Reset points for new team owners?

[Brian-Broncos]

Seems the amount of points given to a new team owner should be specific, like based on the amount of unsigned players, rather than be whatever the previous owner left them. The point is to try to start all new owners at about the same level.

This would be especially useful when starting two new owners at the same time and one of the teams was managed poorly and the other managed well.

For example, if a new owner inherits a team with 20 unsigned players and and the yearly allotment is 53, maybe that team has points reset to 83 (53 plus 1.5 points per unsigned player). If they only have 10 unsigned players, then they would get 68 points to start.

[Matt-Jacksonville]

I can agree to reset the points to the normal allotment, but am against going above that. The idea has been to take points out of the economy so to speak for various reasons. If I use all my points in 2043, I get 53 to start 2044. A new coach coming in shouldn't get more than the 53. I may have 30 guys to sign with that 53, but that's the same for any other coaches that have 30 40 or 10. I might could see a commish exemption in an extreme case where the new guy was faced with signing 3/4 of his team, but that would be at Rich's discretion and an exception, not the rule.

[Jerry-Redskins]

Not a fan. Plenty of us are in or near rough point and contract issues. We also do not let a team sit open. They get managed if open during a season. The world is not fair and eating newbies can be tasty

[Mitch-Oilers]

I understand your concern. Luckily, our league has so many safety nets to protect bad GMs that even if you inherit a poorly managed team, its still not too bad.

[Rich-League Officer]

Brian, that's silly
The idea we give out points based on each teams needs is a complete non-starter.
And, the Saints were not mis-managed at all.
In fact, they left you with lots of good players.
Yeah they had to be signed, but would you have preferred a crap roster and just cut half the team?
Having under 10 points this time of season is not unusual or a problem.

And for all teams, POINTS are still trending DOWN.
Despite whining and crying about the points, no team ever has any trouble keeping their entire roster year in and year out.
Once upon a time it was 65 points and been going lower each season, now 53 and still no trouble.
It will go down again in 2045. And will keep going down until I see teams have a little trouble keeping their roster.
NFL teams do not get to keep their 53 each season, but PNFL teams do.
That needs to change, slooowly.

[Brian-Broncos]

First, I want to be clear - I'm not saying things were unfair for me or anything. I might've complained a bit about all the unsigned guys, but really I started with just enough pts to do everything I needed.

This is just an idea on how to start all new owners out at about the same level, which I still think is a good thing to do.

Brian, that's silly
The idea we give out points based on each teams needs is a complete non-starter.

That's not silly. Actually, that's entirely the point. Take a bad setup, take a good setup, and make them both the same for an incoming owner. (And without the Commish having to make things up on the fly to start a new owner out - now that would be silly.)

Despite whining and crying about the points, no team ever has any trouble keeping their entire roster year in and year out.

I see your point, and agree, that things would be better if teams were forced to release a couple of guys they really wanted. Sadly, even me.

Clearly my formula started too high, maybe just 1 pt per unsigned, or a 1/2 pt - probably depends on where pts are with the league. Though, I think starting all new teams with just the yearly allotment would be cruel, especially when some of those teams may have 20 unsigned guys and others have just 10. Again, the point is to make things equal between incoming owners.

And, the Saints were not mis-managed at all.

Despite the decent roster, the Saints had the most unsigned players in the league and the 5th fewest points. That's, on some level, mis-managed.

[Dean-Atlanta]

What we consider mismanaged is a matter of perspective, different GMs have ideas about how to properly manage a roster. Chicago continually reloads with mostly veterans and Washington reloads and rebuilds mostly with players in the draft, and is currently offering top talent for draft picks. New Orleans got a little bit too old for my taste, but then again I have the second youngest team in the league, and will be getting younger with 22 picks in the next two rookie drafts. Philly is the youngest team and did a complete rebuild with rookies. Reloading and rebuilding with veteran players does cost more points for restructures of contracts.

[Brian-Broncos]

What we consider mismanaged is a matter of perspective, different GMs have ideas about how to properly manage a roster.

Very good point. And not knowing the history of how it got there, I maybe was a bit unfair to the previous owner.

[Steve-LA Chargers]

Maybe give new coaches an extra XF, XT and XR

[Moxs - Patriots]

Hey, I had to release 2 players I wanted to keep, it was almost 4 cause a had a brain cramp.

I am with Jerry on this, I think we are at or very close to the tipping point Rich is looking for....

Sigh, sadly Rich do not seem to be.... oh well.

We all deal with our teams as best we can.

Moxs