That seems like walking a fine line between being "fair"....and running people off. If I sign what shit free agents there are, try to make moves during FA, sign IFAs, put effort into drafting well, stay active on the boards, but my team remains shit for 3 or 4 seasons....to the point my draft picks are moved because the team isn't "good" enough....it's simple, I'll bounce. Without that sounding dramatic, it's just the truth of it. You've ALL said the draft classes are weak now... see my point?DRWebs wrote:Point 1 in theory sounds like a reasonable suggestion /idea. Would their still be any sort of negative impact of the team's budget the following year, ie a huge drop?ReignOnU wrote:If your payroll and coach expense is below "X" at the end of the season, then an amount is added to it as a penalty before rollover. This will mean that you will still get rev sharing, the financial spending aspect can be circumvented by the commish and the top spenders aren't hit quite as hard due to your tanking.
If a team finishes below .300, their first round pick is moved to the end of the round. You don't have to do this in-game. It can be handled with the order on the message board.
If a team finishes below .300 for a consecutive season (on-going), they forfeit their 1st round pick.
For point 2/3, what would be done in a situation like Akron where they were set up for failure and the hole that was dug was too much for them to get out of? I think if anything the move to the back of the round would be more fair in the 2nd consecutive season and so on
I realize it was simply a suggestion, but from my standpoint...alot of the issues are directed towards the type of team I'm managing. My team was horrible...still is horrible. But I also had one for the cheapest payrolls in the league. Traded my best player wanting 18 mil a year for what I believe to be 3 solid prospects. Point is...tanking intentionally is one thing, managing a garbage team is another. My fan interest is low, owner is furious, and attendance last year down 40%. The dominant teams seems to be upset because they aren't generously rewarded each season...but that seems to be the most realistic aspect to all of this. Winning teams are ALWAYS depleted the next year, but that's what makes a good owner. The ability to fill seats, sign players, and win games. Why are we so worried about the teams that don't dominate each year?
