Salary cap : use this thread

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Fri Mar 28, 2003 9:35 pm

Okay that's kinda what I meant by using JJ's formula but I'd rather see the "value" of a player treated more like a star player. It's gives coaches something to have pissing contests about. Ya know?

JJ's cost formula might have to be tweaked to include inggling injuries but other than that I don't see that it's too complex. I think most people can do it their head.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Fri Mar 28, 2003 9:38 pm

It's when you have to calculate it for the whole team, every game, that it become very tedious. Like i said, the most complicated salary cap that could be widely accepted is TR minus a couple of things.

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Fri Mar 28, 2003 9:39 pm

It;s got to be player specific so you can easily see what players need to go to come in under the cap.

Anthony_TBBF · Post by **Anthony_TBBF** » Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:35 pm

If you just add an extra column on your team sheet you'd only have to figure it out when a player gets a skill or an injury.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Fri Mar 28, 2003 11:00 pm

Pariah wrote:It;s got to be player specific so you can easily see what players need to go to come in under the cap.

It's easy enough to figure out the worth of a player TR-wise.

Anthony_TBBF · Post by **Anthony_TBBF** » Sat Mar 29, 2003 12:43 am

True enough, the SPPs are added up anywyas. The only thing I can think of is that if it based on SPPs, then players are penalized per point rather than per skill. I don't know if it fair to rank a player by points which are more meaningless than skills to an extent. A player at 6 SPPs with one skill is just the same as one with 12 and one skill in terms of worth IMO.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Sat Mar 29, 2003 2:28 am

Yeah, but there's accuracy, and then there's unnecessary complexity. Added accuracy is always nice as long as you can keep at least as simple.

NightDragon · Post by **NightDragon** » Sat Mar 29, 2003 9:16 am

I've posted my opinion often about this often. Salary caps or limiting TR's is the fairest way to go.
Under the ageing rule you can never, ever be physically injured until you roll as a result of being successful. Weird logic there. I can see what is being attempted but it is not right.
The NFL has salary caps and its the fairest sport in the World. In all the other major sports they are dominated by a few teams.

rwould · Post by **rwould** » Sat Mar 29, 2003 11:15 am

DeputyDawg wrote:The NFL has salary caps and its the fairest sport in the World. In all the other major sports they are dominated by a few teams.

Try telling that to the Bengals fans......

The NFL was just as fair before the salary cap was introduced (courtesy of the draft system). It is also hard to compare with BB due to the bizarre way salaries are calculated and fixed to be cap friendly.

I'd prefer a re-jig of the aging rules in place at the moment. Or something that forces you to field your star gutter runner on the pitch on D as well. Otherwise those guys are going to be around forever.

I think appearance fees would be an improvement over measures such as this. These will not hit the elite players too much, as others have pointed out.

Richard

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Sat Mar 29, 2003 3:02 pm

Really, that's not true. The Bengals and the Cardinals have bad front office management and don't spend money on free agents. Len Pasquarelli touched on this in his Tip Sheet this week if your're interested in the details - http://espn.go.com/nfl/columns/pasquare ... 30677.html
There are 5 teams that don't freely spend money, and they make up almost 48% of cap space leaguewide.

Before the salary cap was introduced, the teams that spent the most money won most of the Super Bowls. The 49 ers and Redskins were two of the most free spending franchises in the league, and they both did quite well pre-salary cap.

I really don't think that salary caps are the way to go in BB, though. The modified winnings table is doing an effective job at that.

NightDragon · Post by **NightDragon** » Sat Mar 29, 2003 4:07 pm

That's right, the Bungals are their own worst enemy. As for appearance fees, that was such a horrid attempt to even things up, talk about killing player development! TR limit is the way to go.

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Sat Mar 29, 2003 5:02 pm

IT should be easy enough to base it on skill increases but I'd like to see something that takes a different approach for the stat increases. I mean, A +1 Ag is not really worth the same amount as Block.

As for your point on accuracy zombie. I don't see how you call that accurate? Using Anthony's example (just a little differently) YOur system would rate a player with 76 SPPs much lower than someone with 125 but they have the same skill level on the field, not very accurate IMO.

Mestari · Post by **Mestari** » Sat Mar 29, 2003 6:49 pm

Skummy wrote: The modified winnings table is doing an effective job at that.

Well said. If someone says that aging is an artificual mechanic, then what is a salary or TR cap? Yes, there are RL salary caps, but as a BB game mechanic I couldn't invent a more artificual one...

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Sat Mar 29, 2003 6:53 pm

DeputyDawg wrote:That's right, the Bungals are their own worst enemy. As for appearance fees, that was such a horrid attempt to even things up, talk about killing player development! TR limit is the way to go.

Yep, and it's not even JUST that they're cheap. When they do shell out big bux, it's on guys like Akili Smith. What is he, now, their 3rd Quarterback?

The sad thing is how much WORSE they could be. Corey Dillon has been carrying that team for years. Without him they'd have not won ANY games for 4 seasons straight!

Yeah the salary cap is a good thing for the NFL overall. My one big beef with it is it encourages teams to treat their old veterans like dog s#it. Yeah, Jerry Rice, you're the best football player ever, but we have to cut you because you cost too much. So much for team loyalty. Go play for Oakland.

But overall it is a good thing. We've had different Super Bowl winners each year since the Broncos won 2 in a row. That's a good thing. It was no fun when the same 3 or 4 teams won the Super Bowl every time. For a long time it was like "well, it's either GreenBay, Dallas, or San Fran against some chump team from the AFC who's gonna get killed!" Not real entertaining to about 90% of the fans (aka the ones not in GB, SF, or Dallas)

NightDragon · Post by **NightDragon** » Sat Mar 29, 2003 6:56 pm

It might be artificial, but at least you could see it as an imposed game mechanic just like the NFL did. The aging rule is just unrealistic. Players who get injured get a NI or stat decrease ofcourse, but to get one of these for being successful and no injury!