11/27/2012 11:38 PM
I like the idea of a double progressive w/ clones.  The league schedule lends itself to the concept with one exclusive player
for each conference.  A hard cap (50 or 52M) with contracts would complicate matters but it would also add the element of
legitimate Free Agency.
Begin with four year max contracts for 1 or 2 players and each owner can earn extra years for their teams.  This rewards success.
For example:
Each playoff teams earns 1 yr.
Every playoff series win earns 1 yr.
Best regular season record (each conference) earns 1 yr.
League MVP earns 1 yr. 
Best A/TO ratio earns 1 yr.
Biggest Pt. diff. by team earns 1 yr.

With your extra years you can extend a players contract by 1 or 2 yrs. with a max. of 7 yrs.
So each team would start with 24 yrs. and earn extra years each season.
You could cap the number of contracts yrs. or roll them over to next season.
  
Trying to think outside the box with contracts.
The double progressive w/ clones is appealing since it doubles the talent pool and would make for some very competitive play.
11/28/2012 6:36 AM
I like the double progressive idea.
Still not big on the contract thing if it means there's going to be a redraft every year. But I could roll with what seapilots just proposed, as long as every team is awarded at least one or two contract year per offseason regardless of their record.
11/28/2012 7:39 PM
seapilots, I think that is too many extra contract years.  If a good team can keep its best 3 players forever (essentially), then I think ull have the same issues as other progs.
11/28/2012 9:05 PM
I think that the only way a double progressive makes sense is if the incoming draft pools look like this.

1st year: Initial draft, choose anyone, only one instance per player, you can start him at season 1, 2 or 3.
2nd year: Every player who started in the 1950's (thus starts inclusion of clones, based only on time period)
3rd year: Every player who started in the 1960's
4th year: Every player who started in the 1970's
5th year: 1971-1977
6th year: 1978-1986
7th year: 1987-1993
8th year: 1994-2004
9th year: 2005-Present + Every player who started in the 1950's (rolling start, large draft pool)

11/28/2012 9:41 PM
Well.. a double progressive would be two separate drafts evil. An Eastern draft pool and a Western draft pool. Which would mean that there would be two Wilts, Jordan, ect. It would be pretty easy to rebuild, especially with a cap. Good players would have to get cut and be available to draft in both conferences. Could even have two commishs, one for each conference, half the work. 

I'm good with the time period thing too. I like either of the ideas because they can appeal to new owners who take over a new team. Because I look at some of those PCL teams... and I wouldn't want them.
11/28/2012 10:07 PM
I like the idea of a commissioner in each conference as well.
11/28/2012 10:35 PM
I like the idea of an eastern and western conference draft pool.  With regards to the contract years, I think 24 years with the initial draft (with a max of 3 to any player) and one additional year after every season.  Starting with the second draft, you choose a 1, 2, or 3 year contract for your drafted players.  I think the option to start a player at his 1st, 2nd, or 3rd season is good and when a player has played his last season in the database, he goes back to the draft pool.  What about anti-tanking and vetoing trade rules?
11/28/2012 11:47 PM
Well, isn't the draft lottery a anti-tanking rule? What else could be done? Not sure about trades.
Contract years should be able to be traded with a cap on how many an owner can carry.
And if there was a 3 year max contract, does that mean that after 3 seasons my first round pick has to enter the draft pool?
11/29/2012 12:14 AM
Posted by Ginandjuice on 11/28/2012 11:47:00 PM (view original):
Well, isn't the draft lottery a anti-tanking rule? What else could be done? Not sure about trades.
Contract years should be able to be traded with a cap on how many an owner can carry.
And if there was a 3 year max contract, does that mean that after 3 seasons my first round pick has to enter the draft pool?
A "wins floor" and not allowing a team to pick in the top 2 in consecutive years are possible anti-tanking rules.  With one extra contract year per season, you could keep ur 1st round pick until he retires (and keep another pick 5 seasons).
11/29/2012 1:45 AM
Posted by xxevilivexx on 11/28/2012 9:05:00 PM (view original):
I think that the only way a double progressive makes sense is if the incoming draft pools look like this.

1st year: Initial draft, choose anyone, only one instance per player, you can start him at season 1, 2 or 3.
2nd year: Every player who started in the 1950's (thus starts inclusion of clones, based only on time period)
3rd year: Every player who started in the 1960's
4th year: Every player who started in the 1970's
5th year: 1971-1977
6th year: 1978-1986
7th year: 1987-1993
8th year: 1994-2004
9th year: 2005-Present + Every player who started in the 1950's (rolling start, large draft pool)

The season 1,2 or 3 idea is good especially with the cap that would give some flexibility with minutes.
With a double prog and the second season draft you'd have the potential of a clone on the same team &
definitely clones playing in same conference.  Which kinda seems to defeat the original double idea of
a single player in each conference.
An initial double draft w/ clones would assure one player in each conference but 2nd season draft is limited.

A good idea but would you want a team with the same clones?  It would work.
11/29/2012 1:57 AM
Posted by ncmusician_7 on 11/28/2012 7:39:00 PM (view original):
seapilots, I think that is too many extra contract years.  If a good team can keep its best 3 players forever (essentially), then I think ull have the same issues as other progs.
No doubt contracts complicate matters.  The rules need to be simple and easily understood or too many
grey areas arise.  Which would bring grief to the commish(s).  
Maybe your first round pick would be exclusive and the rest given 1 to 3 yrs. with an initial 24 yr. cap and
increasing by one each season and I haven't even thought about trades and contracts?
Too many moving parts could be as bad as too few. 
11/29/2012 6:36 AM
It's part of the reason I'm not big on the contracts thing seapilots. It's a cool idea and all, but if its not done right it will suck.
Which is why a double draft progressive with a cap is my favorite idea so far.
11/29/2012 7:47 AM
In terms of clones of the same player on a team, I don't think it will matter with a hard cap, but that is just my feeling.
11/29/2012 7:05 PM
Evil the clone draft pool is a good idea and contracts aren't necessary with this concept.  It stands by itself just fine.
A team with 2 clones aren't an issue with me.  The only question I have is drafting for season 2.
Obviously Wilt is the prize and Russell is no slouch from the 50's.  I think there should be a win floor of lets say 22.
Just throwing that number out there and some type of non playoff lottery to really inhibit tanking.
If you can't win 22 games you shouldn't be drafting any higher than third.  Just an idea.
So I'm listening Gin.  Going to try a contract league sometime next year and see how it flies.
If it doesn't it'll go into the waste bin with plenty of other good ideas that are non starters in this upside down backwards
dysfunctional WIS Basketball.
11/30/2012 9:45 PM
I think that 22 wins is a good number, but I have a better solution. Anyone tanking games on purpose to increase their draft position has no place in a league like this.
of 7

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.