I thought I'd start a new thread since the last one was getting hard to follow. I'd like to attempt a summary of the proposals so far (feel free to correct me if I misrepresent something).
The issue: How to discourage "tanking." The proposals so far: 1. From Salem: Reverse the order of draft picks rewarding the highest finishing non-playoff team with the first pick (tie breakers likely needed) and on down the line. 2. From Rolling Green: Teams do not own their own picks, rather, once the draft order is traditionally established, the worst finishing team chooses the team they believe will finish the worst next season (but not their own team), and etc up through all 24 teams. The actual finish of the teams in the next season determines the next year's draft order. 3. From Pittsburgh: Hold a post-season tournament of the losing teams with the winner getting the first pick, etc. 4. From a couple of members but not nailed down as of yet: a weighted lottery for all non-playoff teams (might also include wildcard teams).
Additionally, a few somewhat related ideas have been proposed: 1. Raise the in-season salary cap to $93m. 2. Set an in-season salary cap floor of $73m. 3. Move the trading deadline from week 4 to week 6 or 8. 4. Create a mechanism for really crappy teams to declare a kind of "bankruptcy" (the Crappy Team Rescue Plan). 5. Allow rookies to be retained for three years before cutting or signing. 6. Limit future trades to one season in advance. 7. Eliminate the Franchise Rule. 8. Eliminate in-season trading altogether.
Hopefully by listing things this way we can address each idea separately on its own merits.
HERE'S MY TAKE ON THESE IDEAS (SUBJECT TO BEING CONVINCED OTHERWISE). I APOLOGIZE FOR USING ALL-CAPS BUT I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE THE EASIEST WAY TO DISTINGUISH MY COMMENTS FROM THE ORIGINAL POST.
1. From Salem: Reverse the order of draft picks rewarding the highest finishing non-playoff team with the first pick (tie breakers likely needed) and on down the line. THIS IDEA WAS REJECTED IN THE PAST BUT MIGHT GET THROUGH THE AMENDMENT PROCESS THIS TIME. 2. From Rolling Green: Teams do not own their own picks, rather, once the draft order is traditionally established, the worst finishing team chooses the team they believe will finish the worst next season (but not their own team), and etc up through all 24 teams. The actual finish of the teams in the next season determines the next year's draft order. BEST IDEA SINCE I PROPOSED IT! :) DO READ THE ARTICLE I LINKED IN THE OTHER THREAD. 3. From Pittsburgh: Hold a post-season tournament of the losing teams with the winner getting the first pick, etc. I HAVE NO INTEREST IN A TOURNAMENT OF LOSERS. 4. From a couple of members but not nailed down as of yet: a weighted lottery for all non-playoff teams (might also include wildcard teams). NEEDS WORK.
1. Raise the in-season salary cap to $93m. NO, NO 2. Set an in-season salary cap floor of $73m. OK 3. Move the trading deadline from week 4 to week 6 or 8. OK 4. Create a mechanism for really crappy teams to declare a kind of "bankruptcy" (the Crappy Team Rescue Plan). NEEDS WORK STILL 5. Allow rookies to be retained for three years before cutting or signing. YES 6. Limit future trades to one season in advance. NO BRAINER 7. Eliminate the Franchise Rule. OPPOSED 8. Eliminate in-season trading altogether. FINE WITH ME
Respectfully, I am proposing a comprehensive package which I believe promotes equal opportunity, incentives to win and contains a safety net for failing franchises. It is not an "anti-tanking" proposal. Attempts to take individual elements of the plan without seeing how they work with the plan as a whole misses the point.
I will repost it here so there is no misunderstanding of the comprehensive package.
1. Lottery Playoff for 12 non playoff teams will follow similar process as Regular Playoff:
- Round 1: 4 teams with best records get first round byes. Remaining 8 teams are seeded 1-8 based on winning percentage and play first round games.. ( 1-8, 2-7,3-6, 4-5) -Round 2: 8 remaining teams seeded 1-8 based on winning percentages and play -Round 3: 4 remaining teams seeded 1-4 based on winning percentages and play -Round 4: 2 remaining teams play each other
Use existing tie breaker rules, except teams with better winning percentages gets higher picks.
2. Trade Changes:
- trading allowed from week 1 through week 8 - in season trading has salary cap of 93M and salary floor of 73M
3. Team Rescue Plan
-any team which finishes in the bottom 4 of the league ( based on winning percentage ) for 2 consecutive seasons may eliminate any two veteran contacts without penalty and get a supplemental first round draft pick ( pick 25 ) in year 3. A team may not use the same season to count for more than one rescue plan. i.e... if you use seasons 2020 and 2021 to qualify, then you can not use 2021 and 2022 to qualify.
Reasoning:
1. The package creates incentives to win. 2. The package allows increased trading which allows teams to rebuild. 3. The package includes a safety net which allows teams who fall on hard times to get back on their feet. 4. The package is balanced and the various elements counter balance each other.
(Grimps),You don’t own your own draft pick. No additional games.(As a 4-12 team I don’t want to get my head kicked in on the field for a mid round pick)
(Steelers) bad team rescue plan. I like.
I would compromise at 6 week trade deadline.
(CLE) keep rookies an extra year before signing. Which would help teams build through their rookie drafts, which makes rookie picks a bit more valued.
No other changes.
Does the same thing as the above package but differently.
To facility voting and modification of the KRFL Rule Book, as in past years when the time comes for formally posting proposals to be voted on (beginning March 21, 2020) ALL proposals MUST be put into the following format:
> Impacted Rule: List the section number of the current Rule Book. If new, state “new".
> Proposed Change: List the specific language of the change you would like to make to a current rule. Highlight the differences from the current rule.
> Explanation: Explain why you feel this change/new rule is needed.
-any team which finishes in the bottom 4 of the league ( based on winning percentage ) for 2 consecutive seasons may eliminate any two veteran contacts without penalty and get a supplemental first round draft pick ( pick 25 ) in year 3. A team may not use the same season to count for more than one rescue plan. i.e... if you use seasons 2020 and 2021 to qualify, then you can not use 2021 and 2022 to qualify.
when would qualifying start? if a team qualified based on 2018 and 2019 seasons, would they be eligible for the relief in 2020, if adopted?
Of course I realize that Jim's proposal comes as a take it or leave it set of rule changes. I was merely taking inventory of all the ideas floating around so I could keep them straight. I thought others might appreciate such a list. I'm a little surprised that Jim insists that his comprehensive plan is not "anti-tanking" when in another thread he labeled it as "anti-dumping." Semantics, I guess. And yes, I get that his package does so much more than that in its current form, I'm just not sold on it.
While "tanking," or whatever any one wants to call it, is a problem, it's not a MAJOR problem. I say that as the person who raised the issue mid last season. It occurs to me that we might be using heavy weaponry to attack a gnat. The league is running well and on the balance is fair and competitive. Simple tweaks might be more in order.
Setting aside for the moment the issue of tanking (which I'll comment on in the next couple days), I'd like to address two ideas that I am in favor of but think still need work.
The easy one is moving the rookie draft pick contract option to a third year. I think we are overthinking the money aspect. The advantage of this rule change is that a team gets to wait an extra year before deciding whether or not to extend a contract. There is no need to set up a different salary system for incoming rookies. They should be treated exactly the same salary-wise as they have in the past, indeed, as every player in the league is treated (save kickers). In the first year after being drafted, rookies who are retained have the salary cost at the level in which they were drafted. Year two, they may be CUT without penalty or KEPT with the standard $1m salary increase. Year three, teams have the option of CUTTING without penalty or SIGNING with the additional $1m standard salary increase. Again, the rule gives teams an extra year to evaluate their talent before signing a contract. Any deviation from our current salary system is an unnecessary dollop of frosting on the cupcake.
The more difficult one is the Crappy Team Rescue. I think the proposals made (including mine) are far too generous as written. The ability to drop two veteran contracts and get a supplemental first round rookie draft pick are a bit much and, as others have pointed out, yet another incentive to "tank." While I think that some kind of declared "bankruptcy" provision might be a good idea, I think it needs further thought. I now think that simply being in the bottom four two years in a row is an insufficient definition of a crappy team. We need to set the bar lower before a team gets the benefits of undoing their mistakes or bad luck.
"Of course I realize that Jim's proposal comes as a take it or leave it set of rule changes."
Obviously, any owner can propose what they want, I just think you need to look at how the various elements work together.
"While "tanking," or whatever any one wants to call it, is a problem, it's not a MAJOR problem."
If my proposed package was purely anti-tanking, it would not include the rescue plan element which allows failing teams to rebuild quickly. Also, it is interesting Steve has criticized raising the in season salary cap and the rescue plan because it allows falling teams to take on larger contracts and take bigger risks.
" I now think that simply being in the bottom four two years in a row is an insufficient definition of a crappy team. We need to set the bar lower before a team gets the benefits of undoing their mistakes or bad luck. "
Again, it is interesting the comment starts off with Steve describing my proposal as "anti-tanking" then attacks it for creating incentives to tank, I am not sure how much lower you can go before you should have the right to a rescue plan but perhaps Steve will come up with one before the deadline.
The perfect will always be the enemy of the possible when you are dealing with the 2/3 amendment barrier.
I like the rookie draft rules the way they are currently structured.
The MAJOR problem with the league rules has been discussed in detail. Whatever the current state of the league, the rules can be tweaked to create equal opportunity, better incentives to win and a safety net to rescue failing franchises.
Some of the current set of rules ( franchise tags, etc.) create monopolies, some create incentives to tank ( you lose, you get better draft picks ),,, I think my proposed package is a good step towards fixing these issues.
To facility voting and modification of the KRFL Rule Book, as in past years when the time comes for formally posting proposals to be voted on (beginning March 21, 2020) ALL proposals MUST be put into the following format:
> Impacted Rule: List the section number of the current Rule Book. If new, state “new".
> Proposed Change: List the specific language of the change you would like to make to a current rule. Highlight the differences from the current rule.
> Explanation: Explain why you feel this change/new rule is needed.
To facility voting and modification of the KRFL Rule Book, as in past years when the time comes for formally posting proposals to be voted on (beginning March 21, 2020) ALL proposals MUST be put into the following format:
> Impacted Rule: List the section number of the current Rule Book. If new, state “new".
> Proposed Change: List the specific language of the change you would like to make to a current rule. Highlight the differences from the current rule.
> Explanation: Explain why you feel this change/new rule is needed.
As we get closer to voting time, I will be sure to put this proposal in proper form . Thanks
