2079 Season Thread

[doh]

This whole section is a moo point if there’s a full contingent of active owners

Not if a bunch of the owners aren't trying to win. Then it's the same.

This is why I think guys should be forced to retire if they aren't with a team say 18+ months. I don't know if that's possible but it's an idea at least.

 

[doh]

My goal right now with a hard cap is to focus on point 2 (we can also add a few more feeder teams if we really need more draft talent to compensate) while making sure there's still an alternative to the draft. I don't want rebuilding teams to feel they need to hoard draft picks to make the transition from tank to competition (which they could do with trading picks for win now players) and I think a sole focus on the draft grants too much focus on tanking. We can revisit in a few seasons if the hard cap still isn't enough.

Exactly--- kill IFA and the only way to get good players is the draft.

The other factor: you don't have to worry about IFA which means who cares about your budget? The only anti-tanking measure is budget (and in this new world... you get a budget floor too!).

 

[NML]

We gon take a vote on IFA (removing or cap)? I felt like there was support for getting rid of it but maybe that’s my bias

 

[Travis7401]

Here's where the OSA TOP PLAYERS come from:
Position Players =
Draft = 16 (almost all 1st round)
Baby IFA = 15
Scouting Find = 5 (all BIG BUDGET HAVES... probably from Dev/scouting budget?)
Old Guy IFA = 4

My perception is that the draft has improved a bit relative to IFA in OOTP19 and some of the top players are guys who entered back in OOTP 18, so I'll take a look at TOP PROSPECTS next, although those lists aren't that great.

 

[NML]

So only about 40% of good players come through an avenue where big budgets don’t have an advantage

 

[Travis7401]

I think there is selection bias at work because the TOP PLAYERS are on good teams, so the HAVES account for most of the draft pick players as well. I was actually surprised to see that not all the IFA studs were to haves (I assumed they would all be), but it was split about the same as the draft picks.

Active owners acquire better players than non-active owners in all areas! YA'LL SHOULD TRY IT!

 

[Rutgers Mike]

Funk the GOAT was draft. Stinson the New Funk was the Draft.

 

[Rutgers Mike]

1. When I was rebuilding we didn't have any OTTO owners, I was doing that during PEAK WBL.

2. It isn't really fuckery, I wanted to use IFA to rebuild and I was showing the way I did that as a tiny budget team. The limitation was I could only spend in IFA every other year, so I needed to keep payroll low constantly and had nothing to do with my $ in the odd years. Are you advocating letting teams pay big in IFA every year to help a financially frugal rebuilding team with low payroll? My point is that IFA can be a legit strategy for a rebuilding team.

Also, wooly took every decent strategy and turned it into fuckery.

I was basically an OTTO owner.

 

[doh]

I think there is selection bias at work because the TOP PLAYERS are on good teams, so the HAVES account for most of the draft pick players as well. I was actually surprised to see that not all the IFA studs were to haves (I assumed they would all be), but it was split about the same as the draft picks.

Active owners acquire better players than non-active owners in all areas! YA'LL SHOULD TRY IT!

Lots of those guys were IFA before our current system so they signed for way more than they would now.

I have 7 of the top 40 players. One I got in the third round, two others were sub $1m IFA and the other 1/$12m contract because no one wanted him.

VERY UNFAIR!

 

[Orlando]

That doesn’t give the full picture IMO. Are they all still on their original teams?

 

[Orlando]

That list is terrible anyway

 

[OU11]

That's not the lowest budget of all time of all time.

I want to say I got mine down to $80M when I was in serious tank mode but I might be mistaken.

 

[Travis7401]

I was basically an OTTO owner.

Nah, b, this was when FUNK was in his prime!

 

[Travis7401]

I want to say I got mine down to $80M when I was in serious tank mode but I might be mistaken.

Little Rock was at 78M the year I was comanaging, and I think they might have gotten below 75, lol!

 

[Travis7401]

I don't think even OTTO could accomplish that, it takes a real savant.

 

[doh]

We gon take a vote on IFA (removing or cap)? I felt like there was support for getting rid of it but maybe that’s my bias

I don't think anyone else wants to get rid of IFA. Some want a hard cap I think. There should be a third option for people who don't want changes.

Can we set up a thread for the rule change(s)? Or a bunch of them with polls?

I just want to propose new playoff system.

There really should be two separate votes: do we want a change THEN what is is the change if we want changes.

 

[Orlando]

Give Otto the highest draft intelligence. Maybe more people will go on Otto and your drafts will finish on time.

 

[Travis7401]

I was initially against IFA, but I think a hard cap would be best after thinking about it more.

 

[Rutgers Mike]

I don't think anyone else wants to get rid of IFA. Some want a hard cap I think. There should be a third option for people who don't want changes.

Can we set up a thread for the rule change(s)? Or a bunch of them with polls?

I just want to propose new playoff system.

There really should be two separate votes: do we want a change THEN what is is the change if we want changes.

I need things explained to me like I have a brain injury, because I probably do.

I like the idea of IFA, but I hate the pay 50 Million one year for prospects, then the next year are basically shutout. Not sure if the hard cap system lets GMs participate every year, but if it does, I'd be for that.

 

[Yankee151]

I need things explained to me like I have a brain injury, because I probably do.

I like the idea of IFA, but I hate the pay 50 Million one year for prospects, then the next year are basically shutout. Not sure if the hard cap system lets GMs participate every year, but if it does, I'd be for that.

Hard cap does indeed allow every year participation

 

[doh]

I need things explained to me like I have a brain injury, because I probably do.

I like the idea of IFA, but I hate the pay 50 Million one year for prospects, then the next year are basically shutout. Not sure if the hard cap system lets GMs participate every year, but if it does, I'd be for that.

Yeah I think that would increase immersion if you were into it every year.

OR something like: hard cap at 15m, exclusion penalty is at 5m.

 

[Travis7401]

Look at Doh with his HAVE thoughts on the cap. That shit needs to be $8M max!

 

[doh]

Look at Doh with his HAVE thoughts on the cap. That shit needs to be $8M max!

As you said... you want the HAVES to light money on fire on AA RPs. Plus would give teams that want to spend more on IFA the chance to.

15M is nothing if everyone will have a 120M budget. If you cut your payroll to 80M, you spend 12M on scouting/devo, you can get to 15M on IFA easy.

 

[Yankee151]

The thing is though that 15M is too much for everyone to get good prospects (lotto ticket factors aside). There'll only be 64 players spawned so we want to make it so teams are signing, at most, 4 players on average bonuses a piece (maybe 1 star, maybe 7 lotto tix)

 

[Travis7401]

4 prospects average per team = $2M / prospect on an $8M cap

 

[Rutgers Mike]

I think 8 is a good number. I'm not sure what the draft max signing bonus is, but I'm pretty sure I paid Funk 8M. A couple guys I've drafted are in that 2-3M range, so I think it seems to be a good number.

 

[Mr. Radpants]

I spent hours this afternoon reviewing a technical proposal that makes zero operational sense, but hey, don't let execution get in the way of sales. Now I come home to my hobby which is apparently this.

I'm against IFA but I think NMLs read is very wrong. This argument applies to OOTP 16/17 maybe but not our league now.

 

[NML]

I'm against IFA but I think NMLs read is very wrong. This argument applies to OOTP 16/17 maybe but not our league now.

My argument is that the best IFAs cost the most, which favors team with more money, which makes it worse for small budget teams

 

[Soonerfan09]

Cap it at 4-5M and let the best players go to a random team.

 

[OU11]

I don't think anyone else wants to get rid of IFA. Some want a hard cap I think. There should be a third option for people who don't want changes.

Can we set up a thread for the rule change(s)? Or a bunch of them with polls?

I just want to propose new playoff system.

There really should be two separate votes: do we want a change THEN what is is the change if we want changes.

I want to get rid of IFA

 

[NML]

So IFAs don’t go for huge amounts anymore. Okay, that’s fine

But then, good players are going for cheap. If we are buying top, or even second tier, prospects for $2m like Travis is saying, then all we’ve done is create a cheap way for all teams to acquire good players.

With a draft, you have both a financial expense (signing bonus, most of the first several rounds of which are higher than $2m) and the asset expense of the pick itself.

All you’ve done with IFA is a leveling out the asset expense - which is literally the ONLY advantage a team who is worse gets

 

[NML]

It’s also WAY easier to maintain talent levels across versions by removing IFA. Just like with media budgets, it’s a way to remove a variable that can cause an issue

 

[Yankee151]

I think you're underestimating how much raising the lower budget will help them. If they don't have $8M to allocate to IFA after I fix financials(May even go for like 6.5M instead), then that's on them. There's no big team advantage because everyone has the money to sign these guys.

Right now a big team does have the advantage because they can tank a 20M penalty. But remove that and they can only spend a max amount of 8M. There's no difference between a small and big budget team who goes after IFAs. Yes Big budget teams can also buy regular FA, but keep in mind a smaller budget team who is losing may also have more payroll room in the first place, so it evens out.

 

[Soonerfan09]

So IFAs don’t go for huge amounts anymore. Okay, that’s fine

But then, good players are going for cheap. If we are buying top, or even second tier, prospects for $2m like Travis is saying, then all we’ve done is create a cheap way for all teams to acquire good players.

With a draft, you have both a financial expense (signing bonus, most of the first several rounds of which are higher than $2m) and the asset expense of the pick itself.

All you’ve done with IFA is a leveling out the asset expense - which is literally the ONLY advantage a team who is worse gets

The really good players are going to ask for whatever the cap is (at 4-5, don't know about 8, but I could see multiple good players being bought with a cap that high). Decent players will be 2-3. IFA is a crapshoot anyway.

 

[Yankee151]

I've been testing 5 with good results, though I think 6.5 is fine too, and 8 would be absolute maximum.

 

[NML]

I think you're underestimating how much raising the lower budget will help them. If they don't have $8M to allocate to IFA after I fix financials(May even go for like 6.5M instead), then that's on them. There's no big team advantage because everyone has the money to sign these guys.

Right now a big team does have the advantage because they can tank a 20M penalty. But remove that and they can only spend a max amount of 8M. There's no difference between a small and big budget team who goes after IFAs. Yes Big budget teams can also buy regular FA, but keep in mind a smaller budget team who is losing may also have more payroll room in the first place, so it evens out.

$8m (or $6.5m, or whatever) is more important to a small budget team than a big budget team, so its not really "that everyone has the money" or that "there's no difference between a small and big budget team."

I'm not sure what the last part about more payroll room means. Why do small budgets have budget room? Ur talking about teams being mismanaged, which is not the same thing.

The really good players are going to ask for whatever the cap is (at 4-5, don't know about 8, but I could see multiple good players being bought with a cap that high). Decent players will be 2-3. IFA is a crapshoot anyway.

The first line is my whole point - if the best players are going to ask for whatever the cap is, then by setting a low cap, all ur doing is lowering the amount the big budgets have to spend on IFAs to get them.

If IFA is so terrible like I keeping seeing, why are we keeping it?

 

[Yankee151]

A team that is maxed out and competing may be at the limits of their budget, and may not even have the 8M to go fully all in on IFA. As long as Free Agency is good enough, that'll be the case. It was for me when I won two titles with Buffalo in the 2070s; I spent maybe a couple million on IFA but was otherwise maxed out. Keep in mind that dropping teams ceiling down to 185 (or w/e) massively hinders their wiggle room, they also have to budget for Player Dev Budget and Scouting (another source of talent). If a big team wants to waste the full budget on IFA and miss out on a potential big FA, it may come back to bite them in the postseason, or it may hurt their farm system because their player dev budget is too low.

The only reason IFA is a problem now is because all the big teams spend 20M+ every other season and hog half the league's talent. I'm positive that a hard cap solves the problem without removing half the talent pool and making rebuilds take twice as long. If you look at IFA from a 100M vs. 200M budget then yes it seems wonky, it won't be when finances are fixed.

 

[NML]

I'm positive that a hard cap solves the problem without removing half the talent pool and making rebuilds take twice as long. If you look at IFA from a 100M vs. 200M budget then yes it seems wonky, it won't be when finances are fixed.

I’m very not positive in all of this

I have a hard time imagining the IFAs will just pick a max offer at random, but maybe they will. Even if they do, all you’ve done by lowering the cap is making the cost of getting that player less. But if its not completely random, then you’ve allowed the best players to go to the best teams for way cheaper than before

And, again, ur doing all this testing on 19, which is already obsolete and definitely will be for our league within a month or so, and then you pretty much have to start over with this testing.

 

[Yankee151]

I'm cool with re-testing on 20. We may need to drop the IFA pool from 64 to 32 as well (I've tested both, doesn't matter). Unless we have a majority + wanting IFA gone altogether, I think this is the best compromise

 

[OU11]

My concern isn’t about parity because I think parity is stupid. I’d rather have a wide range of budgets, my concern is the talent. If there are too many GOATs everywhere it kills trading. If there are too few it kills immersion. There is a balance

 

[NML]

I get that it may not get voted in or whatever, but it doesn’t mean that IFA is a level playing field no matter which way you slice it.

 

[Yankee151]

Not everything can be completely level, but I am confident that the small budget experience will be better after these changes. The talent pool stuff with draft-only is a real concern and removing 64 potential GOATs per year is a big deal.

 

[OU11]

Used to be talent pool was easy to maintain, the college and hs teams made it a bit harder but doable. It’s IFA and the inconsistency through versions where say 18 had dope IFAs leading to too much talent then 19 is weak as fuck and talent drops

 

[Yankee151]

19 isn't necessarily weak af but it's more inconsistent which I think is a good thing given they are 16 year olds

 

[OU11]

19 isn't necessarily weak af but it's more inconsistent which I think is a good thing given they are 16 year olds

I was just using it as an example, I haven’t played 19. Inconsistent is good if you’re not the commissioner

 

[Travis7401]

I feel like the IFA/Draft balance is the best it has ever been right now, which is why I'd kinda prefer to not fuck with it or change versions, lol... but NML comes back after 8 months off and got a bee in his bonnet.

 

[OU11]

I feel like the IFA/Draft balance is the best it has ever been right now, which is why I'd kinda prefer to not fuck with it or change versions, lol... but NML comes back after 8 months off and got a bee in his bonnet.

If it is ironed out that’s great and I’d be okay with that. Anytime I’m saying something stupid just tell me because my frame of reference is really OOTP17 and before

 

[Travis7401]

Don't get me wrong, you raise one of the biggest concerns. But if you don't think eliminating IFA would cause talent issues, then I'd be completely fine without it as well.

 

[Travis7401]

I get that it may not get voted in or whatever, but it doesn’t mean that IFA is a level playing field no matter which way you slice it.

I also think we need to address this level playing field thing. It's never going to be a level playing field because a lot of you are just dumb AF.

 

[OU11]

Don't get me wrong, you raise one of the biggest concerns. But if you don't think eliminating IFA would cause talent issues, then I'd be completely fine without it as well.

We built the settings for a league without IFA so it should be fine but it’s OOTP and 6 versions after we started so who can really say