Offseason Rule Change Proposals

[Deleted]

This is the place to submit proposals for rules changes to occur this offseason.

[Deleted]

Proposal 1: Allow Rookie UFAs to be added to PS. Same rules would apply to them as drafted scale players.

This should be fairly self-explanatory. Rookie undrafted free agents are generally players picked up as a long shot. It doesn't make sense that they should be forced to go to the active roster. Allow them to be placed on the PS when signed after the draft.

Proposal 2: Make cap 2 years from current season available for trading once the current years draft is complete.

This would simply be to save confusion on what is tradable and what is not. For instance right now 18 draft picks are tradable but 18 cap is not. This proposal would be to make 19 cap available for trade when 19 draft picks become available after the draft.

Proposal 3: Allow teams time (24 hours during offseason, 12 hours during season) after winning a FA bid to make necessary arrangements to make their bid legal (i.e. cutting or moving players to PS to make room on the roster or to cut cap).

Right now you must have no more than 31 players on a roster to place a bid on a player that you may or may not end up signing. A manager shouldn't be forced to cut or move a player off their roster (if they have 32) until they are sure they have someone to fill that gap.

However, on a side note, if a manager is allowed to say in their bid what move they will make to become compliant if they win the bid, than that would cover this proposal as well.

[Bengals GM (David)]

As of right now I have two suggestions that come to mind.

• Let all previously unowned scale players be able to be drafted in our annual drafts.
  
• Let UDFAs, not all scale players, be claimed for the year they are rookies. After that they must be acquired through the draft or FA.
  
  

[Deleted]

Picks for lost FA needs some tweaking. Whoever lost DeAngelo Williams got a pick, but I got nothing for losing Eli Manning. Not saying I should have received a 1st necessarily, but I'd say if you lose any QB that was top 20 or 25 you should get something back.

[Deleted]

Gotta ditch playing your division twice for balance. Example green bay going 6-0 annuanlly. Also a set in stone schedule needs to come out sooner. Last time wood was on the box he said the NFC is only completed up to week 6. More time for gameplanning around bye week players based on your opponents.

Agree with jons suggestions.

[Cardinals GM (Tony)]

Proposal:

Include a method of contract buy-outs. We do this in other leagues I am in across multiple sports. Reason I noticed this wasn't in the rules, truthfully, is because it would be ideal for me to buy out the last year of Trent Cole's contract. Think this would be a good addition moving forward, regardless of that (since any change made would be after the fact for me anyway). This way, when someone ends up with a bunch of cap in a rebuilding year or something, they can get out of a contract later.

[Deleted]

Suggest schedule is completed prior to the start of the regular season

[Deleted]

To everyone making suggestions regarding the league schedule. When the LMs and Mods came up with the schedule for this year, we also developed a system to create schedules easily from year to year. It's very similar to the schedule structure of the NFL. Every year now, theoretically the schedule can be made immediately following the league Super Bowl.

[Deleted]

Sept 30, 2016 15:25:03 GMT -6 Bengals GM (David) said:

As of right now I have two suggestions that come to mind.

• Let all previously unowned scale players be able to be drafted in our annual drafts.
  
• Let UDFAs, not all scale players, be claimed for the year they are rookies. After that they must be acquired through the draft or FA.
  
  

Don't like either of these. Rookie drafts are rookie drafts for a reason. This makes things even easier for teams that horde picks (and I horde picks).

Oct 3, 2016 5:30:19 GMT -6 @kansas said:

Gotta ditch playing your division twice for balance. Example green bay going 6-0 annuanlly. Also a set in stone schedule needs to come out sooner. Last time wood was on the box he said the NFC is only completed up to week 6. More time for gameplanning around bye week players based on your opponents.

Agree with jons suggestions.

If you are going to propose a rule that is clearly bias for you, don't weasel out and use example of someone else. I don't necessarily disagree with this proposal, but the flip side is it mirrors NFL scheduling and creates rivalries. It's always fun to have games for the division title the last couple weeks. 

Agree with Jon's suggestions as well.

[Colts GM (Ben)]

Wouldn't bad teams eventually become good and the strength of divisions flip flop? So in the example used above, wouldn't the Vikings, Bears, and Lions eventually become competitive in the long run and present a challenge for the Packers to go 6-0 in the division each year?

In the real NFL, the AFC North had the Steelers, Ravens, and Bengals always fighting for playoff spots and I believe all three made it in previous seasons. Now, only the Steelers are a current playoff team and the AFC West has three playoff teams to date.

[Bengals GM (David)]

The biggest problem about the NFC North is that we struggle to find any resemblance of active owners for Chicago, Detroit, Minnesota to actually make their team better and challenge the Packers in any way. Even now we will have to find new owners for Chicago and Minnesota once again. It's frustrating to attract good owners to neglected teams and expect them to grind out a year or two with a bad but rebuilding team.

Something I would like to do is give some sort of incentive to these teams for new owners choose a project over teams that are obviously good. It's hard to justify giving a team to someone that is in rough shape, because it isn't the new owners fault for the state of the team. So why should we punish a new owner like that? If no headway is being made right away, owners often get frustrated, and since this is a free league they often leave after minimal effort given, because there is no punishment for them leaving. All accountability is put on the next owner.

I have been trying to brainstorm how to break this cycle of neglected teams staying bad and good teams benefiting from the inactivity. One thing I have seen and would like to do is a New Owner draft. New owners of neglected teams get to draft from the pool of all the previously neglected team's assets. This includes draft picks as well as players. This will help bad teams pick assets to what they want their team to build around. I'd also want to give complete cap debt forgiveness. It sucks when a new owner only has 20M in cap to use because the previous owner was absolute terrible and reckless with their cap that will effect the new owner for years to come.

[Deleted]

I wouldn't mind if the previous 49ers owners cap was absolved, but understand if you don't want to retro date the plan

[Buccaneers GM (Kevin)]

This is easily the hardest league to rebuild in in my experience

[Colts GM (Ben)]

Dec 30, 2016 17:25:39 GMT -6 Buccaneers GM (Kevin) said:

This is easily the hardest league to rebuild in in my experience

More comp picks for new owners of bad teams?

[Deleted]

Maybe because you co- general manage a team. That seems extremely difficult, especially when you need to confer with the other gm in every trade talk and roster move