Scoundrel Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 Welcome to the 2024 BDL Winter Owners Summit Proposals must be submitted in here by January 8th at 12:00 am EST to be considered for owners approval before the league year starts. Any owner can propose a new rule/change in rule or other change to BDL practices. Please be thorough and specific in your explanation for what you want to propose. The voting will begin on January 8th 12:00 am EST and continue until January 15th 12:00 AM EST at which time the New League Year will open. Votes are to be posted in here and please specify your vote for each proposal including the proposal number and your Yes/No Vote. Bolding your votes like in Mafia would be helpful to keep track. This is a working thread and some changes can be made to rules/timelines as I have gone rogue in creating this… @SirA1 @Ragnarok @TedLavie @MD4L @Blue @Pickle Rick @RedGold @bcb1213 @WFLukic @Whicker @RuskieTitan @EaglesPeteC @rackcs @InjuredReserve @PR @MWil23 @MikeT14 @BodyBurner @Malfatron @Scoundrel 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoundrel Posted January 3 Author Share Posted January 3 Thanks Champ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoundrel Posted January 3 Author Share Posted January 3 . 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TedLavie Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 (edited) #Proposal 1 - PASSED 100% extension (all year long): You can extend an unlocked player at 100% of his IRL salary as long as it doesn’t decrease his BDL salary and the player is on an IRL contract other than their NFL Rookie deal. Unlocked player is defined as one with a BDL contract with years remaining so you cannot 100% extend a UFA Yes (10) - Ted, Blue, Scoundrel, SirA, Pete, RG, Lukic, Rack, Bcb, IR No- Proposal #4 - Clarification of Bizz Bowl date - PASSED Bizz Bowl to be played week 16 not week 17 of the NFL season to avoid confusion Yes (10) - Scoundrel, Ted, Pete, RG, Lukic, Rack, IR, Rags, Blue, SirA No- Proposal #6 - Increase of RFA tag - PASSED One Time RFA Tag increases of $500 per slot starting in the 2025 offseason 1st Round- $4,000 2nd Round- $3,500 3rd Round- $3,000 4th Round- $2,500 5th Round- $2,000 6th Round- $1,750 7th Round- $1,500 Yes (9) - Scoundrel, Pete, RG, Lukic, Rack, Ted, IR, Rags, SirA No- Proposal #2 - Change the rookie scale - 2A PASSED Our rookie scale is a bit outdated we need to revamp it. My proposal is simple: have the 1.01 pick salary be at 75% (like the 3up ratio) of the previous' year, and the salaries decrease exponentially from there to $500 at 6.1 (to not touch anything related to sub500 cuts). Here's it what it would look like for 2025 if the Spotrac figures are correct (I can't guarantee that): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rQ_rT3ulL1EJuk5s6bFFB9m-c5G82Os8vz81OvS5EOY/edit#gid=472834359 My proposal is to have the rookie scale altered every year. So if say Shedeur Sanders gets picked 1.1 in 2025 and signs a 40M deal, then the 2026 BDL 1.01 salary would be $7,500 and everything below would move like presented in the google sheet. This is imho, the best way to: Stay in line with IRL numbers while taking into account BDL specifics (a straight up 75% of IRL picks would lead to a huge gap between pick 5.16 and 6.1 if we keep the latter at $500 for example) Not having to revisit this every few years and have 10 pages of discussion about it You can answer to this proposal No, Yes for 2025 only, Yes for 2025 and onwards BCB proposed scale: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ntl-hnKTHvLQYApqtxab1TVcCTrhbmpmiEOZeIoV28Y/edit?usp=sharing 2a = 2025 only (9) - RedGold, Rags, rackcs, Pete, Scoundrel, MD4L, SirA, bcb, PR 2b = 2025 and onwards (5) - Ted, Blue, Pickle, IR, PR- REJECTED 2c = Bcb proposed scale (3) - bcb, SirA, MD4L - REJECTED No = Keep it as is (4) - Whicker, Ted, Blue, Ruskie Proposal #5 - New RFA Tag - REJECTED Starting the 2025 off-season, Introduce the RFA+ Tag. The RFA+ Tag will cost the same as the number one pick would cost for that year to tag but would result in the tagger receiving a 1st and 4th round pick as compensation if choosing to not match the offered contract. Yes (8) - Scoundrel, RG, Rack, Lukic, Ted, bcb, MD4L, PR No (8) - Blue, Pete, Rags, SirA, Pickle, IR, Whicker, Ruskie Proposal #8 - Waivers during playoffs - REJECTED 8a/ Playoff teams are allowed to pick up players during the playoffs to assist with helping their current roster for the duration of the playoffs. Players are unable to be extended contractually beyond the playoffs. No waivers for non-playoff participants are needed. 8b/ Playoff teams and non-playoff teams are both afforded waiver opporunities. Playoff teams will have waiver priority removing the ability to impact the integrity of the playoffs by non-playoff teams. All teams are allowed to extend players beyond the playoff time period if they so choose Yes to 8a (4) - IR , Ted, Scoundrel, PR Yes to 8b (2) - Scoundrel, PR --- No (8) - Rack, Blue, Rags, SirA, bcb, RG, Lukic, Pickle Proposal #9 - BDL Free Agency Bid Clock Change for 2024 - REJECTED Current Rule In FA a player will continue to be bid on until 48 hours has elapsed from the previous bid. New Proposed Rule In FA a player will continue to be bid on until 24 hours has elapsed from the previous bid. Yes (6) - Pete, Scoundrel, Blue, IR, PR, SirA No (8) - bcb, rackcs, Ted, Rags, MD4L, RG, Lukic, Pickle Proposal #7 - Tradable Shark Tank QBs - REJECTED QBs from the shark tank can be traded for ONLY PFA picks. A QB can be traded if 1. He’s been in the NFL for at least one season 2. He has started at least 1 NFL game during the season Yes (2) - MD4L, Lukic No (9) - Scoundrel, Pete, RG, Blue, Rack, IR, Rags, Ted, SirA Proposal #3 - Change of PFA contracts - REJECTED PFAs become 3 year contracts same as rounds 5-7 in place of the current one year contracts. Yes (6) - RedGold, MD4L, Scoundrel, Pete, Lukic, IR No (8) - Blue, Rack, Ted, bcb, Rags, SirA, Ruskie, Whicker Edited January 15 by TedLavie 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EaglesPeteC Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 I propose punch and pie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirA1 Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 (edited) Clarification on the 100% extension rule to exclude players on NFL Rookie contracts. We have had this issue crop up before with Derek Carr and I believe Jalen Hurts as well. Excluding those players will allow them to either enter BDL FA or RFA and determine their true BDL value rather than giving owners the cheapest option. Current Rule Extending and restructuring contracts 100% extension (all year long): You can extend an unlocked player at 100% of his IRL salary as long as it doesn’t decrease his BDL salary. Clarification - You cannot 100% extend a UFA. Proposed New Rule 100% extension (all year long): You can extend an unlocked player at 100% of his IRL salary as long as it doesn’t decrease his BDL salary and the player is on an IRL contract other than their NFL Rookie deal. Unlocked player is defined as one with a BDL contract with years remaining so you cannot 100% extend a BDL UFA. Edited January 3 by SirA1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TedLavie Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 (edited) This was already discussed in discord, but I think the rookie scale is outdated. It has been the same since 2017 while the (projected) cap space for 2026 will be 50% than in 2017. Which makes hoarding draft picks the meta to win it all, which is not super realistic. So I think we should change the scale to reflect that, and actually have an auto-link between cap space increase and rookie scale. Official proposal Change rookie scale for Rounds 1-5 and apply yearly an increase on it equivalent to the cap yearly increase. Since the rookie scale dates back from 2017, the first increase would take into account the cap increase since 2017 (projected numbers for 2025: +46% // +2026: 52%) Projections (based on OverTheCap cap space projections) are available in the tab "Cap proposal" from the Google sheet. Changes would apply to 2026 - 2025 if a consensus is found for the 2025 year. Edited January 3 by TedLavie 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoundrel Posted January 3 Author Share Posted January 3 2 minutes ago, TedLavie said: This was already discussed in discord, but I think the rookie scale is outdated. It has been the same since 2017 while the (projected) cap space for 2026 will be 50% than in 2017. Which makes hoarding draft picks the meta to win it all, which is not super realistic. So I think we should change the scale to reflect that, and actually have an auto-link between cap space increase and rookie scale. I made a simulation of the chance for the 2026 draft picks under the "Cap proposal" tab of the spreadsheet. Change would not affect the 2024 and 2025 draft as picks have already been traded. Changing the 6th,7th, and PFA values above 500 would mean we would need to make a change to the sub 500 cut rule also unless you’re proposing rookies on deals can never be cut without losing cap? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirA1 Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 1 minute ago, TedLavie said: This was already discussed in discord, but I think the rookie scale is outdated. It has been the same since 2017 while the (projected) cap space for 2026 will be 50% than in 2017. Which makes hoarding draft picks the meta to win it all, which is not super realistic. So I think we should change the scale to reflect that, and actually have an auto-link between cap space increase and rookie scale. I made a simulation of the chance for the 2026 draft picks under the "Cap proposal" tab of the spreadsheet. Change would not affect the 2024 and 2025 draft as picks have already been traded. I would think the 2025 Draft would be fine to implement the new scale. You will know how much you have to spend in 2025 in a couple of months and can just adjust your spending in FA and Shark Tank well in time. The trading of draft picks for 2025 when we don't even know the order yet shouldn't matter IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirA1 Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 1 minute ago, Scoundrel said: Changing the 6th,7th, and PFA values above 500 would mean we would need to make a change to the sub 500 cut rule also unless you’re proposing rookies on deals can never be cut without losing cap? I really think it should just be Rounds 1-5 that need a refreshed Scale. It also means less rules changed needed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoundrel Posted January 3 Author Share Posted January 3 Just now, SirA1 said: I really think it should just be Rounds 1-5 that need a refreshed Scale. It also means less rules changed needed. I agree. @TedLavie are you okay just changing rounds 1-5 on that scale? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TedLavie Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 1 minute ago, Scoundrel said: Changing the 6th,7th, and PFA values above 500 would mean we would need to make a change to the sub 500 cut rule also unless you’re proposing rookies on deals can never be cut without losing cap? Yes forgot to write about that part 1 minute ago, SirA1 said: I would think the 2025 Draft would be fine to implement the new scale. You will know how much you have to spend in 2025 in a couple of months and can just adjust your spending in FA and Shark Tank well in time. The trading of draft picks for 2025 when we don't even know the order yet shouldn't matter IMO. Rags and racks would be the most affected by that so if they're with it I'm fine, but still we're affecting competition rules on assets traded before that change that would be fine only if everyone agrees to it imho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TedLavie Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 1 minute ago, Scoundrel said: I agree. @TedLavie are you okay just changing rounds 1-5 on that scale? That would lead to a $280 gap between 5.16 and 6.01. Would be weird but not that significant so why not 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoundrel Posted January 3 Author Share Posted January 3 1 minute ago, TedLavie said: Yes forgot to write about that part Rags and racks would be the most affected by that so if they're with it I'm fine, but still we're affecting competition rules on assets traded before that change that would be fine only if everyone agrees to it imho I guess they can vote on it? Let me know how you would like to propose it. If you want to keep it for 2026 we can propose it that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TedLavie Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 1 minute ago, Scoundrel said: I guess they can vote on it? Let me know how you would like to propose it. If you want to keep it for 2026 we can propose it that way. I think we would need a two step process. 1. Agree with the change for 2026 and onwards? (Majority rule) / 2. If voted, impact on 2025? (Unanimous ruling required) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.