KRFL - a football simulation league
Forums
KRFL :: Forums :: KRFL Forums :: General League Discussions
ANTI-DUMPING AND MONOPOLY COMPREHENSIVE PACKAGE << Previous thread | Next thread >>
Go to page   <<        >>  
Moderators: noodles, MarkB
Author Post
Steelers
Thu Feb 06 2020, 07:12p.m.
Registered Member #100
Joined: Sat Jan 25 2020, 07:43p.m.

Posts: 166
MarkB wrote ...

Over the past ten seasons there have been six different KRFL champions.

Over the past eight seasons (sorry, I don't have the draft files before that, and excluding the three seasons of one poorly managed team that went winless three seasons in a row):
One team has been one of the four worst teams is four times. However, that same team made the playoffs twice during this period of time.
Three teams have been one of the four worst teams three times. One of those teams made the playoffs three times during this period and another team made the playoffs twice during this period.
Six teams have been one of the four worst teams twice during this eight year period. One team made the playoffs four times, and another team three times during this period. Only one of the six teams never made the playoffs in those eight seasons.

So why is this considered "monopolies at the top and bottom the league"?



looking at the wall of champions:

The same team won 3 of the first 4 championships.
The same team won 4 out of the next 5 championships.
The same team won 2 out of the next 4 championshios.
The same team won 2 out of the last 5 championships.

That is just a review of the top of the standings.

Again, even though the outcomes support my theory, focusing on outcomes misses the point.
The rules should provide equal opportunity. You can never insure equal outcomes.

The right to franchise Tom Brady over the last 10 years is a rule that promotes a monopoly over QB talent.

The franchise tag works in the same direction.

Restricting trading also reduces access to talent, etc.

Back to top
BlackHillsChris
Thu Feb 06 2020, 08:01p.m.
Guest

There is so much information here, I am on overload. This way that way and no way. Is there away that will even come close to garner the support.
I agree with the Hitmen Owner about the ups and downs and good ownership. I, as a former league commissioner have seen the ebb and flow that a league has. You can not legislate parity. You can however legislate fairness along with a little help for the bottom teams. Also, with a new owner that takes over a team.
This league does have a distinct line of good and bad. I can use my Team as an example. I had to rebuild my Oline and had a QB for 1 year. The team finished high and then lost out on the lottery. There was no real QB available for last season and possibly this season. I have lost all my WR and a monster In Barrett that was signed but lost.
I will use my team I have lost a lot and really have not gotten much better and I expect to be worse this year. I know that we all do the same thing. However, I am in a hole that given the current rules might not help me. So, the big thing is!!! Trading and blowing it up to get the picks. So it’s a viscous circle hard to get of but not impossible.
Back to top
Jimbo0121712000
Thu Feb 06 2020, 09:35p.m.
Registered Member #21
Joined: Fri Sep 05 2008, 01:10a.m.

Posts: 412
I think the league doesn't need major changes as it is already unique. I would agree with the weighted lottery. I am in another league that does this and it seems to have an effect on teams tanking and adds a little excitement when the drawing happens. I also think the trading deadline should be moved back to week 8 as 4 weeks isn't enough time to have a full measure on your team. I could go either way on the 88 mill or 93 mill in season cap. Just my 2 cents.

[ Edited Thu Feb 06 2020, 09:36p.m. ]
Back to top
mark
Fri Feb 07 2020, 10:00a.m.
Registered Member #45
Joined: Wed May 05 2010, 11:29p.m.

Posts: 826
I’m with Salem. I don’t think we need a lot of change. I want to keep in season at 88 mil. I would venture to say Penn State may have lost if we were at 93 mil. ? I like not owning your own draft pick. That could help the league. I also would like to keep rookie picks one more year before having to sign them. ?
Back to top
MarkB
Fri Feb 07 2020, 10:59a.m.
Mark Blume

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

Posts: 1980
Instead of the current "rescue plan" proposal, which I feel encourages teams to lose games instead of win games, I would propose the following, the purpose of which is to encourage teams to attempt build playoff contending teams and encourage teams to try to win games, but still giving the four teams with the worst records the best chance at the top draft picks:

Lottery for the #1 pick:
>Four teams with the worst record each have a 15% chance of the #1 pick. So 60% total.
> The four Wild Card teams and any team who missed making the playoffs by one game or less each have up to a 4% chance of gaining the #1 pick. There is up to 40% total chances that can be earned. If there are more than ten such teams, each team's chances are reduced proportionately. If there are fewer than ten such teams, then the chances for the four teams with the worst records increases proportionately.

Then the remaining of the four teams with the worst record who did not get the #1 pick have their own lottery for picks #2-#4 or #2-#5 as they do now.
Back to top
Steelers
Fri Feb 07 2020, 12:31p.m.
Registered Member #100
Joined: Sat Jan 25 2020, 07:43p.m.

Posts: 166
Steelers wrote ...

After reviewing all the comments as of 11:14 am central time on Friday 2/7/20 I propose the following package:

1. Lottery Playoff for 12 non playoff teams will follow similar process as Regular Playoff:

- Round 1: 4 teams with best records get first round byes. Remaining 8 teams are seeded 1-8 based on winning percentage and play first round games.. ( 1-8, 2-7,3-6, 4-5)
-Round 2: 8 remaining teams seeded 1-8 based on winning percentages and play
-Round 3: 4 remaining teams seeded 1-4 based on winning percentages and play
-Round 4: 2 remaining teams play each other

Draft Order for First 12 positions:

1. Lottery Playoff Champ
2. Round 4 Loser
3-4: Round 3 Losers
5-8: Round 2 Losers
9-12:Round 1 Losers

Use existing tie breaker rules, except teams with better winning percentages gets higher picks.


2. Trade Changes:

- trading allowed from week 1 through week 8
- in season trading has salary cap of 93M and salary floor of 73M


3. Team Rescue Plan

-any team which finishes in the bottom 4 of the league ( based on winning percentage ) for 2 consecutive seasons may eliminate any two veteran contacts without penalty and get a supplemental first round draft pick ( pick 25 ) in year 3. A team may not use the same season to count for more than one rescue plan. i.e... if you use seasons 2020 and 2021 to qualify, then you can not use 2021 and 2022 to qualify.


Reasoning:

1. The package creates incentives to win.
2. The package allows increased trading which allows teams to rebuild.
3. The package includes a safety net which allows teams who fall on hard times to get back on their feet.
4. The package is balanced and the various elements counter balance each other.



Back to top
Steelers
Fri Feb 07 2020, 12:33p.m.
Registered Member #100
Joined: Sat Jan 25 2020, 07:43p.m.

Posts: 166
MarkB wrote ...

Instead of the current "rescue plan" proposal, which I feel encourages teams to lose games instead of win games, I would propose the following, the purpose of which is to encourage teams to attempt build playoff contending teams and encourage teams to try to win games, but still giving the four teams with the worst records the best chance at the top draft picks:

Lottery for the #1 pick:
>Four teams with the worst record each have a 15% chance of the #1 pick. So 60% total.
> The four Wild Card teams and any team who missed making the playoffs by one game or less each have up to a 4% chance of gaining the #1 pick. There is up to 40% total chances that can be earned. If there are more than ten such teams, each team's chances are reduced proportionately. If there are fewer than ten such teams, then the chances for the four teams with the worst records increases proportionately.

Then the remaining of the four teams with the worst record who did not get the #1 pick have their own lottery for picks #2-#4 or #2-#5 as they do now.



I think you should earn your way on the field instead of using ping pong balls.
Back to top
mark
Fri Feb 07 2020, 01:08p.m.
Registered Member #45
Joined: Wed May 05 2010, 11:29p.m.

Posts: 826
So we are playing extra games with this package?
Back to top
Steelers
Fri Feb 07 2020, 02:53p.m.
Registered Member #100
Joined: Sat Jan 25 2020, 07:43p.m.

Posts: 166
Not any more than you would play if you were a playoff team.
Back to top
noodles
Sat Feb 08 2020, 03:40a.m.
Webmaster

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

Posts: 1268
Jim, this new proposal is pretty much the same as the old one save a couple tweaks. Those tweaks aren't enough to overcome my previous objections. I do appreciate the intentions of it but just don't agree with its current form.

MarkB, both you and Cliff have good points in responding to my Crappy Team Rescue Plan. I'll reconsider it.

Cliff, while it is true that you can't legislate guaranteed parity, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be a goal. After all, the NFL, which you referred to extensively for examples, is explicit in aiming for that goal (through the draft, supplemental picks, easier schedules for bad teams, etc.). Realize that as you argue for an increased in-season salary cap and unfettered trading (a set of rules that have served you well historically), that such a system is more akin to the old NHL than the current NFL. I have lots more to say on this subject, including examining Cleveland Mark's recognition that because we use last season's stats, draft picks of players whose future performance is unknown makes those draft picks less valuable in a sim league than they are in the real world. But I'll save that for another time.

Super Bowl Champ Jimbo, I agree that we have a good league and that we don't need any major rules overhaul. I like to think that my approach is to tinker around the edges of our existing system to make things more competitive. My proposals so far have been simple - changing our draft order procedure to discourage tanking (a concern raised first by Salem and reiterated by myself and Jim) and a rescue plan for crappy teams that addresses Chris' concerns). I'm not committed to either of those ideas yet, even though I think they have merit, but my point is that either or both are pretty simple to adopt and limited in their effect.

One last thing. Jim is critical of the franchise rule because it tends to lock up exceptional players and make them unavailable to other teams. He calls that "monopolistic." I don't disagree. What he doesn't know since he wasn't around during that discussion when there was an overwhelming consensus for the franchise option is that we added some serious limitations to the franchise rule before we adopted it to address those concerns. Those limitations, plus the elimination of the $10m salary ceiling mitigate against those "monopolistic" possibilities. Still, I could live without the franchise rule but doubt anyone else shares that thought.
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