Training Discount Idea

[Xist2Inspire]

So an issue that gets talked about rather often lately is raw rookies and the cost of training them. As a slight countermeasure, I suggest a training discount.

The basic rule of the discount would be that only non-playoff or teams who finished the previous season under the cap (the discount can't be used for mid-season trainings) are eligible to receive it. The discount would be:

Skill Ratings
F = 1 point (normally 1.2)
D = 1.2 points (normally 1.5)
C = 1.5 points (normally 1.8)
B = 1.8 points (normally 2.1)

Athletic Ratings:
0-20 = 1.2 points (normally 1.6)
21-40 = 1.6 points (normally 2.2)
41-60 = 2.2 points (normally 2.6)
61-80 = 2.6 points (normally 3)

Potential Ratings wouldn't get the discount, because we don't want an easy way to boost both potential and ratings. Another restriction would be that you can only use it on players eligible for insurance, to keep the discount from being exploited to maintain/extend players' primes.

It's just something I thought of months ago that I forgot to post until now. This might be a way to address raw rookies, lack of point opportunities for non-playoff teams, and keeping teams from freely going over the cap in one fell swoop.

[IamQuailman]

I like it!

[ballsohard]

Is this just rookie deal players ?

[WigNosy]

I don't mind the idea of lowering training costs for skill ratings with potentials. Essentially, your player grows faster (a boon to these more raw rookies) but his peak is still the same because it's capped by the pre-existing potential rating.

I'm less enthralled with the idea of allowing athletic ratings to be trained at a discount; these ratings actually improve a player's peak (and current).

[Xist2Inspire]

Is this just rookie deal players ?

No, this would be for all players 27 and under. Basically, when TC insurance runs out, so does the possibility of a reduced training cost. This may also encourage more low/mid-level contracts being signed, as teams who are eligible for the discount may be interested in signing young y/y guys who other teams have passed or given up on and attempting to develop them themselves.

I'm less enthralled with the idea of allowing athletic ratings to be trained at a discount; these ratings actually improve a player's peak (and current).

Good point. I honestly hadn't considered that, as the athleticism discount was primarily aimed towards addressing the stamina concern. Perhaps an additional restriction would be that players who are g/g or have blue potential are not eligible for an athletic training discount. This prevents b/b players from being created easily via athleticism improvement. Since regular training rules still apply (max of +10 to skill and +5 to athleticism), as well as the "only during offseason" restriction, the absolute best a GM can hope for as far as creating a star is turning a y/g or below player to g/b in a single offseason, which seems like it would be both rare and costly.

[ballsohard]

Putting all these exceptions makes this a harder thing to monitor

[TheSyndicate]

Yeah, I think we can take this idea in its simplest form. Non-playoff teams, or playoff teams that were under the tax can use the discounted rates to train CURRENT SKILL ratings for players as long as they’re eligible for training.

So take out Athleticism altogether, and take out any age restrictions (but since the potential has to be a band above current it’s unlikely many older players would qualify anyway). Simple, gives some help to non playoff teams, makes sense to me...

[JNR]

I like Ryan's alteration of the suggestion.

[TheSyndicate]

I like Ryan's alteration of the suggestion.

This might be the first time this has ever been said

[garbageman]

Why do playoff teams not in the tax get an exception? Asking for a friend with a division rival with an OP

[TheSyndicate]

Why do playoff teams not in the tax get an exception? Asking for a friend with a division rival with an OP

[WigNosy]

Why do playoff teams not in the tax get an exception? Asking for a friend with a division rival with an OP

This is actually a very good question. What is the "problem" this suggestion is trying to fix?

Xist's original post seems to suggest it's to offset the problem of "raw rookies and the cost of training them" - but then it adds restrictions on teams to which the discount applies in the form of "non-playoff or teams who finished the previous season under the cap." (Also, additional point of clarification: under the CAP or under the APRON?)

The restrictions muddle the purpose of the suggestion. If the restriction was solely "non-playoff" teams it would be clear that this suggestion is intended to help poorer teams compete more quickly. If the restriction was solely "under the cap" teams it would be clear that this suggestion is intended to help fiscally responsible teams. All too often "fiscal irresponsibility" leads to "non-playoff team" so that doesn't seem right, either.

So, yeah, I think it would be a good idea to better define the fundamental problem we're trying to fix with discounts. Once we identify the fundamental thing we're trying to fix, coming up with restrictions will take care of itself.

For example, if the problem we're trying to solve is, "guys start out too raw" the restriction should probably be either "on their rookie deal" or "under the age of X" regardless of the team's playoff or cap status.

If the problem we're trying to solve is, "it's too hard for non-playoff teams to catch up to playoff teams" then the restriction should be "non-playoff teams" without also allowing playoff teams of a certain cap status to join.

If the problem we're trying to solve is "you aren't rewarded enough for fiscal responsibility" then the restriction should be "under the cap (or apron)" with no consideration of playoff status (and if this is the thing we're trying to reward, it seems like a redistribution to under-cap teams of some or all points collected from luxury tax teams lets the under-cap teams pay for extra trainings directly rather than having to do the extra bookkeeping around tracking whether or not they are eligible for a discount).

Finally, we're talking about a discount of .2 to .3 points on trainings so a savings of 2 or 3 points tops - is it really worth the headache?

[Xist2Inspire]

When I thought of this, it was primarily aimed towards "guys start out too raw." The "playoff teams not in the tax get it too" was there to guard against situations where young teams would rather miss the playoffs and get a lotto pick + training camp discount than go for the 8th/7th seed and get a 1st round exit/a few points. The "under the cap" thing was thrown in to encourage fiscal responsibility. As far as that goes, "under the cap" probably makes more sense than "under the apron."

I agree that point redistribution would be a better idea for encouraging fiscal responsibility, but since nothing's ever come of that suggestion despite Wig's support and being lobbied around for at least a year, I just put it in the "nice, but probably not going to happen" category when thinking up my idea.