 9th overall pick in the draft and then be awarded the 17th overall pick in the draft.

What It Does:
We reward teams who stay competitive by essentially granting an additional late 1st round pick to the mid-range teams who:
Didn’t make the playoffs
Didn’t tank their season to score a high draft pick
Works to incent owners to NOT “tank” their season if they can help it. Tanking a season would get you a high draft pick, but would also lose you a round 1+ pick. Thus should provide some competition and help to engage losing-record owners in the results of the season.
The teams that are truly bad, while not getting a Competitive Balance pick, still do get a top pick in the normal rookie draft, which still helps them rebuild as currently intended.
It’s not a HUGE swing against the other teams since we’re only talking 4 picks total here.
Easy to implement and manage.
Back to top
Salem
Mon Mar 28 2016, 02:36p.m.
Registered Member #25
Joined: Sun Sep 07 2008, 10:07p.m.

Posts: 763
This is interesting as well. You are right, this proposal doesn't go far enough. That is why I have two proposals - this and the free agent draft order. I think together they would make a difference.

My question with this proposal...this takes place after the draft? Who would be available and worth being taken?
Back to top
Hawks
Mon Mar 28 2016, 09:21p.m.
Guest

Both "incentive" threads are interesting proposals. I do agree that it is disappointing to see a team sell off quality players before the season reaches the midpoint. One year I was contacted about trading one of my best players after losing my first two games. Thanks for the proverbial "vote of confidence." So, it works both ways, there are teams that are circling the water looking for vulnerability, inquiring about players after a few early losses. Tanking is deliberate losing, which you seem to imply occurs when an owner trades some of their best players in the early season, weakening their team, in return for some future anticipated gain. I don't believe you are questioning other owner's play calling or in-game decisions. If the concern is teams giving up on their season too early, then how would you feel about eliminating in-season trading entirely?
Back to top
MarkB
Tue Mar 29 2016, 12:14a.m.
Mark Blume

Registered Member #81
Joined: Mon Oct 14 2013, 08:54a.m.

Posts: 1980
I don't think increasing the salary cap would incentivize a team from dumping salary.

Remember, our free agent draft is different. Is is more like an "auction" as players salaries are set by what round you take the player in not what the game decides for his salary. So I am not sure if Darrell's proposal would work.

I suggested a salary floor in the other thread.

I don't think we should eliminate in season trading entirely, but we could move the final deadline for trades from week #8 of the season to something earlier in the season like week #4. I actually like that better than my salary floor idea.
Back to top
Salem
Tue Mar 29 2016, 11:09a.m.
Registered Member #25
Joined: Sun Sep 07 2008, 10:07p.m.

Posts: 763
Changing the trade deadline from week 4 to week 8 doesn't really address the problem I am trying to solve here. There is no incentive for teams to keep their players unless it looks like they can win it all. Changing the deadline might actually make more teams sellers, not less, which would make the problem worse.
Back to top
noodles
Wed Mar 30 2016, 01:40a.m.
Webmaster

Registered Member #1
Joined: Mon Feb 18 2008, 02:12a.m.

Posts: 1268
Both of Salem's proposals re: incentives for winning are interesting but I'm not entirely convinced we have a serious enough problem for which we need to find a solution. I did a quick look at last year's in-season transactions and didn't see much evidence for wholesale tanking through trades. My suggestion would be to keep the system we have but monitor it closely for another year to decide whether it is something that really needs addressing.

Of the two ideas, I'm opposed to the Salary Bonus idea and sympathetic to the Free Agent Draft Order change. Rewarding winning teams with more money just seems to be structurally opposed to my preference for more league parity. A reverse order FA Draft (excluding the playoff teams) has some merit. The same concept could be adapted to our system by expanding the draft order lottery to include more if not all non-playoff teams (it could even be weighted similarly to Salem's salary bonus proposal - 0-3 wins = 1 ticket, 4-6 wins = 2 tickets, etc.).

The simplest fix to the problem (that I'm not sure is a problem) would be to simply disallow in-season trading altogether. You make your roster and are stuck with it after a post draft trading period.
Back to top
Salem
Wed Mar 30 2016, 02:26p.m.
Registered Member #25
Joined: Sun Sep 07 2008, 10:07p.m.

Posts: 763
I am going to disagree with the assessment of in-season trades. A bottom 4 team traded the best running back in the league (Jamaal Charles) for a 2nd round rookie pick, an 8 rated WR and an 8 rated CB. They ended with 4 wins and now have a chance for the top pick in both drafts.

As mentioned before, a 10 rated player got traded for a 4th round rookie pick.

A DL rated 7 got a 6th round rookie pick and a player who ended up rating as a 5 (meaning he will probably be released).

Two 8 rated players got a traded for a 4th round rookie pick and a guy who ended up being a 7 rated player.

Again, these teams have no incentive or reason to keep these players, so they end up giving them away for big discounts, thus creating super teams. I don't like it.
Back to top
mark
Wed Mar 30 2016, 03:26p.m.
Registered Member #45
Joined: Wed May 05 2010, 11:29p.m.

Posts: 826
I think rather than making some complicated ratio system or what ever, I would rather discontinue in season trading.
And if we had a functioning draft committee, that might help as well.

[ Edited Wed Mar 30 2016, 03:29p.m. ]
Back to top
PapaBear53
Wed Mar 30 2016, 08:40p.m.
Guest

I would violently oppose this idea. All teams should be on a level field. I understand wanting to reward teams for winning, but giving my 15-1 team from a year ago 4 million in cap room more than Bay City or Inverness who finished 3-13 just isn't right. I would however support eliminating in season trading, or at least cut back the trade deadline to much earlier in the season, such as week 3 or 4.
Back to top
Go to page       >>   

Jump:     Back to top

Syndicate this thread: rss 0.92 Syndicate this thread: rss 2.0 Syndicate this thread: RDF
Powered by e107 Forum System