[DEV] ISFL Forums
*Why being nice is ruining league parity - Printable Version

+- [DEV] ISFL Forums (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Community (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Media (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=37)
+---- Forum: Graded Articles (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=38)
+---- Thread: *Why being nice is ruining league parity (/showthread.php?tid=17676)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

*Why being nice is ruining league parity - TomHanks - 01-12-2020

I think one thing that doesn’t get spoken about enough in these talks is the use of bonuses. Someone on a $2 million contract isn’t necessarily making only $2 million. Part of the reason we liked clearing up more cap space is so that we can pay our guys while we have cap space available. Contract mins are going up for our team quickly, so getting money to players who need it now is a lot better for us. Taking a lower contract means that we have more flexibility with that money so we can make sure we get it to people who need it for training and equipment. Plus like swag said, we want a team where we have actives in every position, we’re competitive now because of that, and the team is happier when we’re competitive. If someone is demanded $9 million we can’t be as competitive, so that doesn’t get asked for often. If it did, we couldn’t afford it and we’d have to let them walk. It isn’t “being nice”. It’s making the money more flexible and the team more competitive, things that are good for both the team and the player.

Also the league has a really solid level of parity atm so claiming anything is “ruining league parity” right now is silly.

*Why being nice is ruining league parity - run_CMC - 01-12-2020

(01-12-2020, 03:02 PM)CDub2 Wrote:Let's get greedy people.
You called? hehehe

(Actually, don't get greedy people. Leave more money for me)

(01-12-2020, 05:05 PM)Raven Wrote:I do my tweets

you use twitter??? i had no idea

*Why being nice is ruining league parity - run_CMC - 01-12-2020

(01-12-2020, 06:10 PM)IsaStarcrossed Wrote:I love that you call out specific people when more than 75%+ of the league takes minimum or within 1m of minimum contracts. 20 of 20 of Colorado's.
Am I misreading this? Because I'm reading it as all of colorado's players are on a minimum contract, and i'm definitely not on a minimum contract

*Why being nice is ruining league parity - shadyshoelace - 01-12-2020

(01-12-2020, 03:10 PM)IsaStarcrossed Wrote:I love that you call out specific people when more than 75%+ of the league takes minimum or within 1m of minimum contracts. 20 of 20 of Colorado's.

(01-12-2020, 09:02 PM)run_CMC Wrote:Am I misreading this? Because I'm reading it as all of colorado's players are on a minimum contract, and i'm definitely not on a minimum contract

Yes, you are misreading this

*Why being nice is ruining league parity - Vorshayla - 01-12-2020

As a new guy coming into this thing, tying contract ranges to total TPE might be a thing to make teams more competitive. So team A could have a superstar QB with over 1000 TPE making 10 million a year, but then shitty WR's with like 200 TPE making 2 mill a year or whatever the case. It forces GM's to be strategic with their cap and what type of team they want to build. If we're mimicking RL then rookie contracts are piss poor for 3-5 years with team control. Then either arbitration or FA hits so teams will want to sign their active rookies to a longer term deal based on how much TPE they've earned or project to earn.

There's an inherent risk with signing that big money FA because they could be inactive or regress after their prime years and you'll be eating cap space for a non-active player but that's part of the fun for a GM I would think.

It keeps teams competitive with each other and I think it might go a long way to keeping more people active in the league. I mean if one team is running away with the championship every year and I'm not on that team why would I bother continuing to be active? I dunno, just my 2 cents, maybe i'm off base but I think tying contact amounts to total TPE might be a start

Or another option is you make TPE training cost more as you gain more TPE. Somehow find a way to make money in this league valuable so people want more money. More than they can earn by writing media or twitter or whatever the case.

I'm a huge MMO player, and I view TPE / Money as the same DKP (Dragon Kill Points) for those of you familiar with MMOs. At the end of the day, you're trying to make it as close to a zero sum game as possible. So while rookies can buy 5 TPE for 1 million a week, maybe 10 year vets need to pay 7 million a week for that same training type deal. Those vets have had 10 years to make money and they're considered in their prime and should be the highest players in the league.

It's all relative at the end of the day but stuff to help with parity for sure

*Why being nice is ruining league parity - run_CMC - 01-12-2020

(01-13-2020, 12:13 AM)shadyshoelace Wrote:Yes, you are misreading this
My first season was $6,000,000, my other 2 are $4,000,000 (with conditional player options but we’ll ignore those for now). My TPE only became the next tier (above 600) fairly recently I think? Either way, that’s an average of 4.6m a season, which even using the 600+ min of 3m, is 1.6m over per season, not 1m.

Edit: I get that, for the coming season, I’m technically only 1m above. But, surely that’s kinda misleading when the first season I played was 3m over

*Why being nice is ruining league parity - manicmav36 - 01-13-2020

I hate players using a PO to opt out of a contract and resign to a long term conteact at a lower rate before their required min pay jumps. You would never see Aaron Rodgers cancelling his $20mil a year contract to take the league min for veterans at $915,000 for 3 years. Sorry, it will never happen. If it were up to me, a PO would only be exercisable if you were leaving the team. Luckily, it's not.

*Why being nice is ruining league parity - manicmav36 - 01-13-2020

(01-12-2020, 06:17 PM)JKortesi81 Wrote:Anyone who's a regular that has heard a Joe K NSFL Podcast has absolutely heard me bitch about position switches that aren't realistic. For instance, there's zero way a Kicker or a DE should become a QB. LB to S? Sure. QB to WR? Sure.

We need realism in that sense.

We have a ton of rookies incoming though, and not a ton of space for all of them.

Expansion (get used to hearing that word, it's coming) is going to help a bit, but we need to get a set list of rules for "okay" position changes.

I understand the realism argument, but we also need to take into consideration a users level of enjoyment. Is someone makes an OL and hates it, why shouldn't they be allowed to move to WR? It's not hurting anyone. Besides, where do we draw the line on realism? We have multiple FS playing full-time LB right now. You'll never see that in the NFL. Do we add season/career ending injuries, suspensions, and player lockouts? Nobody enjoys those things but they all happen, the first two frequently.

*Why being nice is ruining league parity - ADwyer87 - 01-13-2020

OP: "bex ruined everything by opting out and signing a cheaper contract"

Me, who has never signed for above league min, and has often held back doing point tasks to fit into lower minimum brackets:

[Image: 3870n9.jpg]

*Why being nice is ruining league parity - bex - 01-13-2020

(01-13-2020, 12:31 AM)ADwyer87 Wrote:OP: "bex ruined everything by opting out and signing a cheaper contract"

Me, who has never signed for above league min, and has often held back doing point tasks to fit into lower minimum brackets:

[Image: 3870n9.jpg]


You know you're special when the ded commish comes to your aid lmao