Task 5
I believe there are several changes that can be made around the league that would benefit everyone. Well, I guess I should say they'd benefit everyone that's not currently enjoying the advantages of the things I'm about to list.
The first thing on the list is the infamous QB 79 Speed exploit. Now, first let's take some things into account. No one but the Game Manager archetype will really use the exploit. Pocket Passer and Gunslinger have a speed cap of 75. Mobile can go all the way to 90. Now I don't recall if 90 speed would outdo the 79 exploit (or if there is an 89 exploit) but I do know that if it doesn't, there's no point in taking the worse throwing stats. If it does, they'd just go to 90 and bypass it. So really it all comes back to Game Manager. Thus, I think we should move the Speed cap down to 75 for this archetype. It will unfortunately take away one of the unique advantages of that build and adjusting the throwing stats would then get a bit wonky compared to other builds. So, I think that to create a continued unique build, we could take that 5 from Speed and put it in Agility. The archetype current has a cap of 80 in Agility just as Pocket Passer and Gunslinger do and bumping that to 85 would create a QB who avoids sacks a bit better than those two. Mobile has an Agility cap of 90 for the record. Couple this with the existing 80 cap on Strength (the best of any archetype), and Game Manager will be slightly shifted to being the hands down hardest archetype to sack while still clearly being a superior runner than the non-Mobile archetypes and a better passer than the Mobile archetype. And worse in reverse. It would retain a unique feel and still hold its current place while removing the exploit. At least until someone discovered that 84 Agility exactly stops 90% of all tackles or something.
The second change I'd like to talk about the current rule that someone on a rookie contract who only completes two seasons may not sign a full term contract at the end. Now originally this was one for those rookies who's contract finished after one season but it was expanded to two because well, quite frankly, GMs didn't like it and GMs make up 75% of the rule writing and voting body. That's factual information. I could go into opinion on why they don't like it but that's best saved for another time. The thing is, I don't believe this to be fair to rookies really. Or players in general. So there are a couple of ideas I can propose here that I think could help. The first is to get rid of it entirely and go back to the original setup that only a one season rookie contract was penalized this way. I'm gonna guess this one is unlikely for the already stated reasons. The second idea would be to apply this same ruling to all contracts and not just rookies. Fair is fair. I would be surprised if this one went through though. Players tend be a bit more vocal when it affects everyone. The third idea would be to differentiate. A rookie contract of two years that was written that way would not be penalized and said rookie could sign a full 3 year contract at the end of their deal. On the other hand, a 3 year rookie contract with player options exercised before the 3rd year (with original team) would still fall under this current restriction. Ie, if you signed for2 and left after 2 the current rule doesn't affect you. If you signed for 3 but left after two, it still applies to you. If you signed for 3, were moved to a new team and opted out before 3, it would NOT affect you. I think this would provide a balance and better handle the differing situations that may occur to create a scenario where a rookie contract ends after 2 seasons.
The third and final change I'd like to stump for here is one I've championed several times. Public results of votes. Award votes, punishment votes (when one is handed out), and rules votes are some of the more important things we encounter and as of yet we rarely if ever know who actually votes for what. There is a tremendous amount of power wielded with each vote and as we saw with startling clarity during a recent award voting recap, the hidden nature of these votes allows for blatant corruption (and also hides when people often accused of bias are not, for whatever that may be worth). Now obviously certain drawbacks come with this. People will go from generically blaming groups and people they assume were involved for results they dislike to blaming the correct individuals. That 100% has the chance to go badly at some point. As we've all seen, there are times when people don't get what they want and the result is quite bad. And while there may currently be an entity who is fully resigned to playing the role as the bad guy boogeyman and target of people's wrath, that doesn't mean it's the best solution. This is mostly focused on the punishment aspect though, as that's where the bitterest arguments seem to take place. Awards are of course next in line as we have existing examples of that exposing something specific. Rules voting though, that's where I think you'd see the most enlightening results. Being able to see what your GMs support and don't would be another facet for the average league member to express their own views. Free agents especially so. Gee, I wonder why it's never garnered much support as a proposal.
Anyway, these are my current ideas. Thank you for reading these, grader person.
I believe there are several changes that can be made around the league that would benefit everyone. Well, I guess I should say they'd benefit everyone that's not currently enjoying the advantages of the things I'm about to list.
The first thing on the list is the infamous QB 79 Speed exploit. Now, first let's take some things into account. No one but the Game Manager archetype will really use the exploit. Pocket Passer and Gunslinger have a speed cap of 75. Mobile can go all the way to 90. Now I don't recall if 90 speed would outdo the 79 exploit (or if there is an 89 exploit) but I do know that if it doesn't, there's no point in taking the worse throwing stats. If it does, they'd just go to 90 and bypass it. So really it all comes back to Game Manager. Thus, I think we should move the Speed cap down to 75 for this archetype. It will unfortunately take away one of the unique advantages of that build and adjusting the throwing stats would then get a bit wonky compared to other builds. So, I think that to create a continued unique build, we could take that 5 from Speed and put it in Agility. The archetype current has a cap of 80 in Agility just as Pocket Passer and Gunslinger do and bumping that to 85 would create a QB who avoids sacks a bit better than those two. Mobile has an Agility cap of 90 for the record. Couple this with the existing 80 cap on Strength (the best of any archetype), and Game Manager will be slightly shifted to being the hands down hardest archetype to sack while still clearly being a superior runner than the non-Mobile archetypes and a better passer than the Mobile archetype. And worse in reverse. It would retain a unique feel and still hold its current place while removing the exploit. At least until someone discovered that 84 Agility exactly stops 90% of all tackles or something.
The second change I'd like to talk about the current rule that someone on a rookie contract who only completes two seasons may not sign a full term contract at the end. Now originally this was one for those rookies who's contract finished after one season but it was expanded to two because well, quite frankly, GMs didn't like it and GMs make up 75% of the rule writing and voting body. That's factual information. I could go into opinion on why they don't like it but that's best saved for another time. The thing is, I don't believe this to be fair to rookies really. Or players in general. So there are a couple of ideas I can propose here that I think could help. The first is to get rid of it entirely and go back to the original setup that only a one season rookie contract was penalized this way. I'm gonna guess this one is unlikely for the already stated reasons. The second idea would be to apply this same ruling to all contracts and not just rookies. Fair is fair. I would be surprised if this one went through though. Players tend be a bit more vocal when it affects everyone. The third idea would be to differentiate. A rookie contract of two years that was written that way would not be penalized and said rookie could sign a full 3 year contract at the end of their deal. On the other hand, a 3 year rookie contract with player options exercised before the 3rd year (with original team) would still fall under this current restriction. Ie, if you signed for2 and left after 2 the current rule doesn't affect you. If you signed for 3 but left after two, it still applies to you. If you signed for 3, were moved to a new team and opted out before 3, it would NOT affect you. I think this would provide a balance and better handle the differing situations that may occur to create a scenario where a rookie contract ends after 2 seasons.
The third and final change I'd like to stump for here is one I've championed several times. Public results of votes. Award votes, punishment votes (when one is handed out), and rules votes are some of the more important things we encounter and as of yet we rarely if ever know who actually votes for what. There is a tremendous amount of power wielded with each vote and as we saw with startling clarity during a recent award voting recap, the hidden nature of these votes allows for blatant corruption (and also hides when people often accused of bias are not, for whatever that may be worth). Now obviously certain drawbacks come with this. People will go from generically blaming groups and people they assume were involved for results they dislike to blaming the correct individuals. That 100% has the chance to go badly at some point. As we've all seen, there are times when people don't get what they want and the result is quite bad. And while there may currently be an entity who is fully resigned to playing the role as the bad guy boogeyman and target of people's wrath, that doesn't mean it's the best solution. This is mostly focused on the punishment aspect though, as that's where the bitterest arguments seem to take place. Awards are of course next in line as we have existing examples of that exposing something specific. Rules voting though, that's where I think you'd see the most enlightening results. Being able to see what your GMs support and don't would be another facet for the average league member to express their own views. Free agents especially so. Gee, I wonder why it's never garnered much support as a proposal.
Anyway, these are my current ideas. Thank you for reading these, grader person.