*S6 GM rule proposals

[tbone415]

You just gonna throw around NOLA secrets like that

There is no secrets in the NSFL

[Beaver]

2) Allow teams to offer incentives on player contracts, i.e. activity milestones, pt milestones, gameplay milestones (counts against cap)

Would this be done NHL-style where the bonuses count against the following season's cap? For example:

Player X has a contract that gives him a $1m bonus for hitting 1000 TPE and a $1m bonus for throwing 30 touchdowns. In Season 11 Player X hits 1000 TPE and throws 29 touchdowns so he gets his $1m and his team has $1m that counts against Season 12's cap. The following season he throws 30 touchdowns so he gets paid and they have $1m that counts against Season 13's cap.

Because if it counts in the season it's earned then a team that spends all the way to the cap and one of their players with a bonus clause has a surprise season would be in a tight spot (of their own making). I'm a big fan of natural consequences for poor planning but this could be harmful to the league in situations like the following:

Player X has a contract that gives him a $1m bonus for throwing 30 touchdowns and 5 of his teammates have similar clauses. In Season 11 Player X's team budgeted $5m for bonuses but they're on track to having $6m worth of payouts due to a few surprise performances. With Player X at 29 touchdowns after Week 12 they play a backup for the final 2 weeks to avoid him hitting the performance bonus and thus sending the team over the cap. If they do this without the player's acquiescence then it would lead to a schism almost certainly and even if the player agrees to help out the team it would likely sour the relationship and isn't good for the league. Depending on the standings and schedule that could impact who gets into the playoffs or who gets home field advantage, etc.

Follow up: what's even the penalty for going over the salary cap? I don't see it in the rulebook so maybe it's light enough that teams will just accept it if they have a good enough season to warrant a ton of bonuses.

[AsylumParty]

Would this be done NHL-style where the bonuses count against the following season's cap? For example:

Player X has a contract that gives him a $1m bonus for hitting 1000 TPE and a $1m bonus for throwing 30 touchdowns. In Season 11 Player X hits 1000 TPE and throws 29 touchdowns so he gets his $1m and his team has $1m that counts against Season 12's cap. The following season he throws 30 touchdowns so he gets paid and they have $1m that counts against Season 13's cap.

Because if it counts in the season it's earned then a team that spends all the way to the cap and one of their players with a bonus clause has a surprise season would be in a tight spot (of their own making). I'm a big fan of natural consequences for poor planning but this could be harmful to the league in situations like the following:

Player X has a contract that gives him a $1m bonus for throwing 30 touchdowns and 5 of his teammates have similar clauses. In Season 11 Player X's team budgeted $5m for bonuses but they're on track to having $6m worth of payouts due to a few surprise performances. With Player X at 29 touchdowns after Week 12 they play a backup for the final 2 weeks to avoid him hitting the performance bonus and thus sending the team over the cap. If they do this without the player's acquiescence then it would lead to a schism almost certainly and even if the player agrees to help out the team it would likely sour the relationship and isn't good for the league. Depending on the standings and schedule that could impact who gets into the playoffs or who gets home field advantage, etc.

Follow up: what's even the penalty for going over the salary cap? I don't see it in the rulebook so maybe it's light enough that teams will just accept it if they have a good enough season to warrant a ton of bonuses.

I think that's a good idea. I hadn't considered it, nor did I specify, but I don't think that would be as bad for the league as it would be for the GMs of that team. It's an element of planning that I think would make the job more interesting and immersive. Plus the players would benefit. They could always (assuming the no cap trading rule doesn't pass) trade for more space if necessary. So while it might cost them to pay those consequences, if they have a real shot at making the playoffs I don't see a team not what they need to in order to continue allowing their preferred players to stay on the field.

The penalty in the past has been future cap penalties.

[Beaver]

I think that's a good idea. I hadn't considered it, nor did I specify, but I don't think that would be as bad for the league as it would be for the GMs of that team. It's an element of planning that I think would make the job more interesting and immersive. Plus the players would benefit. They could always (assuming the no cap trading rule doesn't pass) trade for more space if necessary. So while it might cost them to pay those consequences, if they have a real shot at making the playoffs I don't see a team not what they need to in order to continue allowing their preferred players to stay on the field.

The penalty in the past has been future cap penalties.

Yeah if it's just a future cap penalty then my concerns are assuaged, I highly doubt any GM would snake their player like that unless the team penalty was very costly.

[Raven]

3) Use EXP to buff CB's and K/P's and provide an even playing field of enjoyment. Tests will have to be ran to gauge a set amount

Yes

[HENDRIX]

Yes

:agree:

[AdamS]

I want everyone to check out #4. Its the same proposal that failed BADLY last season and is back. It still does nothing but punish teams for players gettng better during the life of their contract and creates serious complications for future budgets.

And i still don't know what it solves.

[ExemplaryChad]

I want everyone to check out #4. Its the same proposal that failed BADLY last season and is back. It still does nothing but punish teams for players gettng better during the life of their contract and creates serious complications for future budgets.

And i still don't know what it solves.

Doesn't it help encourage league parity? If you have to dedicate more cap space as players get better, doesn't that mean the talent will have to spread around a bit more?

Of course, we already have a system in place to do this with contract minimums, but this gives it more oomph, I would think.

For the record, I don't know my position on this proposal, but I'm taking a stab at the reason it's up there.

[AdamS]

changing contracts during the life of the contract isnt a great way to create parity though.

It is however great at getting players to update less so they don't hurt the team when their tpe goes up.