Page 1 of 5
IFAs are too imbalancing for some reason
Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2024 9:35 am
by aaronweiner
Hey...I don't know if people have looked at the current crop of IFAs yet, but there are over 50 players rated with a potential of at least 50. There are another 30 players who are at least 45s. In the entire BBA draft, there might have been 80 players over a 45 potential (though probably not!), and there were certainly nowhere near 50 players with a 50 potential.
To put this in further perspective: we had what basically amounts to an above-average BBA draft last year. In the entire BBA draft, there were two players with at least a 65 potential rating, and they went #1 and #2. There are EIGHTEEN in this year's IFA crop. There are another six 60s, and 14 55s.
If the whole idea of removing comp picks for playoff teams was to partially create competitive balance, this sort of thing is potentially primed to throw that way back out of whack.
This feels like a rich get richer, big, honking mistake to me and you have time to fix it. Suggest you do.
Re: IFAs are too imbalancing for some reason
Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2024 10:02 am
by BaseClogger
This was discussed briefly on discord. I agree.
Re: IFAs are too imbalancing for some reason
Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2024 11:02 am
by recte44
Unfortunately there's not a setting for this. It's either ON or OFF.
Re: IFAs are too imbalancing for some reason
Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2024 11:05 am
by recte44
How do you suggest we fix it? At this point when it comes to talent we can't seem to win. IFA's are too good. Draft is too bad. Player talent sucks. I think what the case here is in IFA is that a lot of these guys, much like in real life, are heavily rated highly on potential and the majority of them will flame out.
I think instituting a hard cap may be an answer. Otherwise, I'm just turning it off altogether. Because if they were all shitty, then I'd hear complaints about that too.
Re: IFAs are too imbalancing for some reason
Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:05 pm
by aaronweiner
recte44 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 11:05 am
How do you suggest we fix it? At this point when it comes to talent we can't seem to win. IFA's are too good. Draft is too bad. Player talent sucks. I think what the case here is in IFA is that a lot of these guys, much like in real life, are heavily rated highly on potential and the majority of them will flame out.
I think instituting a hard cap may be an answer. Otherwise, I'm just turning it off altogether. Because if they were all shitty, then I'd hear complaints about that too.
In MLB, I just read, the bonus pools are based on reverse order by revenue and market size. In other words, the teams who make the least in the smallest markets have the right to spend more than teams in the largest ones, and there is a hard cap.
https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/2024 ... -prospect/
That said: all shitty would be fine. Turning them off also fine.
If we keep them, yes, please, make it a hard cap, and it would be acceptable if it were uniform. Ultimately, a hard cap on IFA helps everyone because it prevents teams from blowing out their budgets AND prevents the top teams from simply overpaying for the best talent.
Re: IFAs are too imbalancing for some reason
Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:10 pm
by jiminyhopkins
Hmm. Not sure what can be done due to OOTP settings or what not.
But IFA is a crapshoot, we all know that. So why don't we involve the GBC somehow? Shouldn't "International" free agents go the the "Global" Baseball Consortium first to prove themselves? Combined with a good posting or "Rule 6" system, all the IFA's can go to the GBC to develop. Then, the ones that pan out (maybe by age 23 or so) can be posted or whatever, then they can go to the BBA, maybe in an annual, single round draft. That way it would't depend on how much cash you have, only your record. Rich don't get richer.
This could do a few things. Swings in the quality of the IFA pool won't mean as much, because they all would have to develop anyway in the GBC before they can be posted. We won't have any complaints about teams spending too much in IFAs. Would also make the GBC be more relevant in an overall sense, i.e. these BBA GM trainees actually would have star players to develop, honing their skills for the main league.
Probably not feasible, as Matt said it's either on or off. But maybe it's something to think about?
Re: IFAs are too imbalancing for some reason
Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:25 pm
by aaronweiner
jiminyhopkins wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:10 pm
Hmm. Not sure what can be done due to OOTP settings or what not.
But IFA is a crapshoot, we all know that. So why don't we involve the GBC somehow? Shouldn't "International" free agents go the the "Global" Baseball Consortium first to prove themselves? Combined with a good posting or "Rule 6" system, all the IFA's can go to the GBC to develop. Then, the ones that pan out (maybe by age 23 or so) can be posted or whatever, then they can go to the BBA, maybe in an annual, single round draft. That way it would't depend on how much cash you have, only your record. Rich don't get richer.
This could do a few things. Swings in the quality of the IFA pool won't mean as much, because they all would have to develop anyway in the GBC before they can be posted. We won't have any complaints about teams spending too much in IFAs. Would also make the GBC be more relevant in an overall sense, i.e. these BBA GM trainees actually would have star players to develop, honing their skills for the main league.
Probably not feasible, as Matt said it's either on or off. But maybe it's something to think about?
That would also be acceptable.
The only thing that's not okay is that the rich teams buy the IFAs and the poor teams get left with "too bad, so sad, should have made more money."
Re: IFAs are too imbalancing for some reason
Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:54 pm
by Lane
jiminyhopkins wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:10 pm
Hmm. Not sure what can be done due to OOTP settings or what not.
But IFA is a crapshoot, we all know that. So why don't we involve the GBC somehow? Shouldn't "International" free agents go the the "Global" Baseball Consortium first to prove themselves? Combined with a good posting or "Rule 6" system, all the IFA's can go to the GBC to develop. Then, the ones that pan out (maybe by age 23 or so) can be posted or whatever, then they can go to the BBA, maybe in an annual, single round draft. That way it would't depend on how much cash you have, only your record. Rich don't get richer.
This could do a few things. Swings in the quality of the IFA pool won't mean as much, because they all would have to develop anyway in the GBC before they can be posted. We won't have any complaints about teams spending too much in IFAs. Would also make the GBC be more relevant in an overall sense, i.e. these BBA GM trainees actually would have star players to develop, honing their skills for the main league.
Probably not feasible, as Matt said it's either on or off. But maybe it's something to think about?
I like this idea. But of course it would depend on ease of implementation.
Re: IFAs are too imbalancing for some reason
Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:04 pm
by recte44
I was planning on screwing around with "Associations" so maybe that's the answer.
Re: IFAs are too imbalancing for some reason
Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:24 pm
by ae37jr
I was thinking about suggesting some sort of IFA draft. Cause the top revenue teams(usually perennial contenders) seem to dominate the cash strapped cellar dwellers in IFA. So even if player X....might not fully develop, the "haves" still hold a stacked deck against the "have nots".
Another idea is to do something like we do with comp picks. If you make the playoffs, you are unable to bid on a player rated over 45 pot. Would probably be a nightmare to enforce though.
Re: IFAs are too imbalancing for some reason
Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:43 pm
by bcslouck
I like the idea of a hard cap based on record but if that isn't possible, I like GBC idea. I guess the way the GBC works, we couldn't have it as a feeder along with the college teams. Just thinking about how the NBA has college, the G-League, and International. Just having the GBC as a feeder could make is along those lines. Again, I'm saying all this without any idea if it's possible or if it'd break how things already are.
Re: IFAs are too imbalancing for some reason
Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:13 pm
by aaronweiner
Looking at bonus cash, it should be even less acceptable than it was five minutes ago to have this kind of distribution. 13 teams are negative bonus cash, and while there's no one type of team that fits this metric, that's 40% of the league who can't even really bid on IFAs without wrecking their franchise.
That was okay when they were all kind of mid and teams were bidding on a couple players, but now it's a talent overload free for all and that's just ugly.
Re: IFAs are too imbalancing for some reason
Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:27 pm
by BaseClogger
I'm assuming the answer is no but can some of the IFAs be moved into the draft class? That's what I would do as commish each year to prune the IFA class to a reasonable level.
Re: IFAs are too imbalancing for some reason
Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:06 pm
by chicoruiz
I like the Phoenix idea, although it may be kind of a hard sell to GBC GMs… “Here’s a great prospect- Go ahead and develop him, then we’ll come take him away when he’s 23”. Putting myself in the shoes of a GBC guy, I don’t know quite how I’d feel about that.
Maybe the GBC teams could each protect one guy from being posted. Or maybe half of the IFAs could go into the BBA draft, and the other half into the GBC. There’s no rule that says the GBC can’t have some good players.
Eventually, of course, most of the guys who pan out will want more than GBC budgets will allow for, and they’ll end up in the BBA. Except for Quinn Greene, of course…
Re: IFAs are too imbalancing for some reason
Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:15 pm
by recte44
BaseClogger wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:27 pm
I'm assuming the answer is no but can some of the IFAs be moved into the draft class? That's what I would do as commish each year to prune the IFA class to a reasonable level.
If that's the case, then we should just scrap IFA altogether.
Re: IFAs are too imbalancing for some reason
Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:43 pm
by BaseClogger
recte44 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:15 pm
BaseClogger wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:27 pm
I'm assuming the answer is no but can some of the IFAs be moved into the draft class? That's what I would do as commish each year to prune the IFA class to a reasonable level.
If that's the case, then we should just scrap IFA altogether.
I assume the game is trying to balance talent so this keeps the talent level true, maintains IFA as an area to sink cash, but protects the importance of the draft as compared to IFA. Seems like a win-win-win except for the small effort it would be for you.
Re: IFAs are too imbalancing for some reason
Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2024 6:26 pm
by Lane
chicoruiz wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:06 pm
I like the Phoenix idea, although it may be kind of a hard sell to GBC GMs… “Here’s a great prospect- Go ahead and develop him, then we’ll come take him away when he’s 23”. Putting myself in the shoes of a GBC guy, I don’t know quite how I’d feel about that.
Maybe the GBC teams could each protect one guy from being posted. Or maybe half of the IFAs could go into the BBA draft, and the other half into the GBC. There’s no rule that says the GBC can’t have some good players.
Eventually, of course, most of the guys who pan out will want more than GBC budgets will allow for, and they’ll end up in the BBA. Except for Quinn Greene, of course…
this would be something like a return to the Rule 6 and Rule 7 draft that we had many years ago for the EBA. I can't remember the exact rules, but a player from the EBA became eligible to be drafted into the BBA after a set number of years. The player would be placed in the Free Agent pool, and the drafting team would have rights to match whatever contract the player eventually signed. The EBA team losing the player would then have the opportunity to draft any Rule 5 eligible player from the BBA team. Of course this could be modified, but the general idea is something that we have established in BBA history.
Re: IFAs are too imbalancing for some reason
Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2024 6:26 pm
by recte44
BaseClogger wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:43 pm
recte44 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:15 pm
BaseClogger wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:27 pm
I'm assuming the answer is no but can some of the IFAs be moved into the draft class? That's what I would do as commish each year to prune the IFA class to a reasonable level.
If that's the case, then we should just scrap IFA altogether.
I assume the game is trying to balance talent so this keeps the talent level true, maintains IFA as an area to sink cash, but protects the importance of the draft as compared to IFA. Seems like a win-win-win except for the small effort it would be for you.
Not sure if it's a small effort, we might have different definitions of that.
Re: IFAs are too imbalancing for some reason
Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2024 6:53 pm
by aaronweiner
recte44 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:15 pm
BaseClogger wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:27 pm
I'm assuming the answer is no but can some of the IFAs be moved into the draft class? That's what I would do as commish each year to prune the IFA class to a reasonable level.
If that's the case, then we should just scrap IFA altogether.
Scrapping IFA would have minimal impact on the game and everything else, and given the structure of bonus cash would still allow us to get cash out of the game in the same way we've been doing.
Hard cap or scrap IFA would be my vote, whichever is possible.
Re: IFAs are too imbalancing for some reason
Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2024 6:55 pm
by chicoruiz
It’s a knotty problem… we’re dealing with the fact that teams with money are always going to find ways to spend it that help them, whether it’s IFAs or something else. And that’s okay; if you’re a smart GM and make money you should benefit from it.
On the other hand, this IFA pool seems like a special case. Could we just have a special one or two round draft of IFAs held on the forum just to thin the pool a bit? Or would putting those guys in their new teams be too much of a hassle?
I don’t know… I’m the village idiot around here. But it seems like we could/should do SOMETHING….
