[quotef267e0f="Cheesehead Craig"]Does anyone know how much the cap went up this last offseason? What was the dollar amount?[/quotef267e0f]

about $8 million.

_________________
The Cleveland Flats Ring of Honor:
FB Mark Reed, WR Tony Oaks, OG Richard Johnson, DT Herb Handy, OLB Alfonso Levine, SS Elijah Roy

[quotef7cb6cb="TLK"][quotef7cb6cb="Cheesehead Craig"]Does anyone know how much the cap went up this last offseason? What was the dollar amount?[/quotef7cb6cb]

about $8 million.[/quotef7cb6cb]

So the question becomes, do we...

cut that down to $4 million
cut that down to $2 million
cut that down to $0

?

_________________
GM, Atlanta Wolfpack
Formerly of the Anchorage Wolfpack and Huntington Beach Wolfpack and now back as a mediocre GM
CFL Champs - 2026, 2029

[quotebd51c77="Stretch"]
So the question becomes, do we...

cut that down to $4 million
cut that down to $2 million
cut that down to $0

?[/quotebd51c77]

It's not nearly that simple at all. There is some element of randomness to it. We get to set the cap somewhere on a scale, but it could still range quite a bit. On normal settings it can be anywhere from $2 to $10 or $12 million per year over the life of the contract. So we could cut the normal number in half and still get anywhere from $1-$6 mil or possibly even more.

It's not as simple as setting it to $2 or $4 or etc.

[quotebe584f4="timmynausea"][quotebe584f4="Stretch"]
So the question becomes, do we...

cut that down to $4 million
cut that down to $2 million
cut that down to $0

?[/quotebe584f4]

It's not nearly that simple at all. There is some element of randomness to it. We get to set the cap somewhere on a scale, but it could still range quite a bit. On normal settings it can be anywhere from $2 to $10 or $12 million per year over the life of the contract. So we could cut the normal number in half and still get anywhere from $1-$6 mil or possibly even more.

It's not as simple as setting it to $2 or $4 or etc.[/quotebe584f4]

Actually, the option is to set a range. The randomness occurs in the range that you set. The number that is selected is directly related multiplied by $100,000 to determine the cap increase. If we set the range to be say 30 to 30 it would increase the cap by $3,000,000 each year for the length of the contract. So if we want we can set an exact amount of the cap increase each year and each owner will know exactly where the cap will be going for the entire time of the TV contract. As years go by the value of the increase will mean less since it would be a smaller percentage of the total salary cap.

Ah. I didn't realize that, but I suppose it does make sense.

Just so I can be on the record on this: I still think the cap adjustment fix is a huge plunge into the unknown. We just don't know enough about how the game really handles the financial stuff for this solution to make sense to me. It could fix the problem, it could make things worse, it could not do anything.

With the renegotiation rule we know what we are getting - limitations on renegotiations that will severely limit "loop-hole" contracts that are the real root of the problem. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Or in this case, let's not reinvent the wheel to solve a problem that's already been solved.

That's just my opinion.

[quote5d09975="timmynausea"]Just so I can be on the record on this: I still think the cap adjustment fix is a huge plunge into the unknown. We just don't know enough about how the game really handles the financial stuff for this solution to make sense to me. It could fix the problem, it could make things worse, it could not do anything.

With the renegotiation rule we know what we are getting - limitations on renegotiations that will severely limit "loop-hole" contracts that are the real root of the problem. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Or in this case, let's not reinvent the wheel to solve a problem that's already been solved.

That's just my opinion.[/quote5d09975]

In 100% agreement, but will work with whatever the league wants.

_________________
The Cleveland Flats Ring of Honor:
FB Mark Reed, WR Tony Oaks, OG Richard Johnson, DT Herb Handy, OLB Alfonso Levine, SS Elijah Roy

I don't think we are heading into the unknown on the cap adjustment. If we just limit how much the cap will adjust up, we no exactly what will happen.

I think it may just be a matter or running sims for a few years to see how the salary requests will react to the cap. Will they continue to rise at the current rate or will the demands be adjusted to the cap amount. I am guessing it is the first based on the limited testing we have done. This would not take much to figure out though. Just run 4-5 years and track the progress of a sample number of players with the restricted cap and then again with the normal cap adjustments. The results should give us what we need to put this thing to rest!

How is simply lowering the amount we get every year going to cause some catastrophic event in the league? This isn't some great unknown thing here, it's simply a matter over a 5 yr period of getting less money added to the cap.

So instead of the cap going up approx 40M over the next 5 yrs (at the current rate) we make it 20M. So teams will simply have 20M less to spend on players after 5 yrs. Given the avg for the league is 50M below the cap, this isn't going to completely destroy any team out there.

We're not reinventing the wheel with this solution as it's already part of the game and to call it such is fallacious. It's just a reduction, plain and simple, this isn't complicated.

Adding an out of game rule that requires monitoring by someone [b7c641e3]is[/b7c641e3] reinventing the wheel. Who's going to be in charge of policing this? What are the penalties? Will this require stages to be rerun then? What if it's during a game stage, is it rerun then? I haven't heard anything about these details.

This problem came about after a good number of seasons of having a cap simply go up too much, it will take a nearly equal amount of time to get it rectified.

Bottom line: Reducing the cap increase requires no new process or 3 paragraph rule addition to the constitution.

We don't know if the asking contracts adjust to cap adjustments and/or how much. We don't know how the financials work. Tests haven't been conclusive and much more testing would be necessary to sort it out. Even if we assume that it works ideally, we'd have to do testing just to figure out how much is enough to cut it and etc.

I think it's telling that the only guy doing tests so far agrees with me.

[quotee802bc0="timmynausea"]We don't know if the asking contracts adjust to cap adjustments and/or how much. We don't know how the financials work. Tests haven't been conclusive and much more testing would be necessary to sort it out. Even if we assume that it works ideally, we'd have to do testing just to figure out how much is enough to cut it and etc.

I think it's telling that the only guy doing tests so far agrees with me.[/quotee802bc0]

Worst case scenario is nothing changes! If we reduce the cap increase to $2-3 million a year for 5 years, and players salary demands decrease, nothing different from now, if they increase we get exactly what we are looking for.

_________________


San Andreas Division Champions: 2005,2007,2015,2017,2018,2019,2020,2021,2028,2032,2035

2032 Western Conference Champions

2032 CFL Champions

[quote34e618e="Fastcat"]
Worst case scenario is nothing changes! If we reduce the cap increase to $2-3 million a year for 5 years, and players salary demands decrease, nothing different from now, if they increase we get exactly what we are looking for.[/quote34e618e]

First of all, that's not good. We are trying to fix a problem. If nothing changes, we don't fix it. The longer we don't fix it, the worse it gets. It's already coming up on another completed season with no fix.

Second of all, the worst case scenario is getting locked into a 6 or 8 year contract where the cap barely moves and everyone gets stuck in cap hell by default. In other words, overfixing the problem. I think we can figure out enough to avoid this, but that'd be like ruin-the-league bad and it may well be possible. There'd be no course of action we could take to fix it until the TV contract was up.

[quote3f5a25b="timmynausea"]
First of all, that's not good. We are trying to fix a problem. If nothing changes, we don't fix it. The longer we don't fix it, the worse it gets. It's already coming up on another completed season with no fix.[/quote3f5a25b]

I truly believe both options being debated over right now do not address the problem, but address a symptom of the problem.

To quote myself:

[quotea73ae75="Cheesehead Craig"]Who's going to be in charge of policing this? What are the penalties? Will this require stages to be rerun then? What if it's during a game stage, is it rerun then? I haven't heard anything about these details.
[/quotea73ae75]

I'd like to hear the definitive answers to these questions prior to discussing the final year renogiating rule any further.

[quoteeba165d="timmynausea"]We don't know if the asking contracts adjust to cap adjustments and/or how much. We don't know how the financials work. Tests haven't been conclusive and much more testing would be necessary to sort it out. Even if we assume that it works ideally, we'd have to do testing just to figure out how much is enough to cut it and etc.

I think it's telling that the only guy doing tests so far agrees with me.[/quoteeba165d]

Actually, if you go back I ran a simulated SP game for 4 years and the contract demands did go up while the cap did not. The one factor I could not test was due to the multi-player format. The franchise tag and top 5 salaries are all based on what the owners offer and not the AI. That is why I asked the question to see if we could sim our league out for a few years as a test to see how the current salaries issued out would be affected.

I would run the test, but I don't have the required info to pull it off. TLK can you run such a test?

[quotefe19a7f="Cheesehead Craig"]Who's going to be in charge of policing this? What are the penalties? Will this require stages to be rerun then? What if it's during a game stage, is it rerun then? I haven't heard anything about these details.
[/quotefe19a7f]


Obviously it's not up to me. I can tell you how it's handled in other leagues and try to guess how we could apply that here.

The commissioner would police it. There is a utility out there that checks it automatically, so I guess it'd be a matter of running that utility after each stage, or at least any stage when renegotiations take place.

Penalties are up for debate and would be evaluated on a case by case scenario. In WOOF, after discussion, we had a guy lose a 3rd round pick in addition to losing the amount of cap space he saved with the renegged contract (sign and cut a horrible punter with the bonus money to penalize the right amount). The penalty was a 3rd because by manipulating the rule he was able to squeeze a 2nd round rookie under the cap. (Though he actually capped out the renegged contract, which is probably why he didn't lose a 2nd.) The punishment needs to fit the crime, and I think this one did.

I don't think anything would need to be rerun. The penalties would nullify any advantage gained by an early reneg. Maybe in a particularly egregious case the commish could decide to rerun a stage, but I can't say how that'd be handled. Considering that most renegotiations take place in FA, I don't think it'd be a big deal as the easiest fix would be to roll it back, throw out the offending owner's export and run it again before it ever even got released. The rule-breaker could potentially still be penalized, but in FA stages I don't think there's much harm from a resim like that. Again, some of this just has to be addressed on a case by case basis.

[quote80d71a3="Shooter"][quote80d71a3="timmynausea"]We don't know if the asking contracts adjust to cap adjustments and/or how much. We don't know how the financials work. Tests haven't been conclusive and much more testing would be necessary to sort it out. Even if we assume that it works ideally, we'd have to do testing just to figure out how much is enough to cut it and etc.

I think it's telling that the only guy doing tests so far agrees with me.[/quote80d71a3]

Actually, if you go back I ran a simulated SP game for 4 years and the contract demands did go up while the cap did not. The one factor I could not test was due to the multi-player format. The franchise tag and top 5 salaries are all based on what the owners offer and not the AI. That is why I asked the question to see if we could sim our league out for a few years as a test to see how the current salaries issued out would be affected.

I would run the test, but I don't have the required info to pull it off. TLK can you run such a test?[/quote80d71a3]

What info do you want after I sim the four years?

_________________
The Cleveland Flats Ring of Honor:
FB Mark Reed, WR Tony Oaks, OG Richard Johnson, DT Herb Handy, OLB Alfonso Levine, SS Elijah Roy

Thanks for the info Timmy,
I'd like to know what our league would be doing in regards to this option though. Are we just going to parrot what other leagues do?

[quotef950d39="Cheesehead Craig"]Thanks for the info Timmy,
I'd like to know what our league would be doing in regards to this option though. Are we just going to parrot what other leagues do?[/quotef950d39]

I think the goal should be to decide on a rule first, then work out the details. Having said that, I'm completely fine with using this or using this as a starting point.

[quotef950d39]
B. Players currently under contract may only be offered a renegotiated contract in the last year of their existing contract. This rule will not apply to a player who is listed as a hold out.

Penalties:

In addition to having their export pulled from the stage, teams that violate this rule would be punished in the following manner:

1st offense: Warning
2nd offense: Loss of Third Round draft pick
3rd and subsequent offenses: Loss of First Round draft pick[/quotef950d39]

FOFL Constitution

_________________
The Cleveland Flats Ring of Honor:
FB Mark Reed, WR Tony Oaks, OG Richard Johnson, DT Herb Handy, OLB Alfonso Levine, SS Elijah Roy

[quoteefabfa5="TLK"][quoteefabfa5="Cheesehead Craig"]Thanks for the info Timmy,
I'd like to know what our league would be doing in regards to this option though. Are we just going to parrot what other leagues do?[/quoteefabfa5]

I think the goal should be to decide on a rule first, then work out the details. Having said that, I'm completely fine with using this or using this as a starting point.

[quoteefabfa5]
B. Players currently under contract may only be offered a renegotiated contract in the last year of their existing contract. This rule will not apply to a player who is listed as a hold out.

Penalties:

In addition to having their export pulled from the stage, teams that violate this rule would be punished in the following manner:

1st offense: Warning
2nd offense: Loss of Third Round draft pick
3rd and subsequent offenses: Loss of First Round draft pick[/quoteefabfa5]

FOFL Constitution[/quoteefabfa5]
When voting for a new league rule, I believe we need to have it flushed out before voting on it. Otherwise what ends up as the finished product may not be what other owners had in mind when voting on it.

I do like that you've provided a solid starting point so we can see what this rule proposal would look like (even if I am against it). I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything like that. This is a big deal and want to make sure we have all the info.

[quote7b79d93="TLK"][quote7b79d93="Shooter"][quote7b79d93="timmynausea"]We don't know if the asking contracts adjust to cap adjustments and/or how much. We don't know how the financials work. Tests haven't been conclusive and much more testing would be necessary to sort it out. Even if we assume that it works ideally, we'd have to do testing just to figure out how much is enough to cut it and etc.

I think it's telling that the only guy doing tests so far agrees with me.[/quote7b79d93]

Actually, if you go back I ran a simulated SP game for 4 years and the contract demands did go up while the cap did not. The one factor I could not test was due to the multi-player format. The franchise tag and top 5 salaries are all based on what the owners offer and not the AI. That is why I asked the question to see if we could sim our league out for a few years as a test to see how the current salaries issued out would be affected.

I would run the test, but I don't have the required info to pull it off. TLK can you run such a test?[/quote7b79d93]

What info do you want after I sim the four years?[/quote7b79d93]

I know with AI running things it will not be the same, but can you sim ahead to the end of current contract and record Unused cap for each team, and Franchise, top 5, and top 20 averages. Make change to 3 million increase per year and sim through the next contract and record the same info (Unused cap, and franchise, top 5 and top 20) This may or may not give us enough information. Thanks

_________________


San Andreas Division Champions: 2005,2007,2015,2017,2018,2019,2020,2021,2028,2032,2035

2032 Western Conference Champions

2032 CFL Champions

[quotee0e9897="TLK"][quotee0e9897="Cheesehead Craig"]Thanks for the info Timmy,
I'd like to know what our league would be doing in regards to this option though. Are we just going to parrot what other leagues do?[/quotee0e9897]

I think the goal should be to decide on a rule first, then work out the details. Having said that, I'm completely fine with using this or using this as a starting point.

[quotee0e9897]
B. Players currently under contract may only be offered a renegotiated contract in the last year of their existing contract. This rule will not apply to a player who is listed as a hold out.

Penalties:

In addition to having their export pulled from the stage, teams that violate this rule would be punished in the following manner:

1st offense: Warning
2nd offense: Loss of Third Round draft pick
3rd and subsequent offenses: Loss of First Round draft pick[/quotee0e9897]

FOFL Constitution[/quotee0e9897]

I thought "cap freeze" was what got the most votes, not the crap renegotiation rule.

_________________
GM, Atlanta Wolfpack
Formerly of the Anchorage Wolfpack and Huntington Beach Wolfpack and now back as a mediocre GM
CFL Champs - 2026, 2029

[quote3383641="Fastcat"][quote3383641="TLK"]What info do you want after I sim the four years?[/quote3383641]

I know with AI running things it will not be the same, but can you sim ahead to the end of current contract and record Unused cap for each team, and Franchise, top 5, and top 20 averages. Make change to 3 million increase per year and sim through the next contract and record the same info (Unused cap, and franchise, top 5 and top 20) This may or may not give us enough information. Thanks[/quote3383641]

I think this would be a great start, but I would also throw in a small sampling of players. Maybe select 10 random players from different teams and different skill levels that would be under 7 years of experience to avoid retirements. Record their the effects of those players each year or just after the 4 year sim. Compare the current cap situation and the results of a cap freeze or with a static cap increase of a minimal amount.

[quotee467d72="timmynausea"]Just so I can be on the record on this: I still think the cap adjustment fix is a huge plunge into the unknown. We just don't know enough about how the game really handles the financial stuff for this solution to make sense to me. It could fix the problem, it could make things worse, it could not do anything.

With the renegotiation rule we know what we are getting - limitations on renegotiations that will severely limit "loop-hole" contracts that are the real root of the problem. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Or in this case, let's not reinvent the wheel to solve a problem that's already been solved.

That's just my opinion.[/quotee467d72]

+1

Renegotiation limits are the way to go.

_________________

Ring of Fire Division Champions - 2009, 2011-2026, 2028-33
Western Conference Champions - 2011-2013, 2016, 2017, 2019-2022, 2024, 2025, 2028, 2033
CFL Champions - 2011, 2013, 2016, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2025

[quote7f71a4a="Fonzie"][quote7f71a4a="timmynausea"]Just so I can be on the record on this: I still think the cap adjustment fix is a huge plunge into the unknown. We just don't know enough about how the game really handles the financial stuff for this solution to make sense to me. It could fix the problem, it could make things worse, it could not do anything.

With the renegotiation rule we know what we are getting - limitations on renegotiations that will severely limit "loop-hole" contracts that are the real root of the problem. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Or in this case, let's not reinvent the wheel to solve a problem that's already been solved.

That's just my opinion.[/quote7f71a4a]

+1

Renegotiation limits are the way to go.[/quote7f71a4a]

I also agree - let's put renegotiation limits to a vote now, so it can be in place for this coming offseason. Maybe delay the final CFL bowl sim a few days, so we can see if this passes and everyone gets one more chance at an unrestricted renegotiation. Fixing this problem is worth a short delay.

Otherwise, we're just going to delay implementing a fix for yet another season. FA and the offseason will continue to be dull. Owners will continue to lose interest.

_________________
Hartford Attack