Proposal for rule changes

Hi,
I would like to propose a few rule changes which have come to my mind in the last few weeks for the next version of Madden. Not all of them are my own ideas, some are just rules from another league, but I would like here too.

All can be discussed of course. I think now is the right time, as we may have a chance to try them this year already, but start fresh next year definitely. For easier discussion I will number them from 1 -x.

1)

G7. Mixing up the Playcalling: Varying your playcalling on both offense and defense is a requirement of sim play. On offense, be sure to show your opponent different formations and different plays out of each.
[...]
On defense, be sure to mix up coverages, blitzes, and the like. Showing blitz should be used sparingly, but can be an option to mix it up.

We had a nearly constant discussion (until given up) about mixing man and zone plays. While I hope man coverage will work better in Madden19, I think we should fix the rule anyway. There are some teams in real life which mainly use zone coverage (although not 100%), so we should allow this too. I'm not perfectly happy with guys playing only zone, but a constant discussion doesn't make fun either.

2)

G10. Contract Extension Limit (Players)
Teams are only allowed to re-sign/extend 4 players before free agency starts. That means anytime during the season or off-season stage 1 before free agency, teams can extend or franchise tag up to 4 players.

I would suggest a very small adjustment.
2 resignings for top 4 teams.
3 resignings for other playoff teams.
4 resignings for non-playoff teams.
5 resignings for bottom 10 teams.

I think this would be fairer, as there were cases where teams just made the playoffs at a balanced record, but lost 2 resignings immediately. Hard to argue that this team is that much better than non-playoff teams, so the punishment is too harsh.

3)

G11. Contract Extension Limit (Years)
[...]
Teams are only allowed to extend players a maximum of 5 years.

I would suggest a maximum of 4 years, unless a player demands more. There are generally very few players who want 5+ years, so it wouldn't be that much more effort needed.
Big advantage, with giving players just 4 year contracts instead of 5 is the higher cap figure in seasons 3-4 especially (1-2M more for a few players could have a huge difference). This should keep guys at least in some cases to hand out very cheap 5 year contracts at the start of Madden and have no need to think again about this player until the league is finished.

4)

R1) Trade Rules:
CPU Trades are not allowed.

Each team is allowed a maximum of 4 trades per league year (After the Superbowl a new league year will start with FA and trades)
Each trade may involve up to 4 players/picks per side

The toally unrealistic trades and trade proposals made it clear the rule needs some adjustments. I would suggest:
- Maximum 4 trades stay
- Each trade may involve maximum 2 players and maximum 3 picks

In 2018 in the real NFL all trades would have been inside these borders. In general only very few trades are outside, but only because of picks (for example for No1 overall pick).
It just does not happen, that 1 superstar is traded for 3-4 mediocre players and some picks.

5)

Pre-Season Free Agency:
There will be no Free Agent draft in the Preseason this year. Everyone will be allowed to sign up to 2 free agents during Preseason Week 1.

This gives a good advantage to all guys which are online at advance. The best FA's are gone after a few seconds.
I would suggest to have a FA waiver in week 1 with all guys allowed to place waivers which did not attend the draft (and possibly told the league about it). This gives a chance to compensate for a bad CPU draft.
In week 2 every team can sign 1 FA.
In week 3 and 4 FA is free for all.


I hope for a good discussion now! Thanks for reading all this.

Copyright Infringement 

dwevans wrote:Copyright Infringement 

I didn't copy the rules. But some ideas are from the great @dwevans from an unnamed other league

Thanks for the input @ParaAUT!

1) I really hate the discussion and complaints about too much zone but I find it horribly boring playing games where 0 man coverage is run. Eliminating the rule would likely make that the case for 90% of games within the league. I just don't think thats an option. Also if we allow that its hard to draw the line on offense about mixing up playcalling.
Plus its really not sim. According to PFF stats across the NFL teams ran zone on average of 59%. We don't even come close to that here, as I'd guess we're above 80% even including Fraser who runs 80% man. No team ran zone more than 80% either in 2016. Here's a link:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/pro-taking-a-closer-look-examining-the-nfls-coverage-scheme-tendencies

2) Before we started with the resign rule we considered implementing the rule exactly as you just suggested above but did not because it could encourage tanking. Teams won't purposely tank themselves out of the playoffs to get 2 more resignings, but there would be an even higher incentive to lose if you are out of the playoff race with the bottom 10 getting an extra resigning.

3) Yeah good point, we could start that next year

4)

paraAUT wrote: It just does not happen, that 1 superstar is traded for 3-4 mediocre players and some picks.

Thats why we have the trade committee to prevent that from happening. Things did get out of hand this year in terms of trades so I understand your point though. We could limit the amount of players and picks even more but I don't think that will ultimately change the amount of arguments over trades though. As long as we allow trades some will feel they were unfairly denied and/or feel other accepted trades were unrealistic and/or unfair.

5) We used to have a free agent waiver wire/draft before every season but got rid of it this year because the amount of quality FAs is much smaller than it was in past Maddens post draft and because it takes a massive amount of effort to organize. If someone else wants to take on the responsibility of running the FA waiver wire then I'm all for it but I just don't have the time any more and after discussing with the other admins we had decided that the effort far outweighs the advantages of running one after the intial preseason. Volunteers are welcome.

1.) I think that something simple would help. My guess is we have around 30 plays on offence and defence per game.

If you say:

"All coverage shells (Cover 0, Cover 1, Cover 2 Man, Cover 2 Zone, Cover 3, Cover 4, Cover 6, Cover 9) 
should be used MORE than once each game."

 This means you have to use at least 6 man plays of 30 (leaving max of 80% zone) and hopefully encourages more use as people learn how to use them. If you want more you just say a minimum of 3 times etc.

2.) I don't mind how it gets implemented, but handicapped re-signings in whatever way does help us get a more realistic feel to FA.

3.) Agreed

4.) This may be controversial, but I actually find that stupid trades like these are maybe a result of having a 4 trade limit. People will try to do these enormous trades because of it. Actually lifting the cap would probably resolve it completely. 

Without this turning into a them vs us, the VGFL has no limit on trade number and we have never had an issue like some of these. I only offer that information as a reference and not to say one league is better.

Of course I don't know wild Zill would go in that situation, but there is almost no difference with how Fraser has managed his roster with 4 trades here compared to having no limit. I don't think it is as big an issue as you may think at first, particularly if you use tools like the calc.

5.) I agree. It works well and seemed fair. We did one round for people who missed FA followed by another for those who missed ALL of the draft. The wire only ended up being about 12 people long and we did it live in the chat which was quite fun and saved any work for the commisioners.

1)  EA screwed us all and made it almost impossible to play man as it leaves you open for big plays every time, even with average WR's torching very good DB's.
We all know man should be incorporated - but how do you do that? If we say min 20% mcv guys could just run man for the last couple of series when the game is likely over by that time.
We all want it included, but i honestly feel that when EA put out a product like M18 we can't argue too much about the blanket zone.
I'd suggest we wait and hope M19 is much, much better.

2) As Brza above

3) Agree

4) This is tricky - we all endeavour to make the league as sim as possible, but there are many instances when we have to common sense how we handle them. I've always leant on the side of no limit, a bit like legalising cannabis in the Netherlands. I know some people (looking at you Zill) would go mad but the vast majority would be quite sim, i believe there is some mileage as per Dw above.

5)  FA is kinda like a mini draft and i'm surprised a lot of guys don't get involved. If someone is happy to organise it in a pro active way i believe it could be fun - like the draft but on a smaller scale.

The trades definitely need some kind of review or reform. I will not single anyone out as I don't think it's just one person but I think some of the trades haven't been ideally sim  Just my opinion 

Ask me how to keep it in check - no idea tbh just we should have trades including several pieces (players or picks) I do think some people can operate to have too many picks too

Concerning trades  - I analyzed all 2018 trades to get a picture of the real NFL (errors reserved):

A few key stats:

• 31 teams traded
  
• Patriots had most trades with 12, followed by Rams with 11, Raiders & Browns with 9
  
• 14 teams had 4 or more trades
  
• 35 trades only contained picks
  
• 26 trades contained a player
  
• Only 3 trades contained a player on both sides
  
• Only 2 trades contained 4 picks with a few more containing 3 picks
  
• Most trades contained only 1-2 picks
  
• Most picks by any team in the draft were Ravens with 12 and a few with 11 picks
  
• Fewest picks by any team in the draft were Titans with 4 and Eagles with 5
  

So based on the these key stats I think we should focus on a few aspects:

• No trade limit (maybe help the committee a bit more)
  
• Smaller trades, especially fewer player vs player (use picks as currency like in the NFL!)
  
• Limit for number of picks
  

So for our league I would propose (to give a clear guideline for future trades):

• Max 14 picks in one draft, min 3 picks
  
• Max 2 trades per team with players on both sides (maybe 1, but give committee right to refuse at 2 or more)
  
• Max 1 player on each side
  
• Max 4 picks on each side
  

Choosing 2 examples this could have changed trades substantially in the direction of sim:
Example 1:

• Jaguars offering Martin + McBriar + Smith
  
• Ravens offering Jones + 2nd round pick
  

instead it could have been:

• Jaguars acquire early 2nd rounder for Martin (from any team)
  
• Jaguars acquire late 1st for McBriar (from any team)
  
• Jaguars acquire mid 3rd for Smith (from any team)
  
• Ravens send Jones for 1st rounder, 1st rounder, 2nd rounder, 3rd rounder to Jaguars
  

We have 4 individual trades all using currency "draft picks" and each of the trade comparable and much easier to decide.

Example 2:

• Bears offering #1 overall pick
  
• Bills offering Jones + Castaneda + Alexander
  

instead it could have been:

• Bills acquire early 2nd rounder for Jones
  
• Bills acquire late 2nd rounder for Castaneda
  
• Bills acquire mid 2nd rounder for Alexander
  
• Bears send #1 overall to Bills for 1st rounder, 3 x 2nd rounder
  

Again, we have 4 individual trades using currency "draft picks" and I think we can all agree they are much easier to decide.


Of course that doesn't mean this huge trade should just be split up into 4 trades and we have 4 trades between the same teams, that's far from sim again. But having no trade limit and having easier trades, that should make it much easier for all teams. There's no need to discuss for weeks a blockbuster trade including 4 players on each side, but now to just agree to player vs pick.

It's a long text now, but should give you just every information needed. Actualy the bold parts (which is the rule proposal) is quite short and easy to understand.

I agree with this: 4.) This may be controversial, but I actually find that stupid trades like these are maybe a result of having a 4 trade limit. People will try to do these enormous trades because of it. Actually lifting the cap would probably resolve it completely and not because of me going wild but it would help to keep it simple as in what is being traded and for what exactly. 

Because of this adjustment you wouldn't have to squeeze everything in one scenario. However I do see more work for the committee doing it this way as the number of trades to decline/approve will go up regardless if its from me or anyone else.

As para used in the above example instead of doing one trade with one team under one post I will now have to get another 3 or 4 teams involved do those trades separately and only then hope that the committee is having a good day to get my trade for jones approved and if it doesn't well Im left with a bunch of picks that I really didn't need in the first place and with a broken team. So in essence I would probably need to get the last trade approved first and then look for trade partners to take the other players but this will leave me at a disadvantage as I won't hold leverage in talks as it will be clear why I am getting rid of player a b or c.

I personally think we should have a manifesto or clear guidelines what works in this league and what doesn't so don't even try going for a trade like a b or c and then build from there. This will help cut down on time when working out trades and it will be less for the committee members to worry about. I know that probably I will get the most affected by this but at least there is a frame to work on and potentially it keeps everyone happy and the committee would potentially have more free time rather than working those trades. Maybe a combination of guidelines and a no cap on trades would do the trick?

On a side note I still think the league is more fun and better if we allow nba type trades as long as we have fair compensation and protection for lesser users as this lets teams with lesser overall or new coaches who pick a team at the end of the line to have a chance at building a contender or guys like me who like trying different styles/techniques out a chance to change and see what works and how. But I also get it @dwevans that we are trying to be SIM here.

NBA teams have 5 players on court and a squad of about 14. This, and the size of some contracts is why those trades happen. Doing them here "for fun" has only arisen because of the 4 trade limit.

The answer is staring you in the face, but people seem unwilling to just accept it.

1. Unlimited trade number
2. All trades use the calc
3. Accept means it is definitely ok. You just need someone to double check you have entered all the details correctly
4. Each team is allowed to request a committee vote for two trades a season that the calc declines with their reasoning.

This results in less work and means everyone is operating on the same currency for their trades.

I think we still have some way to go before we get there because people still think committees make fairer and more reasoned decisions. Well, they don't. I've seen it in every league I've ever been in.

Woah there tiger!! I think DW should do a robot test:- Write what you see below to confirm you're human...

cH1cag0 are gR8

Error: 404 Not Found

Committees make good decisions when presented with accurate information, but are easily swayed without it. Case in point:

Bills Bears Trade with 2 seasons left:


Bills Bears Trade with 1 season left:


Had someone taken 1 minute to just run these through and post these, i am pretty certain the committee would have said the trade was fine but would have suggested a conditional pick if another season was achieved. No one did and a slight comment about the two average players remaining starters was what swayed the decision to a yes. No one noticed Julio was in his contract year or could even retire if we have another season.

Committees work, but only when presented with objective evidence. Otherwise they can make mistakes, as clearly shown above.

If the Calc didn't give us results like the example below I'd be open to giving it more weight. Until then committees are definitely necessary.

You do understand that the team trading away Julio then has 17million in cap space freed for the next FA though?! It does make sense if the team trading Julio wanted to do it. The way you view a player just needs to move away from only what they offer now.

That trade would never be accepted in the final season because there is no more FAs to make use of the cap space.

Lol, don't die on the hill that Caldwell and $15.11M in cap space is worth more than Julio Jones.

The Bills trade was also made after the 1st two FA stages. There was next to nothing left in FA.  But even with that this is not about the Bills trade. The picture above is a trade that the Bears do right now that would be accepted by the calc assuming a 5th season. You cannot argue that is fair.

There were also plenty of other examples that others have brought up before where the calc didn't make sense. I'm not trying to bash your calculator. I'm just pointing out its not as infallible as you're claiming in your post above. The committee is not infallible either but a combination of the two is the best thing we have and will continue to be used until someone can prove otherwise.

I think we are mixing up a few things here.

One topic is the 2-tier system of calculator and trade committee. I think that's a good solution as both can fail - if at least both are used/asked, then the chance for a stupid trade is nearly none.

Second topic is the trade rule itself. While it's sometimes funny to work out these blockbuster trade, I think it just went in a strange direction this season. We are a sim league - trades for a superstar against 3-4 players + picks just don't happen in the NFL. If we want to follow the NFL, then that has to be a rule.
If you want to trade for a superstar in the NFL, then give up 1-2 first round picks and some other picks. If the team giving up the superstar gets 3-4 draft picks for depth, then that's good enough too. Trading for a superstar and off-loading 3-4 unwanted players, is just not sim and never happens.

EDIT:
If a trade is agreed, then both teams should have a reason for the trade. Maybe it makes sense to just add a short reason why this trade has been agreed, that would make it a bit easier for the committee.
For example (me in another league): I needed to trade my franchise QB in a contract year below his value as I couldn't afford him and would have cut him instead. So getting anything in return is a plus.
I'm sure in that case the committee would accept a slightly lesser value than the calculator expects.


EDIT2:
Can we please close the topic of this season? Let's talk here about a system we want to use in future! Thanks

I'm not dieing on any hill. If you don't have the cap space to re-sign Julio and wanted a young tall linebacker on a cheap contract for depth then yes this trade could make sense. Those factors just depend on what the owners feel is in their best interest, and this is a trade you are unlikely to see anyway so is a poor example. If you did though, it is fine in my opinion.

You are only proving my point though that not all factors are looked by people at in these scenarios. It is too easy to look at the overall. If you are happy with your other options at WR then that cap space can be re-invested in a position of more need next offseason or with another trade this season. This is why you see older players on big contacts go for peanuts or get cut in the NFL.

This isn't the first time I've ever had this discussion and won't be the last, but the numbers for valuation make complete sense. I am happy to keep explaining it if my explanation is confusing.

Anyway, if a combination of the two together is best then why was only one used this offseason?

I have to say i agree with DW with the post above- Every coaches circumstances are different for each trade and these circumstances need to be looked regardless if someone feels that someone is getting the short end of the stick. (But I am sure that even DW has failed me on this approach )

The committee should be there to point out to the player losing that hey are you sure this is what you want because of point a point b point c. What could of been done with my trade with Ravens. He accepted but only then understood that the players don't fit his system and I didn't think about it either. When its pointed out like that its a fair argument and everyone can agree and its more transparent than what one feels.  

Points like these should be written in what is considered by committee in a trade (trade guidelines):

EXAMPLE:
Committee will look at points made by trading teams:
Contract Length
cant afford
Doesnt fit scheme 
Need to get more starters for 1 Elite guy (too many holes on roster)
All these things are viable to coaches and sometimes the committee doesn't recognise this nor does the calculator in some instances.

Committee will NOT look at factors such as:

If trading for top 5 pick and the party trading the high pick is not overpaid by 400 points over the pick value.

If the trade involves half of the players switching teams. (this would need to be as precise as possible but just as an idea)

If the committee is having a bad day and they don't like you


I think if we can write something with things like I mentioned above and we add the committee and the calculator to the equation we could possibly have a better working trade module and a clearer approval decline process that would be harder to challenge and that would also give a clearer understanding as to what is needed to make the trade work if its workable at all because it would point out the reasons for a proper decline

I feel like that is making things more complicated and already happens with the majority of your trades. Anyway like Para asked, let's stick to the OP

Any more reactions to the proposals?

1) Zone coverage/man coverage

2) Resignings

3) Contract limit to 4 years

4) Trade adjustments (smaller trades!)

5) Pre-season free agency


According to what we know from Madden19 most of them will still be relevant.

Any further topics? Or any topics from above we should discuss in more detail? I'm happy to work out something, but just need to know in which direction or what will be incorporated already. Next Madden will come soon and as it's out nobody wants to discuss rule changes, as all are preparing and training for the new version.

So I'll just share my thoughts for S&G's 

1) Zone coverage/man coverage


I think as long as a team is mixing up his play calling (I.E. Not running Cover 3 constant for example) then we should let HCs choose the plays that suit the team they have/built. If there is genuine use of multiple formats of defensive plays then Ii don't see the issue. If someone wants to run zone or man in larger amounts then that great that's their call and if it suits the players they have developed/acquired/drafted and is mixing up coverage types etc then winner - sounds like a team been used in the way the HC has intended. Give every coach more freedom but have a caveat that same formation/cover type cant be ran over and over and over 

2) Resignings 


For resigns I dont think a major change is needed, more just a tweak; 

The Superbowl teams - 2 resigns
Playoff teams (all playoffs except SB teams) 3 resigns 
13-24th ranked teams - 4 resigns 
Five lowest ranked teams - 5 resigns

3) Contract limit to 4 years

4 years makes sense given the lifespan of Madden for us, if we can do 5 seasons it would make it interesting for HCs to manage that side of things. I think the comment about not many players sign longer is kind of relevant. I would say that for top elite players then we can increase if they are demanding longer (pictures or it didnt happen) Top top players can often get tied up in longer deals which is understandable - a lower/mid tier player shouldnt get a long deal with bonus/payday the same way an elite player would. I do think this is more "sim" 

4) Trade adjustments (smaller trades!) 


We just need to stop crazy trades that have multiple picks/players. For one player then max should be two or three picks (depending on their round and position. We should do are best to limit the crazy trades.  I would say that 60-80% of us dont have an issue with 4 trades however there is often that situation later that changes and you can regret. I think maybe a slight increase to five trades per season and under the "sensible trade act 2018" in place then offseason wont be crazy season for trades. I'd also ban draft day trades (pauses without good causes) the last few drafts have made the experience so poor and its a lot of work for the commissioners/trade committee to deal with on top of everything else. Previously there were more conditional trades and them days the flow of the draft was better IMO 

5) Pre-season free agency


FA week 1 waiver for none-attendees of the draft is a solid approach. I'd do phase 2 as draft order pick 1 player (kind of further waiver) week 3 is free for all 

Bartell wrote:I'd also ban draft day trades (pauses without good causes) the last few drafts have made the experience so poor and its a lot of work for the commissioners/trade committee to deal with on top of everything else. Previously there were more conditional trades and them days the flow of the draft was better IMO 

Sorrrrrryyyyy... This last draft I had it all sorted though...

Mattanite wrote:

Bartell wrote:I'd also ban draft day trades (pauses without good causes) the last few drafts have made the experience so poor and its a lot of work for the commissioners/trade committee to deal with on top of everything else. Previously there were more conditional trades and them days the flow of the draft was better IMO 

Sorrrrrryyyyy... This last draft I had it all sorted though...

"sorted" I bet if we did a "customer experience" survey for the last draft it would be low 


P.S. I wasn't singling anyone out BTW

As yesterday the topic about trade rules came up again, I want to propose an easy rule adjustment.

- No trade limit
- Stricter trade rules (commitee)


I would propose that it's not even necessary to specify the stricter rules in detail. Just say sim trades and don't accept every trade just because it's accepted by calculator. Last year it sometimes was common knowledge that the calculator accepts or refuses a trade, although it was always only a guideline and no rule.

As a guideline for the "stricter rules" you could say max. 1 player on each side, mainly player vs. picks and no crazy blockbuster trades like 4 players vs. 1 star player.

Advantages:
- Easier trades to dicuss (especially player vs pick)
- Easier trades to approve/reject for committee

95% of league members won't have 4+ trades anyway.