PNFL

I would not be apposed to this, but I think we should not start for at least 1 more season. This will be a drastic change and many teams have traded picks/points/players based on how the rules have been. I think this could very negatively impact some of those teams next season.

I don't think carryover amount matters. What we need is something the US government never has anymore: a SPENDING CAP. That acts as a sufficient salary cap. If I can't spend more than 65 points next season, doesn't matter how much I carry over.

What we could do is have varying SPENDING CAPS based on final record/draft ranking.

Top six teams: 65 point spending cap
Next six teams: 70 point spending cap
Bottom six teams: 80 point spending cap

This variation by finish lets teams like Detroit benefit from their carryover. Can't use all of it but he can certainly chip away at it.

That might make sense if the bottom tier teams actually had points to carry over, but unless the majority of teams have that many points to carry over the tiers would be pointless.

Honestly, it doesn't matter to me what we end up doing. Until we have built in greater differentiation between player ratings, while some of you fight over a player that is 98% of MAX rating, I will sign a guy for a point at 97% of MAX rating and live well within my points.

Mitch-Chiefs wrote:Honestly, it doesn't matter to me what we end up doing. Until we have built in greater differentiation between player ratings, while some of you fight over a player that is 98% of MAX rating, I will sign a guy for a point at 97% of MAX rating and live well within my points.

Don't tell them a winning strategy Mitch... That is what I have adopted now that I'm getting some experience in the league.

Bumping to continue the discussion. The Commissioners Office has continued to lower the point allocation based on total points (Inflation) in the league. They had grown until last season. The issue is the current allocation is too low in my opinion. The majority of teams will have to drop a large portion of their teams in a couple seasons. I feel the reason points are high is because of two reasons. A few teams that made decisions that over several season is/will pull 100's of points out of the economy. I also believe trading them allows to roll over too many times in the economy.

The most pressing issue is the "hoarding". I believe this is the most pressing issue to deal with first. I understand the teams that made their decisions did it properly and should not be punished. This is why I believe we need to set a carryover cap, but also phase it in over time. I think it can be done as Rich documented with a math adjustment based on the future cap and not 0 in the thread or just set a cap number and make it official in a future year. For example, we could say SNS after 2045 and a carry over of 25/30. This would give teams time to use the amount they have to be fair and allow the annual allocation to increase back to a reasonable number. My guess is the annual allocation should be some where between 59 to 65 as well to force roster management decisions and provide a reasonable FA.

Bottom line is we need a healthy flowing cap economy as I believe it is unsustainable to have the PNFL continue to over tighten the points based on points never being used. Please provide your thoughts

"The Commissioners Office has continued to lower the point allocation based on total points (Inflation) in the league. They had grown until last season. The issue is the current allocation is too low in my opinion."

1) What is this season's allocation? 55or 54?
2) If it is 54 and the reason that the allocation has gone down from 65 is to combat the increase of the league point pool and the point pool did not did not increase last season - then should the allocation for this season be the same as last?
3) This is confusing, My point 2 above is confusing.

I would be in favor of Steve’s spending cap idea.

The allocation has been dropping over the last few seasons. Part of the reason is the increase in available points sitting in the league/Economy. It means there are lots of points not being used at all. Part of it is the blowing up of a couple of teams, trading, and the new aging. The complete sell off of a few teams means little use of points by those teams. Detroit did use a ton last season for resignings which also led to the first drop in @ 5 seasons, but it will mean even less later for them. Trading means players that would have went into FA just passed between teams along with the points. These points stay in the economy as well. This mean the total points available across the league has been increasing each season. In a balanced situation, the points would even out over time with some ups and downs.

I may be wrong, but looking at the numbers, I suspect half to 2/3 of the league will have to lose half their roster and fill it back with 1 point signings only in order to have 53 players in 3 or 4 seasons. If true it would mean a race to be the first to post FA bids and the other few teams would have anyone they want. The having to race to post is not a healthy potential. We are already at the point where just 2 or 3 teams cannot be beat in FA. That is not healthy either. Making some decisions to have an advantage is not bad, but we are trending in a negative way I think.

The allocation is down to 54 this season. It has dropped over the last 5 seasons from 65 which was the amount for a very long time. The new retirement feature did end paying for anti-aging. That averaged about 3 points a season and we add @ 2 points per team with betting. This is why a said 59 to 65 looks like the right sustainable allocation with a reasonable carryover cap and in my opinion end of trading points. I think things work best if there are a level of cuts into FA and competitive bidding.

Only issue I see with a spending cap is it doesn't take into consideration that contracts are not actually finite over time with lengths and other movement. There are peaks and valleys as we retire players, trade and make FA decisions. The flow of players is just up and down. We did have a difference in allocations at one time based on prior season finish. Other wise while a cap is "socialist" in nature for healthy competitive balance, the spending cap ultimately is hasher on success. I think having a cap at a point that forces everyone to make some moves is better, than forcing the top to dump to the bottom allows teams making bad decisions to benefit from ones making the best. Balance and competition is good over all for the league and the draft already adds the punishment for being successful. Especially with the weaker classes we are seeing.