Salary cap : use this thread

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Fri Mar 28, 2003 4:32 am

Since there doesn't seem to be a thread specifically for salary caps (an aging alternative), and i don't want the thread that lists all alternatives to get clobbered with discussion about this, i decided to make a new thread.

Here's Anthony's post from the other thread (note to Anthony: you could edit your post to link here now) :

Here's one I like. It's not my idea but I have talked about this with various people inthe last little while.

NAME:

Salary Cap

LINK:

No link.

DESCRIPTION:

Instead of aging (which seems artificial to me), impose a Salary Cap on a team. Basically you would take the cost of the player and either a cost per SPP or skill and add them together, this is their salary. Exciting! The Salary Cap would be a limit on how much your team costs in total. I'm not sure how much that would be, you'd have to work it out so teams cap out at an acceptable TR level. Tis way you can manage your roster by deciding who stays and goes. Do I hang on to the Super Star? He counts towards alot to the Cap and means the rest of the team maybe be less skilled in general. Or do I keep more average skilled players all around? This system seems more like managing a real sports team to me.

ADVANTAGES:
Doesn't give your new +1ST Blitzer a NI on his first skill roll...
Is more like real sports team management!
Let's you tailor your roster to your taste by deciding who stays and goes on your team.
The Cap is easily House Ruled to be higher or lower depending on League preference.

DISADVANTAGES:
A bit more book-keeping.
Must decide on a baseline Cap to work from.
Need to think more about how exatly a team's worth is calculated.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Fri Mar 28, 2003 4:35 am

Now, my own opinion about this is that salary caps are one of the best way to go about the whole thing. To make it easier however, what i would do is simply make it a cap on TR. You would have to keep your TR below, say 300. If you hit 300 for whatever reason, you'd have to throw away some cash or fire a player.

A disadvantage of salary caps that i can forsee, however, is that we'd get a bunch of teams all at exactly the same level. I know that the BBRC want more fluctuation in a team's history, so they probably won't like this too much.

Anthony_TBBF · Post by **Anthony_TBBF** » Fri Mar 28, 2003 4:39 am

I guess the reason basing it on cash instead of TR was so that some things like cash in the bank, cheerleaders and ass't coaches etc. would be left out and the price might more accurately reflect the players' worth. Basing it on TR makes it much easier though.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Fri Mar 28, 2003 4:40 am

Another point about salary caps (which i didn't want to post in the other thread to keep it clean) is that it doesn't actually target the better players.

Its not going to do anything about annoying 1 turners, sure they will use a lot of tr up, but they can still bring them on as game winners until they develope a replacement.

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Fri Mar 28, 2003 4:48 am

YOu could also thrown in voluntary peaking. This would help it feel more like management and strategy.

Yesss, I like this!

Anthony_TBBF · Post by **Anthony_TBBF** » Fri Mar 28, 2003 6:07 am

Well, I think that one turn scorers is a whole different issue, but if the cap is set correctly having a high SPP player on your team could mean that the rest of your players will suffer becuase you can't afford to keep other skilled players on the team. Of course this is all theory at the moment until we come up with a good system for calculating the costs and applying them to some teams.

Relborn · Post by **Relborn** » Fri Mar 28, 2003 7:26 am

I would prefer an unvoluntary peaking system. Our league has good experiences with such a system so far ...

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Fri Mar 28, 2003 7:28 am

What do you think of using JJ's player cost formula?

I think it's as good as any other. I don't think there is any sense in trying to to make calculations for certain skill combinations (block & dodge) and the formula is very good for stat increases and such.

I think that after that you should count the total cost of the team in the Salary Cap. It's just easier and they do affect the over all ability of a team. Then lave the axact amount of the cap up to the individual leagues.

Very easy and very smart. I love this and want to test it.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Fri Mar 28, 2003 7:42 am

It's actually very complicated. In the formula, some skills are worth more than others. And even if they weren't, that way too much stuff to calculate. Using the TR would be ok. Using the TR and deducing the amount in the treasury would be all right also. Anything more than that would be too much to ask.

MistWraith · Post by **MistWraith** » Fri Mar 28, 2003 12:49 pm

I like the Idea of a salary cap, it actualy sounds fun.

For the actual method of determining how much a player is worth, I would think that we should make it 10,000 for every point the player adds to the TR. i.e. his/she/it's cost plus SPP's divided by five then times by 10,000. So a Elf lineman with 30 SPP's would count as 130,000 toward the salary cap (70,000 cost + 60,000 for SPP's).

Basicly you are taking the Team Rating and droping the Fan Factor, Apothacary, assistant coaches, Chearleaders, Re-Rolls, and tresury.

As for the actual Cap I think about two million would be a good place to start, maybe two and a half.

zeroalpha · Post by **zeroalpha** » Fri Mar 28, 2003 1:37 pm

You don't only have to put a cap on team rating.

You could place a cap on the total SPP's on a team, that way you could have a few highly advanced players or a greater number of less advanced players.
This would allow for greater differences in teams ratings while still addressing the uber powerful teams. You could still have your "one turners" but at the loss of other players, and depending on what level the cap is placed at you could still have a team of "stars" but only have 11 players, your choice.

Just my two cents on caps

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Fri Mar 28, 2003 2:06 pm

I'm not sure how I feel about this one, ruleswise it is elegant and achieves the goal of not linking the team management to the individual players.

But.. I do agree with the BBRC that a bit of fluctuation in team levels would be nice.

It will lead to some tough decisions which may be painful but maybe that would be a good thing

. At least it puts control back into the hands of the coaches.

I think the level would have to be set vey carefully though otherwise the cap will either have too much effect restrict development or not affect teams in any way at all.

One last point to bear in mind is that some teams are going to hit the cap before others (race wise), not sure if this will be a problem but it probably is something to think about.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Fri Mar 28, 2003 2:07 pm

I still think this is backwards, a lot of players are going to keep sacking new players in order to keep their star player(s) in the team for as long as its feasable.

Isn't the idea to encourage a cycle of players and bringing new talent into the team?

MistWraith · Post by **MistWraith** » Fri Mar 28, 2003 2:54 pm

Yes some teams will do that, just like what happens in the NFL. But, when they have to retire that big player due to injuries or death, then they will be hurting quite a bit. This is called the re-building period in the NFL as in "time to rebuild the team becaause we lost the one player the team was based around period".

As for team fluxuation, it will still happen due to deaths/injuries. When you lose a Superstar ranked player your Team Rating will go down quite a bit. 20-30 points maybe deopending on how much they cost to begin with. If I were to lose a Witch Elf with maxed our Star Player rolls I am losing almost 50 points off my Team Rating.

Anthony_TBBF · Post by **Anthony_TBBF** » Fri Mar 28, 2003 4:36 pm

a lot of players are going to keep sacking new players in order to keep their star player(s) in the team for as long as its feasable.

Yes that will happen and is quitre a viable strategy. However as the post above points out, it might not be the smartest one. If you think about most ports teams, most have one player who is the "star", a couple of other good players, a bunch of competent ones and a few fillers.

The thing I like about this system is the flexibility, and the fact it doesn;t nuke the players you are growing to like and want to develop. I don't think there is anything wrong with having a super star on a BB team, it's all a part of the flavour of Blood Bowl, and most people I know have lots of fun developing these types of players. They also become targets whichcan make their life difficult.

If I was going to do a cap, I would make a new column called Worth and calculate player cost like this:

Worth = Player's Cost + 10K per Additional Skill + 20K per Additional Trait or Doubles Skill - 10K per Injury (NI or Stat)

Then I would simply place a cap on the team's total. It would be easy to maintain since you would only have to adjust it when you get a skill or an injury. I'm not too sure if including RRs etc. is needed or not, I kinda like the idea of keeping it restricted to players only. Getting rid of a re-roll to stay under the cap for example doesn't sit right with me.