The game suffers from the current non-parity where in the better dots consistently sign with the teams that have done well, which leaves poorer dots for teams that have lost, meaning they are hard pressed to improve and win.
The NFL knows parity sells, Bort should as well.
A way to force parity without being too rude is to have a hard salary cap, wherein the salary cap prevents the offering of contracts that would exceed it the way contracts that would exceed the 55 man limit are not allowed.
Then make salaries for top shelf players higher. Have the minimum salary based off of effective player level, perhaps modified further upward by performance (MVP, Championships and other hardware). Have this be steep such that a primo player would be a significant chunk of the salary cap.
Have the player minimum salary "demand" float each season even if he is playing under a contract. If he is being paid less than his demand, he becomes unhappy and his morale is decreased. Notification is given to the owner in the roster page (sad panda face and a hover that shows how much salary he wants and how much his morale is reduced). This would be fixed by renegotiating a new contract, but which could not exceed the salary cap. This would prevent 3 season contracts with one owner or network teams circumventing the intent of the salary cap system.
In short order teams would be only able to have so many star players and parity would quickly follow.
EDIT - I'm sensing some unrest among the Hoi Polloi. To lessen that, one could gradually implement this. Have it be a rolling effect from Rookie going up a tier one pre season say, and or maybe grandfather in existing contracts on existing teams or something like that. Gets the fix in over the long haul with less kavetching from the 1%ers.
EDIT example of use from thread
If your dot has an Effective Level 5 over his actual level, you have to pay him the salary that would give him a +5 morale bonus.
Optionally, for this calculation add to his Effective Level, +1.0 if he won an MVP or Championship last season, and plus .5 for each other gold trophy (tournament gold, 1st place in rushing yards etc) and .25 for each silver trophy (tourney 2nd place, Conference Championship if they didnt get gold, 2nd place in rushing yards) and .125 for each bronze trophy (3rd place in tourney, 3rd place in rushing yards). Add 1/2 the value for these awards from the season before that, and one quarter the value the season before that.
Once signed, instead of getting a +5 morale for the contract, he would get a zero morale bonus (you would have to give him a +10 contract to get a +5 out of him). Thats not in the OP, and its an option.
If his contract is multi season, then the next day 41, his adjusted Effective Level is checked again. If is has risen higher than the amount it was when he was signed (ie to 6 say in the example above) he receives a morale reduction for each whole Adjusted EL lower than the current contract morale bonus (ie his 0 morale bonus at the +5 contract would become a -1 morale penalty). The owner would have to renegotiate his stud players deal if he wanted his player happy.
Optionally, you could shuck the cap thing and just have the moral penalty concept. Would be less harsh but still effective.
The NFL knows parity sells, Bort should as well.
A way to force parity without being too rude is to have a hard salary cap, wherein the salary cap prevents the offering of contracts that would exceed it the way contracts that would exceed the 55 man limit are not allowed.
Then make salaries for top shelf players higher. Have the minimum salary based off of effective player level, perhaps modified further upward by performance (MVP, Championships and other hardware). Have this be steep such that a primo player would be a significant chunk of the salary cap.
Have the player minimum salary "demand" float each season even if he is playing under a contract. If he is being paid less than his demand, he becomes unhappy and his morale is decreased. Notification is given to the owner in the roster page (sad panda face and a hover that shows how much salary he wants and how much his morale is reduced). This would be fixed by renegotiating a new contract, but which could not exceed the salary cap. This would prevent 3 season contracts with one owner or network teams circumventing the intent of the salary cap system.
In short order teams would be only able to have so many star players and parity would quickly follow.
EDIT - I'm sensing some unrest among the Hoi Polloi. To lessen that, one could gradually implement this. Have it be a rolling effect from Rookie going up a tier one pre season say, and or maybe grandfather in existing contracts on existing teams or something like that. Gets the fix in over the long haul with less kavetching from the 1%ers.
EDIT example of use from thread
If your dot has an Effective Level 5 over his actual level, you have to pay him the salary that would give him a +5 morale bonus.
Optionally, for this calculation add to his Effective Level, +1.0 if he won an MVP or Championship last season, and plus .5 for each other gold trophy (tournament gold, 1st place in rushing yards etc) and .25 for each silver trophy (tourney 2nd place, Conference Championship if they didnt get gold, 2nd place in rushing yards) and .125 for each bronze trophy (3rd place in tourney, 3rd place in rushing yards). Add 1/2 the value for these awards from the season before that, and one quarter the value the season before that.
Once signed, instead of getting a +5 morale for the contract, he would get a zero morale bonus (you would have to give him a +10 contract to get a +5 out of him). Thats not in the OP, and its an option.
If his contract is multi season, then the next day 41, his adjusted Effective Level is checked again. If is has risen higher than the amount it was when he was signed (ie to 6 say in the example above) he receives a morale reduction for each whole Adjusted EL lower than the current contract morale bonus (ie his 0 morale bonus at the +5 contract would become a -1 morale penalty). The owner would have to renegotiate his stud players deal if he wanted his player happy.
Optionally, you could shuck the cap thing and just have the moral penalty concept. Would be less harsh but still effective.
Edited by yello1 on Apr 11, 2012 12:52:16
Edited by yello1 on Apr 11, 2012 11:03:14
Edited by yello1 on Apr 10, 2012 23:12:09
