NCAA Dynasty League
https://onlinedynasty.net/forum/
RIght. LIke I mentioned, just subtract $2.5 mil.Wasted Memory wrote:I think your numbers are a little off though, if I read it correctly. It says for anything over $2.5M. I only spent $5.03M over.
I'm not worried about next seasons IFA. I liked the 3 I went after so, if I'm lucky enough, it'll work out for me.
dakshdar wrote:RIght. LIke I mentioned, just subtract $2.5 mil.Wasted Memory wrote:I think your numbers are a little off though, if I read it correctly. It says for anything over $2.5M. I only spent $5.03M over.
I'm not worried about next seasons IFA. I liked the 3 I went after so, if I'm lucky enough, it'll work out for me.
dakshdar wrote:It's even better than that though (if our settings match the OOTP ones I found online):The_Niddler wrote:Yeah, it says anything over $2.5 M spent on international free agents gets hit with a 100% fee.Wasted Memory wrote:Wasn't expecting to get all 3 of those international free agents. That's going to bite me in the @$$ financially.
So have fun with that.
Here's how this year's spending shakes out for the big spenders (assuming the tax means you pay double bonus and not 100% on the amount over the cap, if it is the other way around, just deduct $2.5 mil from the total shown):Each team will have a $2,500,000 soft cap for signing bonuses given to international amateur free agents with penalties for going over this amount.
•Any amount over the cap will be taxed with an additional 100%
•If a team spends between 5 and 10% over the cap, it won’t be able to sign more than one player for a bonus of more than $500,000 next year.
•If a team spends between 10 and 15% over the cap, it won’t be able to sign any (IAFA) player for a bonus of more than $500,000 next year.
•If a team spends more than 15% over the cap, it won’t be able to sign any (IAFA) player for a bonus of more than $250,000 next year.
Cookeville $7,530,000 - taxed to be $15,060,000, no IAFA signings next year over $250k
New England $11,175,000 - taxed to be $22,350,000, no IAFA signings next year over $250k
Washington $9,153,000 - taxed to be $18,306,000, no IAFA signings next year over $250k
I know the financials shown on the website aren't always the best indicator, but it looks like two of those three teams would be in trouble financially based on that spending (again, if the website numbers are to be believed).
I'm actually surprised there isn't a hard cap somewhere as well, given that the penalties are obviously set-up for minor exceedances of the soft cap and, it would seem, the game doesn't expect any team to be going over the soft cap by 800% like New England did.
Our settings are the same... or at least very similar. There's nothing wrong with spending a little money on IFA.DRiccio21 wrote:dakshdar wrote:It's even better than that though (if our settings match the OOTP ones I found online):The_Niddler wrote:Yeah, it says anything over $2.5 M spent on international free agents gets hit with a 100% fee.Wasted Memory wrote:Wasn't expecting to get all 3 of those international free agents. That's going to bite me in the @$$ financially.
So have fun with that.
Here's how this year's spending shakes out for the big spenders (assuming the tax means you pay double bonus and not 100% on the amount over the cap, if it is the other way around, just deduct $2.5 mil from the total shown):Each team will have a $2,500,000 soft cap for signing bonuses given to international amateur free agents with penalties for going over this amount.
•Any amount over the cap will be taxed with an additional 100%
•If a team spends between 5 and 10% over the cap, it won’t be able to sign more than one player for a bonus of more than $500,000 next year.
•If a team spends between 10 and 15% over the cap, it won’t be able to sign any (IAFA) player for a bonus of more than $500,000 next year.
•If a team spends more than 15% over the cap, it won’t be able to sign any (IAFA) player for a bonus of more than $250,000 next year.
Cookeville $7,530,000 - taxed to be $15,060,000, no IAFA signings next year over $250k
New England $11,175,000 - taxed to be $22,350,000, no IAFA signings next year over $250k
Washington $9,153,000 - taxed to be $18,306,000, no IAFA signings next year over $250k
I know the financials shown on the website aren't always the best indicator, but it looks like two of those three teams would be in trouble financially based on that spending (again, if the website numbers are to be believed).
I'm actually surprised there isn't a hard cap somewhere as well, given that the penalties are obviously set-up for minor exceedances of the soft cap and, it would seem, the game doesn't expect any team to be going over the soft cap by 800% like New England did.
lol, had no idea about that.
oopsy.
I did go into it thinking "What would Reign do?"95% of them will crash in potential within 1 month of sims.dakshdar wrote:True. I seem to remember some discussion about how these 16-18 year old IAFAs that are showing 70+ potential don't have the same track record as drafted players showing similar potential. Though, maybe we don't have the data to back that up yet...
The only IFA I ever got that didn't crash in ratings, I traded...Jose Diaz.Uuaww wrote:5% of them will crash in potential within 1 month of sims.
What are you trying to say Coug?!?!cougnix wrote:So is a -6 Pythag the managers fault?
Oops, I didn't know you were the only one...Cnasty wrote:What are you trying to say Coug?!?!cougnix wrote:So is a -6 Pythag the managers fault?
Being a team that has had more negative pythag than positive Ive tried to research this....Cnasty wrote:cougnix wrote:So is a -6 Pythag the managers fault?