2026 FA 1.5 SIM Complete - Next SIM Sunday 10/07

[Guest]

Another potential side effect I see with the cap thing: it will reign in super-talented teams, but it the cap-savvy owners aren't going to be punished - the ones who are less careful with it now will. As with other balancing efforts I think there's a potential to just widen the gap.

I do tend to agree with you here. Asking how my experience in the CCFL has been, it has pointed out that Ben et al. will only benefit from these changes most. However, I think this particular rule doesn't exacerbate that much. It's all about finding a balance to make this still 'fun', and not just challenging to the overly-experienced.

Don't forget, that I started my FOF life as a die-hard immersionist, much more interested in a football experience than winning at all costs. And I still lean quite heavily that way. But there are some good rule changes that balance the two, I think.

[Guest]

Did anyone offer a contract with more guaranteed money? Considering that Dakota's bid was a smokescreen I don't think anyone else guaranteed almost $7 mil a year and that's why he got the contract. Yes, it'll be reneged but it'll still be higher than what anyone else offered in bonus.

^^^^ This.

Everyone was offering troll contracts so the receiver accepted the best troll contract. If someone made a real offer with bonus money and a better first year salary he would've signed with that team.

[Clay]

I completely understand that there are a certain number of people that will use exploits if they're there. Just a shame that they are and that people want to win a meaningless game enough to use them. Just takes he who SIM out of Sim Gaming. Be like running an old school money play every down in a "Sim" Madden league.

[Aston]

What exploits, Clay?

Spending available cap money isn't an exploit.

I feel like you are misunderstanding and thinking that the backloaded contract is what won Anchorage that bid - but it isn't the case. Anchorage won the bed because there wasn't a better real offer, and real offer means bonus and early salary, which can't be exploited. That offer might as well have been 3 years, $40 million.

[Clay]

What exploits, Clay?

Spending available cap money isn't an exploit.

I feel like you are misunderstanding and thinking that the backloaded contract is what won Anchorage that bid - but it isn't the case. Anchorage won the bed because there wasn't a better real offer, and real offer means bonus and early salary, which can't be exploited. That offer might as well have been 3 years, $40 million.

It's not a cheat.

It's not breaking the game/code.

However, $25.0 + Bonus for the final season knowing full well that that money (outside of the bonus) is never going to be paid IS an exploit.

Certainly, it's absolutely something that everyone (with the space) can use. Unfortunately, we're in a game and league where some guys want to play in a pseudo realistic fashion and other wants to use a "by any means necessary" approach.

I'm not mad at anyone for doing what they want to do.

BUT... it is an exploit. Maybe it's just exploiting other's unwillingness to play a Non-SIM style... but it is an exploit.

[Aston]

Well, consider that the player doesn't care if the final year of that contract is $25mm or $10mm.

It's a GM trying to trick other owners into thinking he's offering huge money - and getting them to overspend. That $25mm didn't actually benefit Anchorage in any way, because it didn't help him land the player.

The *only* consequence, now that he did land the receiver, is that if he doesn't cut him before the final season, he might end up over the cap and with penalized draft picks.

There is *absolutely no* incentive or advantage in the game to offering a contract like that. None. If offering that kind of deal helped land the player, I absolutely agree with you that it would be an exploit, and that rules should be in place to prevent it. However, that isn't how the game works. Anchorage, in winning the deal, only hurts themselves. They got the player and they could have gotten him without creating this extra $15mm in the final season they'll have to now deal with. It won't be hard to deal with, but it was totally unnecessary.

[Ozias]

An easy solution to the "problem" of this kind of contract, would be to not allow such a jump in the contract from one year to the next.

year #1 5 mil 6.66 bonus
year #2 10 mil 6.66 bonus
year #3 25 mil 6.66 bonus

eliminate the ability to more than double an amount from one year to the next would reign in contracts such as the one signed. Granted he could of gone 5 to 10 to 20 and more than likely still signed the player, but if they weren't allowed to have such a large jump from one year to the next the player may have signed elsewhere.

The biggest problem with a rule like this, the commish would have to look at every signing to make sure it didn't violate the rule, and would increase his workload, not a fair tradeoff.

We all know that his 11.66 mil this year goes against the cap, but a reneg next season, where the cap hit is 16.66 could take place, but may not have to, since Anchorage is only using 144 mil of the cap next year. Now that number could go up and the reneg could take place, and more than likely the player will reneg for 2, 3 and 4 mil, plus 3 mil bonus, so the second year of 16.66 cap hit would drop down to 9.66 or so(the 10 mil is dropped for 2 mil, and the 6.66 bonus stays, with an added bonus amount of 1 mil with the reneg).

I know some don't like to see this happen, but it does happen in the NFL regularly. Look back at the huge 8 year contract Nate Clements signed back with SF, his final 3-4 years of the deal was a joke, because everyone knew he wouldn't see a penny of the contract, except for the bonus for those final 2 years. So his 22 mil bonus was split evenly across 8 years, 2.75 mil, not much money when it's all said and done and he never played all 8 years of the contract, so the large amounts at the end of the deal never hurt SF and their cap room.

That's pretty much the same kind of contract that Sinclair signed, just much shorter, he won't see the final year, and more than likely won't see the second year either.

[Aston]

I think what we should be able to all agree on--

1) These contracts don't hurt a team very much. They can get out of the last year fairly easily.
2) These contracts don't help a team at all. They don't help a player sign.
3) These contracts are meant to guile other owners so that they pay too much in FA. It is a little gamey. Best to stick to your guns and be personally smart in FA, not worrying too much about what other teams do. Want to build long-term success, don't expect to do it in FA -- see Washington's model!

[Clay]

Disagree that it doesn't help at all.

You're contradicting your own point. It takes the bidding into water too deep for other owners to tread. That absolutely gives an advantage to a team signing a player.

Again...I don't care. This is how the game and league run. Play or leave. I'm an original owner, so clearly I choose to play.

[tomr1962]

The biggest problem to me with this game is the fininacial aspect. There is no incentive to fill seats. Ben E Lou had the best team and no fans came out to watch his team. You can lose $50 million a year and the game does not care. Sad part is there is no FOF 2012...13 etc in site. Whats his name is making a board game at present.
Damn Markus Heinson(not sure on spelling) for not knowing jack about football. How awesome would IntheStadium football be.

Maybe contract offers should be limited on a % per step increase. Stacked contracts as stated are used in the NFL all the time.

[Aston]

Clay, when I say it doesn't help at all I mean the final year extra money doesn't have any affect on the player when he decides which contract he likes best. There is no room for disagreement here, I think: it's fact.

Whether or not you can afford to read is not affected in the slightest by this offer. If you can afford $10mil in bonus, minimum salary, then put up a 3 year, $33million or so offer. It wouldn't show as highest, but you would win. It only takes bidding too deep if you take fake offers literally and feel you have to beat the overall #.

On the other hand, you're right that it can play a mind games angle. It can discourage teams from bidding when they could win, and it can screw over teams who join in the bidding.

I don't like the mind games aspect of FA either, not to that sheer extent. I didn't like it when I saw MTC fall prey to what I felt were a bunch of these fake offers, on that CB, Montoya. I think I'd encourage people to a) not get fooled, and b) don't be "that guy" actively trying to land other people in cap trouble. All I want to clear up is any possible misconception anyone might have about the offer meaning anything to the player.

[mike17]

Let me preface this by saying, I don't think that adding a renegotiation rule is going to help anything.

That being said, there are 2 teams in the entire league that are even close to the cap and neither of them are powerhouses. The simple fact is that the financial system in the game does not hold up well over an extended timeline. The further away we get from 2007, the worse the problem gets. Player salaries do not scale at the same rate as the cap increases.

I also think that part of the problem with contracts comes from our expectations for what a player's salary should be. We look at current NFL salaries and want our contracts in FOF to be similar, and fail to see that in game we are 15 years ahead. 15 years worth of inflation and market growth and cap growth. It's not unreasonable (I think) to say that by the year 2027, NFL salaries may well look like what we are seeing in FOF free agency.

So, rather than getting upset about the contracts, try opening up your wallet a bit. Remember, this is the future! And it's not like anyone has cap issues holding them back

[Guest]

On the other hand, you're right that it can play a mind games angle. It can discourage teams from bidding when they could win, and it can screw over teams who join in the bidding.

This happened to me. I didn't make a serious offer on Sinclair because I assumed he was going to cost far more than I wanted to pay. Turned out the joke was on.... everyone. haha

[Guest]

It wouldn't show as highest, but you would win.

Quoted for emphasis.

[Guest]

I support cap limiting. Just a 10% limit would add at least 32 top tier players into the market or 64 mid-tier/younger guys.