Build a Franchise (Season 7) Discussion thread continued- Announcement pg 99

[bishnykfan]

Previous thread- https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=2299104


I have avoided the discussion thread these past couple of days so I wouldn't influence any voters. But now that the rule change proposal has failed I want to clear up things that have happened in the past and things that have been said or asked about in the previous thread.

First, I dislike "tanking" in general. I am competitive in nature and don't like the idea of throwing away a season. I have said this for years now but I will reiterate it here again now...there is no guarantee that this league lasts forever. It takes up an insane amount of time for me and between work and family, this gets a little more difficult each year. I want to continue for as long as I can and I don't currently plan on stopping, but considering tomorrow is not guaranteed for anyone, I don't personally like or understand the idea of a throwaway season.

Saying that, I do understand that the goal is to win championships and for some franchises, "tanking" is the best way to move closer to that goal. I also like that people here think enough of the league to be thinking long term, something that didn't happen until the league proved it was going to be around.

Now, to clear up a few things, we have had this issue since at least season two. Teams have tanked and manipulated lineups for years to get a better draft pick. It has been egregious at times and we have tried to stop it for years. But as obvious as it is to me, I will not police it, put a stop to it or not allow GMs to run their franchise how they wish without a mandate from the league that gives me that power. It is your league and until enough people want this change, I will not step in.

Two "anti-tanking" proposals have been brought up in the past to try and curb this behavior because I do believe that it is bad for the league. The last time it was voted on was in 2020 and the results are below.

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1977768

So the people saying that this has been allowed up to now without a vote are not correct. We just have not been able to pass anything yet. I do understand that it may not be fair to change things now that a few teams have already benefited from this behavior. But to just keep things status quo so more teams in the future can take advantage, makes no sense to me.


As far as this proposal goes, it is an amalgamation of two separate proposals brought to me by two GM's. I had my concerns when they were brought to me. The original proposal had teams losing a players Bird rights or draft picks by benching players that were top of the league players. After some back and forth and tinkering my response to the original proposer was:

Honestly, I don't know what I would prefer but I would not be overly supportive of anything that fundamentally changes the rules, i.e. on how contracts are determined, Bird rights, etc. I don't want to be responsible for keeping track of it, as it is, I think a rule change like this will probably add some work for me...which I would be ok with because I do think that it could help the game. But I wouldn't be in favor of changing the way Bird rights, contracts, etc are determined.

For me, I would rather see a violation like this effect a teams free agent ranking. Maybe weight the "player happiness" ranking more for teams that tank or give to many load management days. A team that sits its stars should be hurt on the FA market, not by changing the contracts that are already on the books. Maybe drop a team that violates this rule a tier or two on the market for x number of years or some other way to make it hurt to tank.

Free agency is not perfect as is. I have said this since the beginning. But I do think it is a good system and one that excites GMs and has lasted for six seasons. The player happiness category is the one semi subjective category in which I put my input into. I do dock teams that I feel are tanking or have tanked in the past. I don't see those teams as being desirable to FA's so they go towards the bottom of that category. However, presently it only represents 25% of the actual ranking so it doesn't really have much weight as it could. My idea was to give greater weight to that category and make it hurt a little more in FA for teams who are deemed tankers. IMO, that is where it would hurt a franchise. This "punishment" may still not be enough for some, but it would be a start.

I didn't love the final version of this proposal but I submitted it as it was written. If it had passed I would have been absolutely very conservative in the application of this rule. I honestly didn't really see it ever getting to the point where I had to frequently contact GMs.

But for now, it is what it is. We will go into season seven with what we have in place. Next year there will be another opportunity to change things up. I will say that as we get closer and closer to passing something here, teams should start preparing now. When a change is proposed next offseason, don't use the excuse that you have planned your offseason around "tanking".

Spoiler:

RULE CHANGE PROPOSAL

Below is the final and only rule change submission for this upcoming season. Please read and discuss. Voting needs to be done by one week from tonight 7/14. Voting can be done via PM or by quoting this post. Majority (16 votes) is needed to pass.

[spoiler]

Tanking Measurements

If a team is deemed tanking by losing games on purpose through lineup manipulation, the commissioner will have the power to take away the team's first round pick, meaning the pick will forfeit and there will be 30-x picks made in the first round. Steps until a team loses their first round pick;

Reporting: GMs will be able to report teams they suspect are throwing games away through lineup manipulation, such as sitting, playing their best players unrealistic minutes or playing them out of position.

1st strike: If reports by 3 different GMs are received about one team, Bish will review and make the final call on whether to issue a strike or not. 1st strike would just be a warning to the team that they will have to stop what they are doing to avoid further strikes.

2nd strike: If reports by 3 different GMs are received about the same team again, Bish will review and make the final call on whether to issue a 2nd strike. 2nd strike would mean the team loses their ability to set lineups for 2 weeks. Commissioner will have the power to set lineups for the team during this period, in which he can let the sim take charge of the team.

3rd strike: If the team continues their behaviour and gets reported by 3 different GMs once more, Bish will review and decide whether to hand out the 3rd strike or not. If the 3rd strike is issued the team will lose their first round pick.

Strikes will reset in 2 years so that teams at the end of the season can not think season is about to be over to get away with tanking through lineup manipulation.

If Bish decides to not issue a strike, GMs will need new game evidence to report the same team again. GMs who reported a team for a strike will be able to report again for another one, meaning 3 different GMs (not 9) would be enough for a team to go from 1 strike to 3.

Resting players will not be considered lineup manipulation. It will be up to the commish to review the reports and decide if the teams' actions warrant a strike.

FOR (14)- Bos, Chi, Den, Hou, LAC, LAL, Mem, Min, NO, NY, Pho, SA, Sac, Tor

AGAINST (15)- Atl, Bro, Cle, Dal, Det, GS, Ind, Mia, Mil, OKC, Orl, Phi, Por, Utah, Was

[bishnykfan]

This will be subjective and based off bish but maybe adding a "GM competency" category on top of fixing player happiness? Tanking GMs will automatically get a 1, guys known to compete will get a 3+, guys that successfully compete/contend get a 5.

We originally had a fifth free agent category which rated the GM's. It took into account GM activity level, was completely subjective and was another metric used to determine the FA destination rankings. It was voted out after season one.

What you're proposing here is similar to what my suggestion was to the rule proposer. To give more weight to the player happiness category so tankers have a harder time in FA. I think this is what the next proposal should focus on.

The draft should always be about the bad teams while FA is usually about the good teams. Tanking allows potentially good teams to take away the advantage that bad teams get in the draft.

I do believe that for the good of the game there should be some anti tanking measure in place, but I believe it should be tied to FA, not the draft.

[bringbackhoffa]

I think maybe instead of calling it an anti tanking rule we should of went with an anti lineup manipulation rule. There is nothing wrong in my opinion in trading your better pieces for draft picks and younger pieces to try and go the rebuilding route. The issue is when you bench star players to secure a high pick to team up with that star player in subsequent seasons or play players out of position to intentionally try and lose games.

Sent from my SM-G990W using RealGM mobile app

[Capn'O]

This will be subjective and based off bish but maybe adding a "GM competency" category on top of fixing player happiness? Tanking GMs will automatically get a 1, guys known to compete will get a 3+, guys that successfully compete/contend get a 5.

We originally had a fifth free agent category which rated the GM's. It took into account GM activity level, was completely subjective and was another metric used to determine the FA destination rankings. It was voted out after season one.

What you're proposing here is similar to what my suggestion was to the rule proposer. To give more weight to the player happiness category so tankers have a harder time in FA. I think this is what the next proposal should focus on.

The draft should always be about the bad teams while FA is usually about the good teams. Tanking allows potentially good teams to take away the advantage that bad teams get in the draft.

I do believe that for the good of the game there should be some anti tanking measure in place, but I believe it should be tied to FA, not the draft.

Are you open to proposals that weight tiers more aggressively.

I understand that this would need to be counteracted by adjustments to FA that are more punitive to lineup manipulators than bad teams. Likewise, the stench of that sort of manipulation needs to last for multiple years.

[bishnykfan]

I think maybe instead of calling it an anti tanking rule we should of went with an anti lineup manipulation rule. There is nothing wrong in my opinion in trading your better pieces for draft picks and younger pieces to try and go the rebuilding route. The issue is when you bench star players to secure a high pick to team up with that star player in subsequent seasons or play players out of position to intentionally try and lose games.

Sent from my SM-G990W using RealGM mobile app

I agree with this also. Not calling out any individual GMs because I don't think they did anything wrong technically but I hated seeing an Embiid, Butler or any other star who has sat out their teams games in the past six seasons sit out games so a team can intentionally lose. I hated seeing a team bench their starters in a play-in game so they would intentionally lose.

Going into the year, very few teams actually think that they can win a championship in the NBA. But they never sit out their stars for chunks of the season. We can do it in BaF because there is no consequence to it. If people are ok with that, then so be it. You aren't answering to an owner, a fanbase or the bottom line like actual teams do.

[bishnykfan]

This will be subjective and based off bish but maybe adding a "GM competency" category on top of fixing player happiness? Tanking GMs will automatically get a 1, guys known to compete will get a 3+, guys that successfully compete/contend get a 5.

We originally had a fifth free agent category which rated the GM's. It took into account GM activity level, was completely subjective and was another metric used to determine the FA destination rankings. It was voted out after season one.

What you're proposing here is similar to what my suggestion was to the rule proposer. To give more weight to the player happiness category so tankers have a harder time in FA. I think this is what the next proposal should focus on.

The draft should always be about the bad teams while FA is usually about the good teams. Tanking allows potentially good teams to take away the advantage that bad teams get in the draft.

I do believe that for the good of the game there should be some anti tanking measure in place, but I believe it should be tied to FA, not the draft.

Are you open to proposals that weight tiers more aggressively.

I understand that this would need to be counteracted by adjustments to FA that are more punitive to lineup manipulators than bad teams. Likewise, the stench of that sort of manipulation needs to last for multiple years.

That is basically what I wrote to the person who proposed the original rule.

Honestly, I don't know what I would prefer but I would not be overly supportive of anything that fundamentally changes the rules, i.e. on how contracts are determined, Bird rights, etc. I don't want to be responsible for keeping track of it, as it is, I think a rule change like this will probably add some work for me...which I would be ok with because I do think that it could help the game. But I wouldn't be in favor of changing the way Bird rights, contracts, etc are determined.

For me, I would rather see a violation like this effect a teams free agent ranking. Maybe weight the "player happiness" ranking more for teams that tank or give to many load management days. A team that sits its stars should be hurt on the FA market, not by changing the contracts that are already on the books. Maybe drop a team that violates this rule a tier or two on the market for x number of years or some other way to make it hurt to tank.

I don't think that I have ever not submitted a rule proposal to the board that has been presented to me. If I think that it is valid I will put my input into it to try and get it proposed in a way that will allow it to pass. If I don't think the proposal is good for the league I will say that also but I don't think I have ever rejected a proposal out of hand.

[mpharris36]

This will be subjective and based off bish but maybe adding a "GM competency" category on top of fixing player happiness? Tanking GMs will automatically get a 1, guys known to compete will get a 3+, guys that successfully compete/contend get a 5.

We originally had a fifth free agent category which rated the GM's. It took into account GM activity level, was completely subjective and was another metric used to determine the FA destination rankings. It was voted out after season one.

What you're proposing here is similar to what my suggestion was to the rule proposer. To give more weight to the player happiness category so tankers have a harder time in FA. I think this is what the next proposal should focus on.

The draft should always be about the bad teams while FA is usually about the good teams. Tanking allows potentially good teams to take away the advantage that bad teams get in the draft.

I do believe that for the good of the game there should be some anti tanking measure in place, but I believe it should be tied to FA, not the draft.

Maybe we should eliminate youth and draft picks all together as a ranking category

Most FA dont care about that if your franchise has been losing.

And replace it with more weight to winning or that player happiness?

[El Poochio]

My issue with FA punishment that doesnt involve bird rights or extension eligibility is that why would a team stacking up $30 contracts care? They will have $700 to spend and how do you make the math work that their $700 equals someone's $300?

[mpharris36]

My issue with FA punishment that doesnt involve bird rights or extension eligibility is that why would a team stacking up $30 contracts care? They will have $700 to spend and how do you make the math work that their $700 equals someone's $300?

Yeah that be my concern I. That even the highest or lowest tier the gap between contacts seem not punitive enought to carry any weight especially if that team doesn't even have cap space to penalize them.

[bishnykfan]

My issue with FA punishment that doesnt involve bird rights or extension eligibility is that why would a team stacking up $30 contracts care? They will have $700 to spend and how do you make the math work that their $700 equals someone's $300?

Yeah that be my concern I. That even the highest or lowest tier the gap between contacts seem not punitive enought to carry any weight especially if that team doesn't even have cap space to penalize them.

Unfortunately, I still believe it is a money first league today. I think a player will sign to play anywhere if they are going to get paid double. We won't stop a bad team with money from signing a good player, but we should make them overpay for that player. Which is the point of our current system.

[Buzzard]

I think maybe instead of calling it an anti tanking rule we should of went with an anti lineup manipulation rule. There is nothing wrong in my opinion in trading your better pieces for draft picks and younger pieces to try and go the rebuilding route. The issue is when you bench star players to secure a high pick to team up with that star player in subsequent seasons or play players out of position to intentionally try and lose games.

Sent from my SM-G990W using RealGM mobile app

I agree with this also. Not calling out any individual GMs because I don't think they did anything wrong technically but I hated seeing an Embiid, Butler or any other star who has sat out their teams games in the past six seasons sit out games so a team can intentionally lose. I hated seeing a team bench their starters in a play-in game so they would intentionally lose.

Going into the year, very few teams actually think that they can win a championship in the NBA. But they never sit out their stars for chunks of the season. We can do it in BaF because there is no consequence to it. If people are ok with that, then so be it. You aren't answering to an owner, a fanbase or the bottom line like actual teams do.

There should be levels of punishment. Tanking the last two weeks of the season should not exact the same punishment as sitting Embiid for almost half the season. That is another reason I voted against it. It was too black and white about pulling a pick.

[mpharris36]

I think maybe instead of calling it an anti tanking rule we should of went with an anti lineup manipulation rule. There is nothing wrong in my opinion in trading your better pieces for draft picks and younger pieces to try and go the rebuilding route. The issue is when you bench star players to secure a high pick to team up with that star player in subsequent seasons or play players out of position to intentionally try and lose games.

Sent from my SM-G990W using RealGM mobile app

I agree with this also. Not calling out any individual GMs because I don't think they did anything wrong technically but I hated seeing an Embiid, Butler or any other star who has sat out their teams games in the past six seasons sit out games so a team can intentionally lose. I hated seeing a team bench their starters in a play-in game so they would intentionally lose.

Going into the year, very few teams actually think that they can win a championship in the NBA. But they never sit out their stars for chunks of the season. We can do it in BaF because there is no consequence to it. If people are ok with that, then so be it. You aren't answering to an owner, a fanbase or the bottom line like actual teams do.

There should be levels of punishment. Tanking the last two weeks of the season should not exact the same punishment as sitting Embiid for almost half the season. That is another reason I voted against it. It was too black and white about pulling a pick.

wasn't that was why there was a 3 strike system? No way someone could accumulate 3 strikes in a week or two window.

The only people facing the most impactful punishment aren't going to be the people in the last couple weeks that throw in the towel. Its the people 20 games in doing that.

[bringbackhoffa]

I think maybe instead of calling it an anti tanking rule we should of went with an anti lineup manipulation rule. There is nothing wrong in my opinion in trading your better pieces for draft picks and younger pieces to try and go the rebuilding route. The issue is when you bench star players to secure a high pick to team up with that star player in subsequent seasons or play players out of position to intentionally try and lose games.

Sent from my SM-G990W using RealGM mobile app

I agree with this also. Not calling out any individual GMs because I don't think they did anything wrong technically but I hated seeing an Embiid, Butler or any other star who has sat out their teams games in the past six seasons sit out games so a team can intentionally lose. I hated seeing a team bench their starters in a play-in game so they would intentionally lose.

Going into the year, very few teams actually think that they can win a championship in the NBA. But they never sit out their stars for chunks of the season. We can do it in BaF because there is no consequence to it. If people are ok with that, then so be it. You aren't answering to an owner, a fanbase or the bottom line like actual teams do.

There should be levels of punishment. Tanking the last two weeks of the season should not exact the same punishment as sitting Embiid for almost half the season. That is another reason I voted against it. It was too black and white about pulling a pick.

But it would be up to Bish discretion to determine if benching your stars the last 2 weeks of the season warrants a strike. In addition, you wouldn't lose a draft pick right away, you would need 3 strikes. Obviously if you had received 2 prior strikes you would likely not want to test faith and bench your stars for a 3rd prolonged time during the last 2 weeks of the season to now be in a position to potentially lose your pick should Bish deemed that warranted a 3rd strike

[E-Balla]

This will be subjective and based off bish but maybe adding a "GM competency" category on top of fixing player happiness? Tanking GMs will automatically get a 1, guys known to compete will get a 3+, guys that successfully compete/contend get a 5.

We originally had a fifth free agent category which rated the GM's. It took into account GM activity level, was completely subjective and was another metric used to determine the FA destination rankings. It was voted out after season one.

What you're proposing here is similar to what my suggestion was to the rule proposer. To give more weight to the player happiness category so tankers have a harder time in FA. I think this is what the next proposal should focus on.

The draft should always be about the bad teams while FA is usually about the good teams. Tanking allows potentially good teams to take away the advantage that bad teams get in the draft.

I do believe that for the good of the game there should be some anti tanking measure in place, but I believe it should be tied to FA, not the draft.

Maybe we should eliminate youth and draft picks all together as a ranking category

Most FA dont care about that if your franchise has been losing.

And replace it with more weight to winning or that player happiness?

This might be the best idea. This was my main beef my first year here, I felt youth and draft picks had absolutely no place in the rankings.

[E-Balla]

My issue with FA punishment that doesnt involve bird rights or extension eligibility is that why would a team stacking up $30 contracts care? They will have $700 to spend and how do you make the math work that their $700 equals someone's $300?

If you're giving guys terrible deals you need to include extras to get rid of them. That's always the downside. Context did not get back equal value for Jimmy Butler, why? Because his contract is giant. I'm sure you haven't received many amazing proposals for Ingram. Meanwhile McDaniels (who's on a great deal) was getting me PMs all the time.

[Capn'O]

We originally had a fifth free agent category which rated the GM's. It took into account GM activity level, was completely subjective and was another metric used to determine the FA destination rankings. It was voted out after season one.

What you're proposing here is similar to what my suggestion was to the rule proposer. To give more weight to the player happiness category so tankers have a harder time in FA. I think this is what the next proposal should focus on.

The draft should always be about the bad teams while FA is usually about the good teams. Tanking allows potentially good teams to take away the advantage that bad teams get in the draft.

I do believe that for the good of the game there should be some anti tanking measure in place, but I believe it should be tied to FA, not the draft.

Maybe we should eliminate youth and draft picks all together as a ranking category

Most FA dont care about that if your franchise has been losing.

And replace it with more weight to winning or that player happiness?

This might be the best idea. This was my main beef my first year here, I felt youth and draft picks had absolutely no place in the rankings.

That makes sense as a piece of it but it doesn't specifically address lineup manipulation. Only that bad teams shouldn't have good FA ratings.

Maybe also if/when we revamp the FA system we ensure that we do it piecemeal so individual parts can be accepted without rejecting everything.

[mpharris36]

We originally had a fifth free agent category which rated the GM's. It took into account GM activity level, was completely subjective and was another metric used to determine the FA destination rankings. It was voted out after season one.

What you're proposing here is similar to what my suggestion was to the rule proposer. To give more weight to the player happiness category so tankers have a harder time in FA. I think this is what the next proposal should focus on.

The draft should always be about the bad teams while FA is usually about the good teams. Tanking allows potentially good teams to take away the advantage that bad teams get in the draft.

I do believe that for the good of the game there should be some anti tanking measure in place, but I believe it should be tied to FA, not the draft.

Maybe we should eliminate youth and draft picks all together as a ranking category

Most FA dont care about that if your franchise has been losing.

And replace it with more weight to winning or that player happiness?

This might be the best idea. This was my main beef my first year here, I felt youth and draft picks had absolutely no place in the rankings.

I agree that will help and a piece to it but I feel there is a difference from organically tanking/rebuilding to sitting players over a long stretch of time (im not even talking about the people that give up really late in the season with a playoff chance) I'm talking the more egregious half season long jobs.. So personally I don't think what TC or DaGawd or DN are doing is the same as someone that has a star that just sits them. I do feel there is a difference so I agree FA ratings could be adapted to be more impactful against tankers...but I do feel ideally we need to separate tanking in terms of what GM do...to coaching a roster manipulation.

[Capn'O]

Maybe we should eliminate youth and draft picks all together as a ranking category

Most FA dont care about that if your franchise has been losing.

And replace it with more weight to winning or that player happiness?

This might be the best idea. This was my main beef my first year here, I felt youth and draft picks had absolutely no place in the rankings.

I agree that will help and a piece to it but I feel there is a difference from organically tanking/rebuilding to sitting players over a long stretch of time (im not even talking about the people that give up really late in the season with a playoff chance) I'm talking the more egregious half season long jobs.. So personally I don't think what TC or DaGawd or DN are doing is the same as someone that has a star that just sits them. I do feel there is a difference so I agree FA ratings could be adapted to be more impactful against tankers...but I do feel ideally we need to separate tanking in terms of what GM do...to coaching a roster manipulation.

I just edited my comment to reflect this.

[Capn'O]

...

Does the Sim have a feature where it ranks a team based on overall player rating? A measure like actual performance vs. projected performance might capture lineup manipulation. So basically e-balla would be at one end of this spectrum and then you have... well... we all know.

Basically a "coach" ranking.

[2010]

This will be subjective and based off bish but maybe adding a "GM competency" category on top of fixing player happiness? Tanking GMs will automatically get a 1, guys known to compete will get a 3+, guys that successfully compete/contend get a 5.

We originally had a fifth free agent category which rated the GM's. It took into account GM activity level, was completely subjective and was another metric used to determine the FA destination rankings. It was voted out after season one.

What you're proposing here is similar to what my suggestion was to the rule proposer. To give more weight to the player happiness category so tankers have a harder time in FA. I think this is what the next proposal should focus on.

The draft should always be about the bad teams while FA is usually about the good teams. Tanking allows potentially good teams to take away the advantage that bad teams get in the draft.

I do believe that for the good of the game there should be some anti tanking measure in place, but I believe it should be tied to FA, not the draft.

Maybe we should eliminate youth and draft picks all together as a ranking category

Most FA dont care about that if your franchise has been losing.

And replace it with more weight to winning or that player happiness?

This sounds effective. Let’s be real. The reason perennial tanking teams can even be a factor in the free agent market to begin with is due to the YOUTH/DRAFT CAPITAL category.

Look at it like this. Tankers already get the reward of cheaper rookie scale contracts, the ability to extend, and that leaves them with their draft picks they hit on locked in for 6-7 years with a ton of cap space left over.

Usually they then enter the free agent market having to overpay and give out these crazy contracts in order to win a bid or bid up the contracts of contender’s free agents they’d like to re-sign.

It ultimately ends up hurting the league as the bloated/bad contracts end up getting passed around the league if they are a star, cuz no one can build a sustainable winner around that high priced contract. Or the overpaid role player ends up parked on someone’s EL eventually.

Best thing to do going forward is just punish the perennial tanker so that they can be no factor at all in free agency.