New Sticky Note

The new user interface is in preview!

Want to check it out? Click here! (If you don't like it, you can still switch back)

The draft is underway!

Click here to go to your war room, or visit the war room item in the draft menu.

League Forums

Main - General MFN Discussion

Re: AI Offseason Overhaul Thread

By Infinity on Trial
9/14/2019 2:53 pm
TarquinTheDark wrote:
raymattison21 wrote:
The nfl 89% rules doesn't allow for all that movement of money it's distributed throughout the teams 53 contracts if it not used. Forcing teams tompay players to higher contracts . Sign he best guys and pay them is all it really does , but it does account for 4 years into the future which doesn't allow them to fall so far in to a dead cap hole like here when you gut a team to make to your liking.


Lol, do you think the money that is reported to the media for public scrutiny is all that's there? IRL, 89% creates a whole new level of financial shenanigans. That is what accountants and agents are for.

Still, a pretty good idea here.


This is a distraction from the point of this thread, but yes, the 89% rule is there to prevent teams from sandbagging. Small markets like KC and Cincy were notorious for padding their owners' bottom lines by leaving 10s of millions in cap room.

I'm all for more realistic salary rules, but there are users who barely comprehend things as they are. Otherwise, I would favor a salary floor and a rollover of unused cash to the following year's cap. Also: A higher minimum salary for young players, and even higher minimum for veterans. Lower the maximum contracts limits, lower the percent that can be bonus money, and allow the first and second season base salary to be fully guaranteed.

A cap rules overhaul is worth considering eventually, but certainly not a priority at this point.

Something, even if minor, should happen immediately to stop the AI from ruining teams.

After that, I would favor an overhaul of player speed distribution and an overhaul of playbooks.

Re: AI Offseason Overhaul Thread

By parsh
9/14/2019 3:39 pm
AI should simply sign 1 year minimum contracts. Let a new owner have a massive salary cap to rebuild.

Re: AI Offseason Overhaul Thread

By raymattison21
9/14/2019 6:25 pm
Infinity on Trial wrote:
I don't expect the AI to ever compete with experienced owners. I just want it to stop ruining teams (and leagues)


Nobody is talking about that.

Re: AI Offseason Overhaul Thread

By raymattison21
9/14/2019 6:26 pm
TarquinTheDark wrote:
raymattison21 wrote:
The nfl 89% rules doesn't allow for all that movement of money it's distributed throughout the teams 53 contracts if it not used. Forcing teams tompay players to higher contracts . Sign he best guys and pay them is all it really does , but it does account for 4 years into the future which doesn't allow them to fall so far in to a dead cap hole like here when you gut a team to make to your liking.


Lol, do you think the money that is reported to the media for public scrutiny is all that's there? IRL, 89% creates a whole new level of financial shenanigans. That is what accountants and agents are for.

Still, a pretty good idea here.


I like the idea of a 110% rule similar but opposite

Re: AI Offseason Overhaul Thread

By raymattison21
9/14/2019 6:30 pm
parsh wrote:
AI should simply sign 1 year minimum contracts. Let a new owner have a massive salary cap to rebuild.


This is great for lower rated players but the renegotiating would make much sense

Re: AI Offseason Overhaul Thread

By raymattison21
9/14/2019 6:35 pm
Infinity on Trial wrote:
TarquinTheDark wrote:
raymattison21 wrote:
The nfl 89% rules doesn't allow for all that movement of money it's distributed throughout the teams 53 contracts if it not used. Forcing teams tompay players to higher contracts . Sign he best guys and pay them is all it really does , but it does account for 4 years into the future which doesn't allow them to fall so far in to a dead cap hole like here when you gut a team to make to your liking.


Lol, do you think the money that is reported to the media for public scrutiny is all that's there? IRL, 89% creates a whole new level of financial shenanigans. That is what accountants and agents are for.

Still, a pretty good idea here.


This is a distraction from the point of this thread, but yes, the 89% rule is there to prevent teams from sandbagging. Small markets like KC and Cincy were notorious for padding their owners' bottom lines by leaving 10s of millions in cap room.

I'm all for more realistic salary rules, but there are users who barely comprehend things as they are. Otherwise, I would favor a salary floor and a rollover of unused cash to the following year's cap. Also: A higher minimum salary for young players, and even higher minimum for veterans. Lower the maximum contracts limits, lower the percent that can be bonus money, and allow the first and second season base salary to be fully guaranteed.

A cap rules overhaul is worth considering eventually, but certainly not a priority at this point.

Something, even if minor, should happen immediately to stop the AI from ruining teams.

After that, I would favor an overhaul of player speed distribution and an overhaul of playbooks.



The AI should be able to retain stars and better players if they have the money . Once those guys hit the market in less active leagues it’s so easy to create a power house for years. I think that ruins leagues as well. No as bad but not fun or enticing either

Re: AI Offseason Overhaul Thread

By bgedgerly
9/15/2019 9:45 am
raymattison21 wrote:
Infinity on Trial wrote:
TarquinTheDark wrote:
raymattison21 wrote:
The nfl 89% rules doesn't allow for all that movement of money it's distributed throughout the teams 53 contracts if it not used. Forcing teams tompay players to higher contracts . Sign he best guys and pay them is all it really does , but it does account for 4 years into the future which doesn't allow them to fall so far in to a dead cap hole like here when you gut a team to make to your liking.


Lol, do you think the money that is reported to the media for public scrutiny is all that's there? IRL, 89% creates a whole new level of financial shenanigans. That is what accountants and agents are for.

Still, a pretty good idea here.


This is a distraction from the point of this thread, but yes, the 89% rule is there to prevent teams from sandbagging. Small markets like KC and Cincy were notorious for padding their owners' bottom lines by leaving 10s of millions in cap room.

I'm all for more realistic salary rules, but there are users who barely comprehend things as they are. Otherwise, I would favor a salary floor and a rollover of unused cash to the following year's cap. Also: A higher minimum salary for young players, and even higher minimum for veterans. Lower the maximum contracts limits, lower the percent that can be bonus money, and allow the first and second season base salary to be fully guaranteed.

A cap rules overhaul is worth considering eventually, but certainly not a priority at this point.

Something, even if minor, should happen immediately to stop the AI from ruining teams.

After that, I would favor an overhaul of player speed distribution and an overhaul of playbooks.



The AI should be able to retain stars and better players if they have the money . Once those guys hit the market in less active leagues it’s so easy to create a power house for years. I think that ruins leagues as well. No as bad but not fun or enticing either


This is a key point to the entire debate. One of the biggest problems is all of the 4-6 year 90+ guys on one team, sometimes abandoned by good owners, hitting the market in the same year. At best it creates a bidding war that leads to them all going to salary rich, albeit roster poor, teams at an even distribution. At worst (and this is what generally happens), 3-4 active owners get them all. And this happens for years ad infinitum until the league dies. Let them negotiate with their stars last minute, and then sign minimum contract free agents to fill the rosters. That would be ideal. If that's not possible, then just sign everyone to minimum contracts to give the rebuilding owner a big pile of money, as parsh said.

Re: AI Offseason Overhaul Thread

By parsh
9/15/2019 4:10 pm
Oh, and fix the contracts offered during the allocation draft. Having 43 out of 48 players on 2 year contracts doesnt help at all ..

And if I may, the inclusion of AI signing impending FAs instead of releasing them to FA would help as well.

Re: AI Offseason Overhaul Thread

By Infinity on Trial
9/15/2019 4:13 pm
There seem to be two key points in this thread that have consensus agreement:

    AI should retain its players.
    AI should not go over projected salary cap.


What say you, JDB?

Re: AI Offseason Overhaul Thread

By raymattison21
9/15/2019 5:21 pm
Infinity on Trial wrote:
There seem to be two key points in this thread that have consensus agreement:

    AI should retain its players.
    AI should not go over projected salary cap.


What say you, JDB?


If player weights were more accurate to success I would like to think the AI would have a better chance of retaining / drafting better players.

Newbs would more likely to stay cause they might have better/ quicker success as well. It took me months to figure why ares was beating me so bad.. and I spent years trying to get defaults to win a championship . That never happened though