2015 RULES: Suggested Topics

[Goodell]

Yes, matching rights do have value for practice squad (we set that up to give home teams some advantages there), but I think over-valued by teams here personally. In many cases where a team would actually end up using those matching rights, it's often in cases where players become temporarily way more popular for whatever short-term reason leading to bidding wars leading to often over-valued contracts that are more likely to be the kinds regretted later. Yes, you have the right to match a possibly bad contract if other teams start bidding on your psquad guys who suddenly get way more popular than they were just days before when no interest. I just think that's probably not as sound to rely upon usually as just ensuring your team has the real guys you really like for less short-term reasons already under more reasonable contracts and not as focused on the fringe player price spike drama. Of course sometimes it's more reasonable contracts reasonably matched and decisions made to cut someone else to add that matched player to active roster, but often there's something that spikes new interest in previously less interested players.

Discussion's great and ideas are good, but I still have to look at our systems and see what I think is even possible or best long-term.

We do already have a one game check minimum for any acquisitions during the regular season (the only time practice squad is available), and I do think that 3-week minimum in this situation could make a lot of sense in terms of limiting the claim-and-waives-to-psquads because the cost of that would triple what it is now creating more cost to that activity, as well the basis for that somewhat in NFL rules there. That's probably one that's pretty easy to implement since it's already calculating the 1-week minimum now.

Other options with time requirements for players to be kept on rosters are probably not as easy to implement in our systems for both technical and roster management administration reasons. As well as the realities that teams have no way of knowing which or how many of their waiver claims will actually go through or not, particularly if they are lower on the list. That's unpredictable. If we thought we had problems with keeping teams at 53 now, it just adds to the headaches of maintaining that by stripping away the majority of options a team would do to get down to 53 normally in the past cutting those last roster spot guys if we make them uncuttable at that time.

It involves a bit more building of systems, but there may be ways to have a script check recent waiver transaction logs to see if a player had been recently waived-to-psquad, claimed, and then waived-to-psquad again by another team and block that roster choice for a set time. Meaning they'd have to keep that player or could only cut (but not to practice squad directly). Whether another set of systems can efficiently be built to recognize that and offer that player back to his earlier team is more involved and may or may not be wished, but something I'll probably look into a little more. Something perhaps doable might be tagging them as such and perhaps excluding them from the add to psquad list for everyone except their earlier team that might see that option given for a period of time (perhaps a week since matching rights are for a week). Even though only that one designated team could add the player to psquad through those tools for that time as a benefit to them not being able to add them to psquad before, any team could still at any time offer that player a real paying job on the 53 man roster like always for any player who doesn't already have an active roster contract.

Most any of these solutions gets very complicated very fast and potentially more confusing to game play than teams just focusing mostly on their 53 they care enough about to actually pay and not worry as much about the players they don't.

I think these can be the most overly dramatic situations we get at times. It somewhat frustrates me to some degree that they don't have to be as I personally see it for players who only a tiny percentage actually will end up mattering a great deal and get overly fought over somewhat needlessly if anyone can sign them at any time anyway no matter what. Frustrated a bit that we'd have to build all sorts of new technical systems around that issue to avoid that drama when these are essentially still just free agents anyone can sign at any time. But yes, we'll probably look at doing something with it to make it less problematic because less problems there would be good overall.

[Ulrich82]

I disagree that the matching rights tend to lead to teams needing to match a bad contract. I think all it does is really make practice squads a roster extension. Say I have a roster spot available and want to add a promising potential player. If he is on someone's practice squad, I know there is no reason for me to offer him a contract. I'd have to offer a ridiculous deal, or I know it will just be matched. This certainly isn't realistic. In the NFL, a team may match an offer to one of their PS guys to keep them, but no team would hesitate to make an offer on a player they think can help them.

It also hurts competitive bidding. If I have a guy on my PS who suddenly generates some interest, I have no reason to bid on him. I'd rather sit back, let someone else set the price, and then decide if it is worth it or not. I might get into a bidding war over a hot free agent, but the PS keeps at least one buyer out of it.

I don't think this is crucial, but we also don't follow the same PS eligibility rules as the NFL. In the NFL, players can only spend 3 years on the PS and cannot be on PS if they have accrued an NFL season (6 or more games on the active roster). I believe our current setup is only allow non-vested veterans to be PS eligible.

As you said in your last message, it seems like a frustrating amount of work for such a minor element. This is why I wonder if it should just go.

I still don't see any way to prevent a team from putting a free agent on the PS before making an offer just to ensure you don't have to worry about a bidding war.

[RebelFan]

I think these can be the most overly dramatic situations we get at times. It somewhat frustrates me to some degree that they don't have to be as I personally see it for players who only a tiny percentage actually will end up mattering a great deal and get overly fought over somewhat needlessly if anyone can sign them at any time anyway no matter what. Frustrated a bit that we'd have to build all sorts of new technical systems around that issue to avoid that drama when these are essentially still just free agents anyone can sign at any time. But yes, we'll probably look at doing something with it to make it less problematic because less problems there would be good overall.

I think that just about says it all right there. The way I see it, there's no reason for commish to have to get frustrated over such a non-issue.
It's frustrating for me to read this thread. Very frustrating to me that there is discussion about removing one of the coolest features of this league (practice squad) just because a few GMs didn't get the guy they wanted on their practice squad.
Now I've been on both sides of the waiver-practice squad-waiver battle with teams. It's a game within the game. And 99% of the time it's all for nothing. These are totally fringe players that DIDN'T MAKE EITHER DAMN TEAM. It's kind of fun for me when I find myself in one of these situations, because (if both teams are not going to add player to their 53) it really just comes down to a question of endurance. And when it comes to hoarding talent, I've got plenty of it!
I just wish some of my fellow GMs could sit back and look at the big picture. And also realize that these leagues and all of the work that goes into making them happen is something commish is trying to make LESS taxing instead of more involved and writing new scripts and programs or whatever just to make sure somebody doesn't get pissed off bc they lost a practice squad guy who probably won't amount to a hill of beans anyway.
Sorry commish, not trying to put words in your mouth or speak for you. But this is my rough interpretation of the quote at the top of my post.
I would be really angry and frustrated if we lost the practice squad feature just because of a couple of minor issues.

And of course people sign players to their practice squad before trying to sign them to avoid getting into a bidding war. That's the whole point practice squads are a roster extension. That's the whole, entire value of adding a player to your practice squad. Otherwise it's just some names at the bottom of a spreadsheet. I'm not adding guys to my ps because I think they'll be good for my 53 to practice against. Of course our practice squad doesn't work exactly like real life, this isn't real life. It's a game. In a nutshell, I agree with Ulrich, (as usual) it is a frustrating amount of work to go into such a minor element of the league, however, I couldn't disagree more that we should consider doing away with it. To even say that any of these petty issues is a problem is a massive overstatement.

[RebelFan]

Speaking of LTCs, I'd like to see us discuss increasing the number allowed to 2 per year. I've been pleased with how the contracts have worked out as they seem pretty fair.

I second this.

[RebelFan]

I'm certainly not married to Madden grades, but I don't see any workable alternative.

Having a committee of graders with one person each responsible for certain teams' grades would lead to way too much variation based on who is doing the grading. PFF uses volunteer graders to help them come up with their grades, but these people get some training and the site uses several graders to attempt to average out good/bad graders and possible mistakes. There is just no way to standardize this across a handful of people. I also think that, even though we have plenty of smart people here who love football, scouting/grading is a very particular skill that takes a lot of practice. I just don't think we can expect people to do a good job of this.

Madden grades have their faults. I think the biggest issues are that the grades are tied into game balance (so changes tend to be conservative and I think the non-skill positions always tend to get shafted a bit) and that the overall grade has perhaps become less important to Madden than the individual skill grades. However, they have way more eyes and more information than we could expect to compile (for example, Donny Moore has acknowledged that they pay attention to PFF ratings when making grade updates).

Well said.

Furthermore, I think it would open up a whole can of worms having other GM's set our grades for our teams. These leagues like any other organizations has its cliques; its rivalries; and its arguments. Those issues may not be out in the open but there's some back biting behind the scenes. And we see this come up in trades over and over again: a players worth is in the eye of the beholder.

I would have an issue with other GM's setting the grades for my team. We need an independent resource and while Madden may not be perfect-- especially with non skill positions--it's the best we have right now.

Agreed.
I don't see any alternative and I don't think it's that big of a deal. After a year or two you figure out how it works with the Madden Grades. I do think they've gotten better over the last few seasons, especially as they reference different performance metrics more and more. My biggest complaint about Madden ratings is the reactionary knee-jerk ratings changes from week to week. Like watching a lineman go from a 70 to an 80 over the course of 10 games with solid play and then they drop him back to a 73 just because he got destroyed by JJ Watt or Suh. I mean, what do they expect?

[Goodell]

I probably need to take some of my own advise about not getting too worked up about practice squads.

A matching right that's never used is a free agent who plays for nobody. I do believe teams feel like that's an extra extended roster spot for them and I get why, but it's not really. At least not as designed. Those players without an active roster contract can never play for your team -- never ever -- until you pay them a real contract. They aren't on anybody's roster. They can't play for anybody ever... until someone pays them to do so and makes a spot on the 53 for them. Until then they are open for business to anyone, signable by any team at any time and join their team immediately. They are not your players, no matter how much our sim teams often want to exercise perceived ownership over them -- fighting tooth and nail over and over to gain them on their practice team.

There's nothing wrong with a team not feeling the need to place a bid on a guy they have some interest in but not any more so than 53 others they have now. Nothing wrong with having him on the psquad. All NFL teams have at least some interest in the guys on their practice squad too. There's nothing wrong with waiting for a bid process to complete before deciding to match or not. That's how the rules are setup.

The 'wrong', I would argue and try minimize, is all the perceived importance of practice squad with all the fighting over players that aren't on anybody's team at all really. That can't play for anybody. That nobody across 32 teams wants to give any actual money to at the time or willing to give one of the 1696+league roster spots to. It's a lot of fighting and frustration and drama over something that's INTENDED to be very small part of things (both in NFL and here) for lowest depth chart backups that nobody is currently wanting to pay real money to or nobody is willing to give a real roster spot to. Sure there's some interest in having some association to them and that's what the psquad is for, but the intention wasn't that would become so very very important or World War III for players nobody is willing to actually sign now or for it to require such an overhaul of systems just to deal with the battles over non-rostered players.

Teams go back-and-forth over a 4th stringer who'll never play a game on their sim team all year and might be out of the league soon in many cases. I can understand how teams can (or like) to get into those battles, but to me if they're frustrating I'd just pay them a real contract if that player really mattered to me or move onto a next target. But I know that's not how it is for many in general, and that'll probably get worse as/if leagues expand and more GMs join, so overall it is something to figure out how to efficiently make it less of a recurring issue. And we'll probably do something in that regard to try to help there.

[RebelFan]

I have often thought that if you have a player added to the system you should get exclusive rights to sign that player.

Maybe just a 1 year deal but there should be some benefit to prospecting. It sucks to have a player added and then have to fight for them in the free agency process.

I think I've probably gotten on my soapbox about this a few times in the past, so I'll just say that I agree 100%.
I think what we need to do is automate this to where GMs can add a player to the system and go ahead and bid on him, then commish can just check in and look over it and either approve the transaction or deny it if there's a problem with it.
This of course would tie in with doing something about the 'signing soon' list that the scavengers check every few hours.

[RebelFan]

I have another topic. I claimed a guy on waivers in week 15 of the season. His cap hit was the entire salary. When I questioned the commish about it he agreed with my point but didn't want to change the rule during the season. I feel that when you claim a player on waivers you should only be responsible for the pro-rated portion of the salary that he is on your roster.

Larry
Minnesota AFFL

Glad you brought this up Larry. I agree that this is something we should address, unless it's something that can't be easily automated and added into the system.

[RebelFan]

So my issue is not with losing a ps player to another team who offers that player a contract (never experienced a problem during season with how ps operates). It's during the off season, specifically cut downs, where teams (who are also over 53 or 75) claim my player, only to cut that player immediately to their practice squad. Not sure that happens in real life so I believe we need parameters set up to stop it from occurring here instead of the "offer him a contract" rhetoric because neither team is offering that player a contract.

This is the sequence that frustrated me, especially in September when teams cutting down are claiming players to cut the same day or next:

- Placed on Waivers by Miami on 2014-08-31
- Claimed by STL on 2014-09-02
- Placed on Waivers by St. Louis on 2014-09-03

- Placed on Waivers by Miami on 2014-09-02
- Claimed by STL on 2014-09-04
- Placed on Waivers by St. Louis on 2014-09-04

First, the practice squad isn't available in the off-season. It's only opened up at the time of final cuts.

Second, just because a team puts a player on waivers after putting a claim in doesn't mean they intentionally tried to prevent the player from being on your PS. For example, at roster cut-down time say I put out 10 waiver claims with the hope that I'm able to get 3 of them to fill 3 spots on my roster. It's possible that I'll end up getting 5 players from the waivers for only 3 spots. I would then need to waive 2 of the players I've grabbed.

The bottom line is that when you drop a player to your PS you take the risk that another team will claim him. If you don't want to lose the player, then don't cut him.

Well said Ben. And the point about not being sure if you will get any of the players you place a claim on can't be overstated. Especially when you're dragging up the rear of the waiver priority.
That's why the 3 game check rule mentioned earlier just wouldn't work in my opinion.

[RebelFan]

This is how the NFL handles this situation concerning the practice squad. If a team signs a player off of another team's practice squad, that player takes up a roster spot for his new team for at least three weeks, bye weeks included. This includes three game checks. Even if the team chooses to release that player after one week of having him on the roster, he still counts against their 53-man roster for three weeks as well as being paid three game checks. This also means that you can't sign a player away from one team's practice squad simply to put them onto your practice squad. If you sign a player off of a practice squad, they must go onto your 53-man roster.

So with this information why not create a holding period or a waiver fee since we cant charge game checks yet. Where waiver claims must remain on your roster for one week or charge a waiver fee if they are cut. As many people have stated the NFL doesn't sign players to immediately cut them to there practice squad. We have the add to practice squad option for free agents but with no penalty until week one I see teams continuing down this road.

Those are good thoughts, but the issue here is not players being signed off of practice squad. The issue is with players being claimed off waivers, which is totally different than placing a bid on another team's practice squad player.