I updated the proposal to answer Marks ?s raised on 1.30 at 5:26 pm.
----------------------- Re: #2. Mid 8 Playoff: The 4 wildcard losers and 4 remaining nonplayoff teams play a tournament using the same rules as the playoffs to determine picks 9-16*. At that point the Wild Card teams will have played 17 games while the other four teams have played 16 games. So the Wild Card teams will be at a disadvantage vs. the others insofar as player's Season Usage limitations. How will that be handled?
Gentlemen, I'm glad to see this issue reintroduced for discussion. As you know, I'm strongly in favor of adding more anti-tanking rules. I'm also in favor of anything that works towards parity and competitive balance. Cliff's objections acknowledged, I think there is a building consensus to address these issues. Unfortunately, I have some problems with the ideas floated thus far.
Increasing the in-season salary cap to $93m and setting a floor at $73m. The salary cap floor idea has merit. The increase is something I adamantly/insistently/totally oppose. Here's why: The reduction from $93m to $88m handily passed a league vote and is helping to achieve the goals I mentioned above. By itself, that rule change wasn't enough but it is a first step and has been a success. Remember, it takes two participants to tank: a losing team and a winning team willing to trade picks/assets. The proposed $5m increase simply gives more money to the winning team to spend on buying an improved roster mid-season and the losing team a bigger incentive to lose even more. The increase to $93m would actually be a pro-tanking measure unlikely to be offset by the salary floor.
Post Season Losers Bracket Tournament. Fatigue/usage issues aside, I doubt there is much desire for losing players to keep a losing season going by making them play in a post-season tournament for losers. I think we could achieve a similar result with the weighted lottery idea I floated in the related thread. I'll rework that idea and post it tomorrow for comments.
No in-season trading. I fully support this under the idea that you dance with who brung you. Because I suspect that few will agree, the question is do we get rid of the week 4 trading deadline and return to week 8? I say no. 4 weeks was part of our previous anti-tanking effort and it seems to be working so why monkey with it?
Letting the Bottom Four Losing Teams Drop Bad Contracts. At first I liked this idea but then I realized it was actually an incentive to tank. Example: I'm 4-9 going into week 14 and I have a winnable game. There are five other teams hovering around the 2-5 win mark. I've got this 6 rated guard who is costing me $11m a year with salary increases coming for the next two years of his contract. Losing out seems like a pretty good idea. I still think this concept has possibilities and will try to add my own wrinkle to it when I update my proposal.
Draft picks 1-12: No tournament for non-playoff teams. Rank non-playoff teams by salary as of the end of the trading deadline from highest to lowest. Team with the highest salary gets #1 pick, team with the lowest salary gets #12 pick, Ties broken under existing rules.
Draft picks 13-24 -Playoff teams with picks determined under existing rules.
------ Eliminate trading - I am 100% against it. Bottom 4 salary dump - I am 100% against it. Minimum Salary - Perhaps my proposal eliminates that need, although I like the idea if we do not make any other rule changes.
Gentlemen, I'm glad to see this issue reintroduced for discussion. As you know, I'm strongly in favor of adding more anti-tanking rules. I'm also in favor of anything that works towards parity and competitive balance. Cliff's objections acknowledged, I think there is a building consensus to address these issues. Unfortunately, I have some problems with the ideas floated thus far.
Increasing the in-season salary cap to $98m and setting a floor at $73m. The salary cap floor idea has merit. The increase is something I adamantly/insistently/totally oppose. Here's why: The reduction from $98m to $93m handily passed a league vote and is helping to achieve the goals I mentioned above. By itself, that rule change wasn't enough but it is a first step and has been a success. Remember, it takes two participants to tank: a losing team and a winning team willing to trade picks/assets. The proposed $5m increase simply gives more money to the winning team to spend on buying an improved roster mid-season and the losing team a bigger incentive to lose even more. The increase to $98m would actually be a pro-tanking measure unlikely to be offset by the salary floor.
Post Season Losers Bracket Tournament. Fatigue/usage issues aside, I doubt there is much desire for losing players to keep a losing season going by making them play in a post-season tournament for losers. I think we could achieve a similar result with the weighted lottery idea I floated in the related thread. I'll rework that idea and post it tomorrow for comments.
No in-season trading. I fully support this under the idea that you dance with who brung you. Because I suspect that few will agree, the question is do we get rid of the week 4 trading deadline and return to week 8? I say no. 4 weeks was part of our previous anti-tanking effort and it seems to be working so why monkey with it?
Letting the Bottom Four Losing Teams Drop Bad Contracts. At first I liked this idea but then I realized it was actually an incentive to tank. Example: I'm 4-9 going into week 14 and I have a winnable game. There are five other teams hovering around the 2-5 win mark. I've got this 6 rated guard who is costing me $11m a year with salary increases coming for the next two years of his contract. Losing out seems like a pretty good idea. I still think this concept has possibilities and will try to add my own wrinkle to it when I update my proposal.
Response:
As always, I respect all owners in the league. Any discussion of ideas may require disagreeing with an idea but not disrespecting the person making it. So, I hope my comments are taken in that context.
1. Interesting this objection likes a floor but no expanded cap. I fail to see if the proposal is adopted as a whole, there is more incentive to tank. Rather, the existing league rules give teams more incentives to lose.
2. Again, if you need to win to secure better draft picks and FAs then you are less likely to tank. The objection presupposes existing rules without the adoption of the entire proposal. You need to remember the proposal has to be looked at as a whole because it addresses anti-tanking and anti-monopoly problems in existing rules. Attempts to look at isolated elements of the proposal misses the point that if both problems are not addressed together, you will never achieve the goal of a rulebook which allows all franchises a fair shot at winning.
3. No In Season Trading is completely monopolistic. Teams need the freedom to improve their teams especially given NFL injuries etc. Do not handcuff teams to failure they did not cause.
4. Allowing the bottom 4 teams to eliminate 2 contracts without penalty counterbalances the existing rules which allow successful teams to franchise players,etc. The rule works in a similar way that corporate bankruptcies work. A fresh start allows teams to compete, not tank.
5. The 2/3 rule for passage seems to be raised whenever someone objects to a particular aspect of the proposal. Again, the proposal not only aims to reduce tanking incentives but also monopolistic incentives baked into current rules. If the league does not take steps to improve the rulebook in a balanced way, franchises will have less ability to improve their existing situation.
6. I look forward to the "weighted lottery idea" for non playoff teams. Again, if you can achieve the same result using different procedures and increase the chances of getting the 2/3 vote, then I would like it.
Draft picks 1-12: No tournament for non-playoff teams. Rank non-playoff teams by salary as of the end of the trading deadline from highest to lowest. Team with the highest salary gets #1 pick, team with the lowest salary gets #12 pick, Ties broken under existing rules.
Draft picks 13-24 -Playoff teams with picks determined under existing rules.
Response:
Again, the myopic focus on anti-dumping ignores the proposal is also addressing monopolistic incentives in the rules. Ranking non-playoffs by salary reduces the incentive to obtain players who are more valuable than their salary.
------ Eliminate trading - I am 100% against it. Bottom 4 salary dump - I am 100% against it. Minimum Salary - Perhaps my proposal eliminates that need, although I like the idea if we do not make any other rule changes.
Response:
I am glad you are in favor of increased freedom to trade. The Bottom 4 salary dump is the counterbalance to requiring teams to win as often as possible. Not sure why you oppose "any other rule changes". Each proposed rule change should be judged on its merits, not simply opposed solely because it is a "rule change".
