Help Center
|
|
|
Guest (Login) Help Center |
GLFFL - Otto Graham League |
| Warp Speed Warriors | 
Date Thu Jan 19 5:40:05 p.m. ET 2006
Edited Thu Jan 19 5:57:11 p.m. ET 2006
|
| OK, I realize that the salary cap rules were changed during the prior off-season. Though I am curious why there was no format for the league to discuss and vote on this prior to any changes going into effect. But that's an entirely different post/discussion on adding an addendum to the rules that allow for no changes to the rules unless the league votes and passes them. My discussion revolves around the current salary increase set-up. Here is how the rules state the increases should be assigned for QBs, RBs, WRs, & TEs. "11th through 15th at their position, using the league's final regular season Top Performers page, will automatically see their salary increase by 5% or $5 (whichever is greater), those finishing 6th through 10th will see their salary increase by 10% or $10 (whichever is greater), and those finishing among the top five at their position will see a salary increase of 15% or $15 (whichever is greater). The TOP running back in the Otto Graham League from the previous season automatically receives a cap value equal to the average of the top five RB's cap or an increase of 20%, whichever value is higher." Here is my issue. Take the salary of ANY player in the league at QB, RB, WR, or TE and add the 5%, 10% or 15% and what do you get? A value that is ALWAYS LOWER than the $5, $10, or $15 increase. Why is that? Because in order for any player to have a percentage value that is higher than the dollar amount they would have to have a salary of $101 or higher. With a $180 cap, that just isn't going to happen. Instead of making you figure it out, here are some examples to illustrate the point. 15% or $15 increase Salary x 15% = Increase - New Salary Total $10 x 15% = $1.50 increase - $11.50 ($12.00 rounded up) $20 x 15% = $3.00 increase - $23.00 $30 x 15% = $4.50 increase - $34.50 ($35.00 rounded up) $40 x 15% = $6.00 increase - $46.00 $50 x 15% = $7.50 increase - $57.50 ($58.00 rounded up) $60 x 15% = $9.00 increase - $69.00 $70 x 15% = $10.50 increase - $80.50 ($81.00 rounded up) $80 x 15% = $12.00 increase - $92.00 $90 x 15% = $13.50 increase - $103.50 ($104.00 rounded up) $100 x 15% = $115.00 (Same as $15 increase for the FIRST TIME) My point is this. We should either institute a set dollar amount increase and remove the percentages entirely since they have no impact with the current established salary cap system. OR We establish a LOWER BASELINE so that the percentages and dollar amounts mesh better. If we establish a baseline of $40 as our average salary amount; we could set up a system that allows for a set dollar increase for any player below that salary amount and a percentage increase for any player above that salary amount. (That is assuming that $40 is the average price for a player, but it's a good starting point). Here is how it would work. If you place 11-15 at your position, you would have a 5% or $2.00 increase, whichever is greater. If you place 6-10 at your position, you would have a 10% or $4.00 increase, whichever is greater. If you place 2-5 at your position, you would have a 15% or $6.00 increase, whichever is greater. If you place 1st at your position, you would have a 20% increase or the average salary of the top 5 players at your position. This system would allow you to develop players who you acquired at lower prices without breaking the bank but still moving their salaries up at a decent rate. It would still allow for a fair amount of turnover as all players over the $40 mark would see percentage increases greater than the dollar amounts given. Here are some examples to illustrate just how this would work. Salary x 15% = Increase - New Salary Total $10 x 15% = $1.50 increase - $11.50 ($12.00 rounded up) - $6 increase here is greater. $20 x 15% = $3.00 increase - $23.00 - $6.00 increase here is greater $30 x 15% = $4.50 increase - $34.50 ($35.00 rounded up) - $6.00 increase here is greater $40 x 15% = $6.00 increase - $46.00 - $6.00 increase here is equal to percentage. $41 x 15% = $6.15 increase - $46.15 ($47.00 rounded up) - Percentage kicks in here $50 x 15% = $7.50 increase - $57.50 ($58.00 rounded up) Percentage is always greater here on up. $60 x 15% = $9.00 increase - $69.00 $70 x 15% = $10.50 increase - $80.50 ($81.00 rounded up) $80 x 15% = $12.00 increase - $92.00 $90 x 15% = $13.50 increase - $103.50 ($104.00 rounded up) $100 x 15% = $15.00 increase - $115.00 Right now the system in place makes no logical sense. Anyone else have any thoughts on this idea? I am just trying to make this so that the percentages and dollars work in harmony with each other instead of at odds. Feedback on this greatly appreciated. |
| *KATs Cowboys & kowgirls |
Date Thu Jan 19 8:10:18 p.m. ET 2006
|
| Hey Jason, there was some 'tweaking' done in offseason as to future cap increases beginning with this year, those didn't take affect last year though. will say it was my initial thoughts to Kirk on the original numbers put in place simply as percentage increases. i used Larry Johnson as an example. i had him for $1. my point was IF Larry Johnson was the #1 RB in the Graham format AND ONLY recieved the original 20% increase, that would be 0.20 cents to 1.20, even if IF we rounded up then he would go to $2 for year 2, if he again was the TOP RB at 20%, that would only be .40 or 2.40 rounded up to $3...and so forth.. in other words, a $1 player could be the STUD of all studs and if his original cap amount was very low, he would never reach point of being anywhere near what some of the original players were bought for. if i remember right, at the time i calculated out Larry Johnson as being the TOP RB for 10 straight years and my CAP on him would have never exceeded $20 which we know that the 'lifespan of an NFL feature RB' is not going to last 10 years i think the original cap percentage that we auctioned under to begin with were very good for the 1st year or 2 and great with only initial years taken into consideration, but to make Graham an ongoing true to life Cap league, we needed to factor in those $1 & $5 players that might be 'nobodies' when first acquired but emerge as top players/studs after a year or two... so by necessity there needs to be some "faster acceleration" of cap numbers for those true emerging studs that originally were cheap players... if not, and Larry johnson was a top 5 RB year after year after year, i would have a $1, then $2, then $3 stud year after year after year .. if that makes sense.. while i agree with the fact that the current dollar OR percentage increase isn't perfect as we will never see a percentage increasing player until a player is $101 which most likely won't happen... just goes to show that this system still needs a little tweaking as we progress through, clearly Kirk's original idea for this salary cap format was 'cutting edge' and i absolutely LOVE this format.. having to work within cap-restraints considering acquiring players, trades etc makes it far more challenging, no doubt might still need some tinkering and tweaking as the league progresses each year... but clearly its a great format... LT KATs Cowboys & kowgirls |
| *Elmhurst Carnivores |
Date Fri Jan 20 10:05:19 a.m. ET 2006
|
| I am not gonna pretend I followed the complete analysis, but I think the problem is as follows: - The yearly increases are not set up to properly reflect player increases, when the player is acquired at a very low price and then has a phenomenal year (ie. L Johnson). This means that LJ can be kept for 4 or 5 years at probably less than $15 for the entire shelf life of his NFL career. Applying a % to the previous year value only works if that player is at a higher value amount. Is this correct? If I paraphrased the problem correctly, I agree with the issue. I am up for doing whatever we can to make the league equitable and long running. I am in a somewhat unique position of having some very reasonably costing players like Wayne, Evans, Williams and some players soon to be over priced like Gonzo, Moss and Palmer. I think I can survive ok whatever the decision turns out to be. If people wanted to change the rules going forward, I am okay with it. If it means, completely starting over from scratch, I am okay with that too. Getting to know some of the guys in this league throughout the year here and in other leagues, gives me comfort that they are looking out for the best interests of the league. I appreciate all the work and the thought process people are putting into the rules, in advance of when we have to make some decisions. - BH |
| Commissioner |
Date Sat Jan 21 8:41:06 p.m. ET 2006
|
| Hey guys-- thanks for the great feedback on thsi question. This is obviously a top-notch group of owners in this league, as evidenced by the spirited discussion we're having -- 8 1/2 months before the '06 season begins! Here are a couple thoughts from my end. I'd really not like to fool around with starting over with a new auction because I believe we'll lose owners that way (we already have one not coming back regardless of what we decide). Likewise, I think we'll lose owners if we go too radical with the changes and they think they are now in a league too different from what they signed on for. I think the answer lies in the question of the established vs. emerging stars. I like the percentage increases afforded to guys like Tomlinson, etc. who are over the $50 unit threshold. I love the decisions those high salaried guys force on the owners and the flurry of activity we always see each off-season as owners try to throw big money guys back out to get them cheaper, sometimes with disastrous consequences. I think the change we made last year to increase players by a set dollar figure and not a percentage was a huge help in guys like Larry Johnson or Mike Anderson, because as much as I'd love to have one of those guys for 1-2 units, it just wouldn't be realistic to the type of cap game we're trying to do. Therefore, I think we need to establish a threshold in dollar amounts that are current and have that as the cut-off for monetary increases (players $30 and more get pct. increases?) and players $29 and under get set dollar increases like $20 for one through five, $15 for six through ten, $10 for 11 through 15. Of course it would be effective starting in 2007. Or, and this is where we can make a real difference in the world of the cutting edge GLFFL-- we dictate to the MFL software guys what we want them to create and we throw out our pull of having 60 leagues in business with them. We look for them to create additional auction tools that can help us with the festivities and not lose out on the Web-TV guys who can't get the spreadsheet. For example, have them create a tool that would calculate average salaries for all positions in the league for players that are on a roster. Something like this could make it very easy to establish norms for the star players, as well as those that are emerging. I'm throwing out a dollar figure like a $20 increase-- maybe that's off and a calculation tool with the auction portion of the software would help with that. For example, and this is going to be skewed because I'm only going with numbers available through Week 17, the top 5 RBs salaries would be as follows... S. Alexander -- 66 L. Johnson -- 1 T. Barber -- 32 L. Tomlinson -- 77 E. James -- 64 Avg. of the Top 5 -- $48 Therefore, in a case like that and based on my past suggestions, players like Alexander, Barber, Tomlinson and James would get a 20 pct. pay increase based on performance. Johnson would see his salary bump the following year to $48 to be on par with the average. Now I'm not saying I like this totally either-- I think there are still advantages to going after the unknowns and reaping the benefits of them turning into stars. But like I said, let's get creative and see if the MFL software gurus can come up with something to help us here to push our format to the top of the industry. Keep the ideas coming! This is terrific! |