no content
AdBlocker active?
It seems you are using software to block advertisements. You could help us if you could switch it off when visiting redzoneaction.org.
The reason is very simple: Advertisements help us running the site, to offer you the game in a good quality for free. So if you like the game, please support us by purchasing a Supporter Account or disabling the AdBlocker on this site.
Thank you very much!
| Main / Discussions / Questions about a salary cap Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 5 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
| posted: 2022-01-27 07:31:22 (ID: 100164778) Edits found: 3 Report Abuse | |
|
4 Aces wrote:
3) A level playing field is a three legged stool, salary cap, limited to 70 players a team, limited dept chart. If your missing one why have the other 2 ? I get why you're suggesting a salary cap to level the playing field - - I think Pete has always maintain that RZA has a soft cap (because basically revenues are limited). I'm not sure why a limited depth chart matters at all. I think only about 35-36 players are really playing critical minutes - - the others are mostly injury backups and special teams. I guess if the 70 player limit didn't exist, you could train more players for profit? So you're saying the limit is like a salary cap/revenue limiter? With all the talk about supermen players - - I really think this is wrong. Compared to real football, players in RZA are mostly commodities. In the Elite league, most of the QB aren't that different skill-wise and performance. There certainly aren't any B rady's or Rodger's. Obviously if you train to higher skills, you have an advantage - - but you can only do this if you make financially wise decisions. I think what differentiates the good teams is: 1. Playbook 2. Maybe some scouting & game planning sometimes. 3. Acquiring players with potential at reasonable prices and building them into elite caliber players. 4. Understanding which positions make a different and investing in better players (& higher skills) there - - and saving else where. 5. Financial discipline 6. Executing on a long-term strategy and vision. I've been somewhat successful. I have a crappy youth academy and sell almost all my draftees. Most of my roster is players I've purchased - - but usually not at high prices. Most are players that are several years away from contributing and have elite-potential (physicals, special traits, talent etc.) to eventually be good elite-level players. For example, my current QB didn't really play (in league games) until he was 27 yo (S43). I purchased him in S37. So he was on the bench developing for 5-6 seasons and gaining experience in friendlies/bot-cup games. I think others have completely different strategies. I see a few teams that have mostly/totally homegrown players. Others have these mega players coming out of the Youth Academy. I don't know how they do it... Steve SD Blitz Last edited on 2022-01-27 07:36:37 by Solana_Steve |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
4 Aces
|
posted: 2022-01-27 08:01:41 (ID: 100164779) Report Abuse |
|
I surely do appreciate the response old timer Jack6. I have no trouble with the 70 & 55 numbers, the reason I quote those numbers is to show across the board numbers every team must abide by. It simply would be very lopsided if one team had to have 70 but another could have 80. I suspect those numbers are across the board for competitive fairness which has led to this whole conversation. I was only questioning how (for competitive fairness) having no salary cap fits into the scheme of things when other competitive related aspects are strickley limited. I understand there is a point only so high one can go financially and this counts as a salary cap. Maybe it does but I must think it through. Earlier posts have given much to contemplate concerning this. As I type this text I wonder what if we applied how the top end salary cap works to the other aspects of the game that affect competitiveness ? Would the same line of thinking hold up if we applied it to the 70 number ? Say top teams reach the maximum number of players & the rest have to build up to that number as it is with the top end salary cap ? Would it work if new teams started with only 50 players & had to build up to the maximum ? Or applied to the depth chart ? I'm not so sure that line of operating would work so well but it's basically the same idea of a top end salary cap isn't it ? I have gotten much information from respected players including yours & I will think about what I've learn. Thanks again for the input.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
4 Aces
|
posted: 2022-01-27 08:19:41 (ID: 100164780) Report Abuse |
|
Solana_Steve wrote:
Thank you Steve, unfortunately I was typing a post and didn't see yours until I posted it. It seems I was over the top using the term 'superman' and for that I apologize. The point I was trying to make was top end players not meaning the best of the best everytime. I tend to agree with your list of what may make a good manager but I've so much to learn & I learn by dissecting the things I don't have a firm grasp of. I don't believe even if you have the best of the best at most positions promises anything, I think there are too many variables to absolutely guarantee trophies or even wins. But if true having only a top end salary cap is not a competitive advantage, then everyone should be for it a strict set cap as there is for players on a team or how many players in the depth chart. Anyway I do appreciate your input & helping me disect this puzzling question for me.4 Aces wrote:
3) A level playing field is a three legged stool, salary cap, limited to 70 players a team, limited dept chart. If your missing one why have the other 2 ? I get why you're suggesting a salary cap to level the playing field - - I think Pete has always maintain that RZA has a soft cap (because basically revenues are limited). I'm not sure why a limited depth chart matters at all. I think only about 35-36 players are really playing critical minutes - - the others are mostly injury backups and special teams. I guess if the 70 player limit didn't exist, you could train more players for profit? So you're saying the limit is like a salary cap/revenue limiter? With all the talk about supermen players - - I really think this is wrong. Compared to real football, players in RZA are mostly commodities. In the Elite league, most of the QB aren't that different skill-wise and performance. There certainly aren't any B rady's or Rodger's. Obviously if you train to higher skills, you have an advantage - - but you can only do this if you make financially wise decisions. I think what differentiates the good teams is: 1. Playbook 2. Maybe some scouting & game planning sometimes. 3. Acquiring players with potential at reasonable prices and building them into elite caliber players. 4. Understanding which positions make a different and investing in better players (& higher skills) there - - and saving else where. 5. Financial discipline 6. Executing on a long-term strategy and vision. I've been somewhat successful. I have a crappy youth academy and sell almost all my draftees. Most of my roster is players I've purchased - - but usually not at high prices. Most are players that are several years away from contributing and have elite-potential (physicals, special traits, talent etc.) to eventually be good elite-level players. For example, my current QB didn't really play (in league games) until he was 27 yo (S43). I purchased him in S37. So he was on the bench developing for 5-6 seasons and gaining experience in friendlies/bot-cup games. I think others have completely different strategies. I see a few teams that have mostly/totally homegrown players. Others have these mega players coming out of the Youth Academy. I don't know how they do it... Steve SD Blitz |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2022-01-27 09:18:26 (ID: 100164781) Report Abuse | |
|
I think there is another aspect of a salary cap regarding management.
For that I have to go on a little tour. On early days, training was much slower, hence the teams able to maximize training effects did have a small advantage regarding pushing a team to a certain level. After roughly 10 seasons a new team starts to peak at that time and then it was management on roster spots and training to sustain the level. Some managers did not invest the time into this aspects and had less success or had to compansate by scouting and playbook. I guess some were just not interested in that aspect of the game. It's one reason I did write my guide, to spread a bit of that knowledge. Then training became faster and that advantage did vanish a bit. Bringing in a salary cap would now give those with some skills on contract management a small advantage. Those not interested or somehow unable to do the best management on that part would then have that limit on roster skill level management. My guess is, the non-existing salary cap and having only the soft cap is a way to allow a wider range of management strategies. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
PJRAVENS
|
posted: 2022-01-27 17:08:53 (ID: 100164785) Edits found: 3 Report Abuse |
|
4 Aces wrote:
Anyway I do appreciate your input & helping me disect this puzzling question for me. I like a lot have only a soft cap, but I am from europe too. If someone decides to save for 10 seasons in a row in my opinion he has earned the right to spend all what he decides to be useful in the next incoming seasons, maybe one, two only and than rebiuld for other 10 seasons. I do not think this is a situation in which estabilished teams have a big advantage in the long term compared with new teams. With good management skills and developing wisely the team, in 4 or 5 seasons the advatage vanished. And as you can see there are managers that win Elite bowl and they started or restarted "recently" I think the management strategies are related to both the values of the soft cap and the salary cap you are talking to set. In RZA there is an guarantee income of about 155M per season + Mediacenter We have 23M of fixed costs + YA. With Premium YA and 20M of mediacenter the balance is 135M/140M of soft cap. (Now you have to add playoff tickets incomes and the prizes). If the salary cap were below the average soft cap this would not be anymore a managment game. The goal would be spend every season the full amount of the cap wisely. I am not saying this is not funny or it doesn't require good management skills, but this would be a totally different way of think and play. If the salary cap were 10 times the soft cap, I think it doesn't change anything compared to a soft cap only. What salary cap value would you like to set? The value affects a lot the way we think an play the game. Just my two cents, I am not against your previous posts. Last edited on 2022-01-27 19:10:25 by PJRAVENS |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
4 Aces
|
posted: 2022-01-27 19:58:56 (ID: 100164787) Report Abuse |
|
Hello Mr. PJ, Let me say this ... If it the powers that be decided this moment to hold a vote on a strict set weekly salary cap, I'm not sure I would even vote either yea or nay. I simply don't have enough information. I think the best way to understanding the how's and why's of the way certain things are arranged is to debate the issue. Choose a side & try to defend the ideas as best you can, that's all I am trying to do here. I do not expect any changes to the game or even to change anyones mind but all these ideas can do nothing but help with understanding an issue. The 'Great Salary Cap Debate' seems to have been going on since at least 2014, 8 years & I'm fairly certain it shall continue. I think that shows what a contentious idea it is & to me since it won't go away there must be some validity to the idea. With all that said lets begin
I don't think anyone believes a strict weekly salary cap will help any team in the short term. No new comer to RZA will not be an instant success no matter how good ones management skills may be. Can we agree that this is a non argument ? It strikes me that a 'soft cap' is sort of a laissez faire approach to a management simulation. Dare I say almost a lazy approach ? Does a 'soft cap' equal 'soft management' ? Isn't it similar to playing a video game set on easy ? Isn't a strict weekly cap playing that same video game on difficult ? I wonder if we can agree that using the soft cap makes the game easier & a strict weekly cap makes the management of teams much more difficult ? To me a strict cap makes a management simulation much more intense & truly tests a managers management skills. Can a manager still field a decent product ? With the soft cap is there really any but bare minimum management skills involved ? Stay somewhere in the black or least in the light red and it's ok. A strict weekly cap would certainly show those that accel at management and those maybe not so talented which of course is the whole point of a management simulation. To all those that responded with your reasoned thoughts I truly do thank you & look forward to your counter points. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
pderekdactyl
|
posted: 2022-01-27 20:47:52 (ID: 100164789) Report Abuse |
|
Ok, here's my reasons.
Without using the search forums feature, I didn't remember the last time salary cap came up. Not exactly continuously contentious. If it's not actually coming up regularly does that mean it loses some validity? Because if comes up a lot = valid, then surely doesn't actually come up a lot also = not valid. Now, the stated reasons for the hard salary cap 1) It's in the manual (I can't find it, I searched "salary" and "cap" in the downloaded PDF) 2) That it was supported by the majority of RZA users in a poll. Well, that poll is assumed to be a joke by pete because it was set to 10.5M which was above any existing wage point. So it was called "implemented". It's funny. I believe you are aware of this because you are copying other posts in the same thread but omitting this bit. 1&2 really come off as disingenuous "discussion" and possibly why you've received "tone". That and the "tone" was not one sided. If you want to enter the forums loins first and demand to be taken seriously, this isn't winning points (at least it isn't with me). I now have to ask myself when I see a post if it's worth reading, let alone responding to, because I also have to spend time fact checking and/or I have to determine if it's truly in good spirit or straight trolling. Similar vibes were felt dismissing the Manchester United example and instead pointing to an American Football in Europe league and ignoring the "soccer" (European football) genesis of the comment. So, let's focus on the first two legs of the hard cap chair. 1) doesn't exist 2) was a joke. Ok, straightforward. Against my better judgement ... next up: 3) Makes it more difficult and better judges skills 4) Competitive Balance Ok, my thoughts: 3) Makes it more difficult and judges skills. I don't believe this is true. I believe developing a strong bank account and properly knowing how to use that bank account is more skill than simply picking salaries daily fantasy style. Do we want a fantasy game where we just pick salaries that fit in our prescribed budget? I believe people don't just want a fantasy game, or so I've read. Having a set budget that you have to abide by isn't harder. Sandbox-y games that have many more avenues are harder. I believe suggesting that a hard cap is more difficult is a, dare I say, lazy approach to analyzing the economical structure of the RZA world. 4) Balance I don't think a hard salary cap is going to do that. Teams that want to spend the fake money to win aren't going to just stop spending fake money because the cap exists. In some ways it gives even more of an advantage to being able to "buy" a team to already rich teams. Teams will have fixed annual budgets, what's left if I can't blow through 40M surplus of my bank on higher salaries this season? Spend the budget otherwise allocated to salaries on the TM is one option. Teams with money can buy who they want, possibly the TM explodes, and suddenly the rich teams have the best base of players to work with (before skills trained) and everybody has the same skills allotment to then use. If currently rich teams start with higher STR/SPD/TW/INT/Traits etc for their players then the desired utopian egalitarianism of balance isn't reached. But, those are just my thoughts. Give the game a second month and live in the existing economical setup and see what you think. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2022-01-27 21:24:58 (ID: 100164791) Report Abuse | |
|
I think it is the lens of time that could shift your viewpoint.
The term soft cap kind of brings the wrong connotation in my opinion. The term flexible cap fits better. Some might say it doesn't matter but it kind of does. Soft cap infers that there is a cap but since it is "soft" it can be moved where ever. Almost like there are no consequences if you violate said cap. Whereas flexible is inferring there is "flex" as in at some point when you flex something too hard or too long it can snap. That is absolutely the case here. You can press the salaries for only so long or so far before your finances snap and you end up like a team in Dragons that has been in financial Hell for a while and has a moral of 9% and lost some players. At some point you have to release that "flex" and rebuild or you could say reforge your team. How is that related to shifting your viewpoint? Well if you are looking through the long term lens of many many seasons the flexible cap makes sense. If, however, you are looking at the shorter term lens of a few seasons then your perception may be that you have plenty of money to spend and that it is "easy." Especially the first few seasons where you get the FREE media center money. That isn't something to sniff at. It is a large sum of free money. After that freebie is gone you are pledging up front large sums of money to continue to get the media center payments (which is worth it if your whole league is forking money up front for their pledge too). Sure, once you get a team good enough to be in Elite you can maintain a good team, you aren't going to drop to the bottom....as long as you prudently manage your finances and invest in some younger players and then develop said players. You will still be good but you will dip down to the pack. Then someone else may be pushing their team to get to the championship level. There is a little luck involved in timing your push vs when others might push. That is fine as it is pretty much the same in real life. If you wanted to find any unfair advantages in income it could be in situations when you compare a mostly human league to one that is half bots. Bots automatically pledge max amounts to the media center payments which only helps the human teams that also put the pledges in. The more pledged in a league overall the more each of the teams that participated in the pledging also get in the weekly payments. Even considering that, there is only so long you can maintain an elite team. There have been a hand full of repeat Elite Champs. There are some managers that have stayed a long time but even more cycle in and out. It isn't easy to stay there. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
4 Aces
|
posted: 2022-01-27 23:05:29 (ID: 100164800) Report Abuse |
|
Absolutely excellent responses gentlemen but I must respond (of course).
The point I was trying to show by posting the poll from 2017 was how the vote went. Without a doubt the bulk of votes were pro cap. Weather it was posted as a joke or not is irrelevant. I was trying to point out the vote count. Not sure what a soccer league has to with a football league. I myself am a football & hockey fan. But I can't take things that work in hockey & apply them to football. I am certain as I gain time & experience in RZA I'm certain will impact my views. I being human will as likely as not ... want to keep things the same, unchanging weather good for the game or not, possibly because of familiarity ? I am quite certain you understand that I am not as eloquent as I wish I could be. I think some take debate points quite personal as if it's a dig at them. You should understand this ... if you've been successful in RZA I am out to imitate you, watch what you do, watch your playbook as it appears in a game, watch the players you buy or sell (even YA signings). My goal since joining RZA is to elbow my way to the top. But maybe in a short answer you can say weather you think a strick cap makes the game harder or easier ? More manager intense or less ? In closing let me again apologize to all those that were offended or took the words personally. Sincerely they are meant only in the spirit of debate. Sometimes over the top metaphors & strong, dare I say harsh words get used to make a point stand out. In the future I will try catch the things I type that may be offensive to some. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
4 Aces
|
posted: 2022-01-27 23:28:17 (ID: 100164801) Report Abuse |
|
PJRAVENS wrote:
4 Aces wrote:
Anyway I do appreciate your input & helping me disect this puzzling question for me. I like a lot have only a soft cap, but I am from europe too. If someone decides to save for 10 seasons in a row in my opinion he has earned the right to spend all what he decides to be useful in the next incoming seasons, maybe one, two only and than rebiuld for other 10 seasons. I do not think this is a situation in which estabilished teams have a big advantage in the long term compared with new teams. With good management skills and developing wisely the team, in 4 or 5 seasons the advatage vanished. And as you can see there are managers that win Elite bowl and they started or restarted "recently" I think the management strategies are related to both the values of the soft cap and the salary cap you are talking to set. In RZA there is an guarantee income of about 155M per season + Mediacenter We have 23M of fixed costs + YA. With Premium YA and 20M of mediacenter the balance is 135M/140M of soft cap. (Now you have to add playoff tickets incomes and the prizes). If the salary cap were below the average soft cap this would not be anymore a managment game. The goal would be spend every season the full amount of the cap wisely. I am not saying this is not funny or it doesn't require good management skills, but this would be a totally different way of think and play. If the salary cap were 10 times the soft cap, I think it doesn't change anything compared to a soft cap only. What salary cap value would you like to set? The value affects a lot the way we think an play the game. Just my two cents, I am not against your previous posts. Sir I am in no way qualified or experienced enough to have any suggestion on what a cap should be, Or for that matter weather there should be such a cap. And yes I agree it certainly would change the way we view & play the game. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 5 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / Questions about a salary cap | |
