Make Money Mean Something

[dropbear]

If you want a change, you may need to explore options where contract money and other money are separate.  Have contract money be good for certain purchases that can't be bought with media money.

This was something I pitched on Discord as well. I think it is a much easier solution than the one I've posted, but it wasn't met with as much enthusiasm.

It means there's no extra media workload, no price hike, just a direct correlation to the amount you're paid by your team and the bonus TPE available to you.

Thoughts on this instead @timeconsumer? If regression is going to be an issue, maybe just have contract TPE cut into current available TPE. So right now I can buy 12 TPE in hands through equipment, but let's say we make it 8 through equipment and 4 through contract money. No change to regression...

[timeconsumer]

This was something I pitched on Discord as well. I think it is a much easier solution than the one I've posted, but it wasn't met with as much enthusiasm.

It means there's no extra media workload, no price hike, just a direct correlation to the amount you're paid by your team and the bonus TPE available to you.

Thoughts on this instead @timeconsumer? If regression is going to be an issue, maybe just have contract TPE cut into current available TPE. So right now I can buy 12 TPE in hands through equipment, but let's say we make it 8 through equipment and 4 through contract money. No change to regression...

If it keeps the totals the same it won't affect regression so that is fine I guess. But there are a lot of other factors involved here that still complicate a big switch like this. For one we need to consider what happens when a player is no longer eligible to purchase equipment anyway because they are capped in all relevant stats (read: me). How would the contract TPE be balanced then?

And further, would the cost for said reduced effect equipment be scaled or still priced the same for the reduced benefit?

Lastly, how exactly is this different than using money for TPE? Seems like the same thing just dressed up a little differently.

Another thing we need to consider that is far more subtle but I think one of the most potentially damaging parts about contract TPE is the psychological effects of a player's earnings and worth being tied to something that he doesn't necessarily have full control over. As it stands right now in this league my earnings are 100% determined by my actions, my efforts, and my skills. What happens when you take part of that away from someone? If my newly created draftee is not able to secure a big contract right out the gate and is forced to settle for a $4m per season offer while someone else drafted by a team with far more cap space can secure double that, now I am suddenly not on the same level as someone else in terms of TPE earnings. If you know anything about me you know that is something that does not sit right with me, I want to be the best and I don't settle for second place. But I had no control over who drafted me.

Sure I could hold out to be traded to someone with more cap space but if the process takes too long I risk losing TPE because I'm not under contract and cannot earn. And what if I want to make a position that doesn't demand a high contract? I have to accept that I simply cannot be as good as others because I wanted to play something that doesn't demand top dollar, like tight end or safety. Now I might be an exception to the rule, but I think you could stand to lose players over something like this. I left the EFL because I was no longer able to compete as a top earner with guys who were donating the $15 every season due to falling on some hard times IRL and not having that kind of disposable income. That league lost me over it, do we want to risk something like that with top earning dudes?

[dropbear]

@timeconsumer yeah you bring up some really valid points. Having a TPE earning potential disparity, especially one that players aren't in control of to a large extent, will likely cause more issues than it solves.

It's a tough problem. Contracts, free agency, extensions etc. are such a big part of the real NFL and honestly offseason is almost equally as fun to me as the actual games, and I know a lot of people enjoy the numbers side too. At the moment, the contract and free agency part of the league feels very lacklustre.

But coming up with a good solution, if any solution at all, obviously won't be easy.

Recapping, we need to address the problem while ensuring:

• New users aren't disadvantaged
• The TPE-rich don't simply get richer
• No one is penalised for selecting an unglamorous position
• People aren't driven out of the league due to contract disputes

:hmm: :hmm:

[timeconsumer]

@`BenLongshaw`

What we need to decide is the breakeven point of media and what amount of money per season becomes too much for a player to earn on their own? Once we decide that amount we can build a system around it fairly easily.

So like I stated above right now we stand at about $14m for a player who does twitter. So if that is too little cost, what amount is better? $16m/season? $20m/season?

[nunccoepi]

There is a certain amount of disparity in real life football too. You don't necessarily get drafted by the team you want, or the one that can help you develop faster through better coaching etc. Also, players in the NFL know that they are going to get paid based upon their position standards and can't really earn more than that. So they have to be the best they can relative to others in their position. So, I'm not sure that disparity is all that bad, necessarily, but if we want to avoid it, it may be less true to life.

Also, a big incentive for people taking minimum contracts is the ability to earn money in other places. Money is just so available that it's inflated the system, essentially. So decreasing the opportunity (or simply the payout) for earning money in other places might raise the value of contract money.

[37thchamber]

This is a really interesting idea to me I haven’t heard before. Would you mind elaborating a little more? Concerning tiered equipment prices

I mentioned it here, in relation to contract tiers.
Didn't make a full proposal, because there are obvious flaws to work out, but the gist of it is there.

If you want a change, you may need to explore options where contract money and other money are separate.  Have contract money be good for certain purchases that can't be bought with media money.  If the league won't force higher contracts through TPE gains, we need to make the players want larger contracts.

I also suggested this, funnily enough. IIRC I suggested making it so contract money could only be used for weekly training or something like that, considering the logic behind equipment cost per TPE was that only the properly active people with the cash to spare would buy pro stuff anyway.

I'm sure that was where I heard the "too much work" reply first, actually. Though I'm pretty sure I could devise a system that gets around that without complicating things too much.

[timeconsumer]

Also one last point: a lot of people are on low or minimum contracts on many teams. However this is not because these people are making up for the money loss elsewhere. A large portion of people simply take lower deals and don't buy any equipment and/or buy cheap training with their very small bank account.

Robert Phelps: Wasn't on a minimum contract for the last few years, but it was cheap. He didn't buy any equipment. He bought pro training for awhile, and eventually budget training. Then he stopped buying training. Now he's using twitter to offset some of that. Phelps never pursued free agency and never cared what we wanted to pay him because he didn't want to play anywhere else. He loves it here, no matter what we change with contracts or costs, he would still take a low contract.

Gregor Clegane: Has been a minimum contract forever. Doesn't write a ton, but he does sometimes. He hasn't bought equipment in forever because he doesn't have money and doesn't really care. He accepts minimum contracts no matter what we change because he loves it here and doesn't want to be anywhere else.

George Wright Jr.: Before he went inactive was on a very low contract. Couldn't afford anything beyond basic training because he didn't do media. Would take whatever we offered him and wouldn't pursue free agency because he loved it here.

Marc Spector: Bought maybe 2 pieces of equipment in his entire career. Takes minimum contracts and only does media occasionally. Wouldn't leave for more money because he loves it here.

I can keep going, but you get the idea.

So we also have to keep in mind that in some cases simply increasing the costs of certain equipment or adding TPE to contracts will still only affect a certain kind of player. Guys like the ones I mentioned above likely won't care either way no matter what and will still take cheap deals to stay on the team with their friends.

[iamslm22]

I really expect that once people retire their first character and the loyalties from the early days of the league aren't as strong we can expect a lot more players to be negotiating for higher contracts to reduce the amount they have to work.

I agree with this completely. You see it in a bunch of other leagues. Players right now are super loyal to their teams, but as people get drafted elsewhere you'll see players signing for more and going anywhere.

[124715]

I think you shouldn't be able to pay a player below their minimum, even if they did sign when they were in a lower bracket. Simple.

[timeconsumer]

I think you shouldn't be able to pay a player below their minimum, even if they did sign when they were in a lower bracket. Simple.

It's not a terrible idea, but if we implement it we need to give teams time to phase it in because a lot of teams arranged contracts with budgets 2+ years ahead of time.