Salary Caps

[neoliminal]

This system would replace ageing completely. Remove Ageing from the game if you use this Salary Cap system.

Each player gets a salary that's represented by their cost. When you first sign a player, their cost is their salary. As a player get's better and more experienced, their salary will increase. For each SPP a player gets, add 2,000 to his salary.

Code: Select all

 Example:
A human lineman's salary is 50,000.  After his first game he get's an MVP which increases his SPP's to 5.  Add 10,000 to his salary, making his current salary 60,000.

Note: At this point, you no longer need to track SPP's for your teams TR. The amount added to the salary will increase your TR at the same rate that SPP's would have.

At the end of every game, total up your salaries. You can't have more than 1,500,000 in total salaries. If you are above this number, you have to fire players until you are under the salary cap again.

Freebooted players do NOT add to the salary total, and so you can add these players before any game with no additional penalty.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- (tm chet)

Why this works:

The coach is making the decision concerning his star players rather than having ageing make the choice. If you like having uber players, you can, but you can't have an entire team of them because it simply cost too much. On the other hand, you can try to create a more balanced team of good players with the obvious problem that eventually some will become stars. Coaches will have to make decisions about which players to keep and how best to manage the roster.

[Grumbledook]

This looks like a faily good proposition, mainly because your not adding in extra rolls and more tables to look up. Keep it simple thats what i say.

Also your players aren't losing stat points just for becoming more experienced/playing more games. I always thought that this should all be of results on the pitch, but i can see the argument the other way.

[Anthony_TBBF]

I was thinking about this system to replace App Fees back in <expletive deleted>. Actually didn't we talk about this at the Queen Mum after Orion a couple of years ago? Anyway I think it's a neat idea but I think I actually like ageing better to be honest. This idea seems more "realistic" though.

[neoliminal]

Yep, this is the same system I explained at the Queen Mum after getting trounced by uber-snots at Orion (grumble grumble, I'm not bitter).

I like this better than ageing because you get to make the choice. I guess you could do BOTH, and when your player got fired for losing too much ST, your Salary Cap would allow you to hire lots more guys. It's also dreadfully easy and if you want more power in your league, you can always UP the salary cap to your own liking. You can't get that kind of flexibility with ageing. Also replaces about 2 pages of explaination and tables for two paragraphs... always a bonus.

John -

[Lucien Swift]

yeah, but i think the psychological impact of this is even more difficult than aging... i mean, it's one thing to build up a team and then get told "he got old" and another to build up a team and be told "you must arbitrarilly dismiss players based on a cap"... sure, it'd work, hell, i've even used salary caps in the past... and people hate them like poison...

[High & Mighty]

More team management=more fun!!

I was thinking at first that this would be good for undead teams with cheap skellies with 3 or 4 skills, but at three skills, that skeleton costs 100,000 to your cap. So that would definitely add up.

In addition to raising and lowering the salary cap to each league's preference, you could also have a hard cap, which is measured after every game, or a soft cap, measured just at the end of a season. That way you've still got a system that's capping absolute team development, while still giving you some advantage in any given season for good performance.

[neoliminal]

yeah, but i think the psychological impact of this is even more difficult than aging... i mean, it's one thing to build up a team and then get told "he got old" and another to build up a team and be told "you must arbitrarilly dismiss players based on a cap"... sure, it'd work, hell, i've even used salary caps in the past... and people hate them like poison...

Try this, Lucien... take a team at roughly 230-250 TR and work the numbers. See what you think. Normally you can simply cut some scrub player and still be under the cap.

As for people hating them like poison, which is worse? Ageing or Salary Caps? You have to do *something*. Players aren't going to enjoy the reduction of team ability no matter what you do. This is atleast more about coach choice.

[Cervidal]

I'm not so sure about this... teams with expensive players, which also tend to be the teams with fragile players, are going to have a rough time as a league matures because they won't be able to keep any real number of players on their team.

I really liked the idea when I first read it. It's quick, it's efficient, and it drastically reduces the need for a handicap table. Unfortunately, though, this can create a pretty harsh restriction on Elves and Dwarves. Just as their teams get developed, they would have to start lopping players off and replace them with rookies.

This would be an especially raw deal in a league tournament setting where my game-winning touchdown now forces me to cut a player going into the next round.

Where I think this idea would work best is at the end of the season. All players are up for new contracts and have to have 'em renewed for the following season. Teams are only allowed so much cap space.

To prevent teams from saving a wad of cash for the start of the season that would allow them to stock-pile players after game one, tell them that they have to have every dime spent or they lose it. To encourage spending, put rerolls at their team's base price during the off-season or let them spend it on 'advertising' to increase Fan Factor (Xk GC = 1 FF, some kind of limit on how high it can be pumped). If they still have money left over, tough noogies for being such a scrooge during the season!

[Lucien Swift]

i've had teams under salary cap systems.... to the point htat i was down to 11 players because of a couple of stars... i know how it works, and i thought it was _too arbitary_

asked which is better, aging...

i've just been arguing that rather than increase the potency of a good aging proposal, you could increase the already-included possibility for missing games in that system and have a resulting third approach to capping (for this discussion third anyway) that might be a better way... and, for seasoning, the third includes the first! i never said get rid of aging, i said re-consider what to prioritize inside of aging... increase the odds of simply missing games instead of increasing he oddds of getting permanently hurt and subsequently retired...

yadda yadda... it's lke the run-out groove of sgt. peppers over here...

[Dangerous Dave]

Neo,

Your system has the advantage of simplicity. However, it basically means teams will max out at about a TR of 200 (this is not IMO the definition of an uber team). I have run the numbers against a sample of teams (in order of TR):-

Code: Select all

TR Salary      Race

264 1,802,000   Human
248    1,670,000   CD
234   1,962,000   High Elf
232 1,820,000   Human
229    1,670,000   Chaos
226    1,648,000   Orc
213  1,740,000   Human
205    1,706,000   Wood Elf
204 1,638,000   Dwarf
203    1,484,000   Skaven
195   1,484,000   Orc
180  1,430,000   Norse

This seems to cap all races at about a TR of 200. However, the High Elf team would need to sack its 3 highest salaried players to come under the salary cap – this would then leave them at a TR of 187 (alternatively they could sack their 5 lowest salaried players – leaving them only 11 players). Now IMO none of the 3 players in the High Elf team are that gross – a Dragon Warrior with 26 SPPs, a Lion Warrior with 37 SPPs and a Lineman with 42 SPPs.

This system would also mean that Coaches would always buy rerolls – since these don’t count to the salary cap and also hoard money in the Treasury. As has also been pointed out teams costing high values (eg Elves) are penalised since they will often function with a small number of players – their low Avs will then make them very weak as a squad when faced with a team with a bunch of cheaper players. Sure you could then have a variable salary cap… but then would this be fair?… and of course you could raise the cap to keep more players employed.

Unfortunately I feel this has too many flaws… largely due to its simplicity.


Dave

[neoliminal]

Hey Dave.

Can you show me these teams? I didn't have a decent Elf team to tweak the numbers against. I'm pretty sure you can figure out a decent level.

The other option would be to simply have a total number of SPP's allowed on a single team. Say 250 total SPP's.

John -

[christer]

I didn't have a decent Elf team

Here you go:

FUMBBL List of teams

-- Christer

[Cervidal]

Of course you don't... you run the 'Orc Boyz Leeg', afterall. Damned armored gits, all of 'em in that league!

[Zombie]

Elves would definitely be the most penalized. Dwarves may cost a lot, but they don't need 16 players, since they rarely get hurt. Elves having to run a team with only 11 players would be pretty bad. But the system could probably be tweaked to make it fairer.

As for the idea of applying it at the end of each season. Bad idea, since seasons vary greatly in length from league to league and some don't even have seasons.

[christer]

Ok.. As you probably don't want to go through all teams in FUMBBL, I've added a salary column to the tables.

FUMBBL Teams

-- Christer