Initial player pool

Samdari · 10-21-2003, 09:56 AM

In the vein of my last post in the recent "recent e-mails" thread, I hope to move discussion of the initial player pool here, so we can get a smattering of thoughts on that single issue from the league members.

What will need to be decided is how the initial players are to be generated. Note that I think this is an issue separate from how they are distributed to teams. Do we use the default player file? Somehow generate random players? Use someone's created current player file?

I would be more immersed with current player names, but would probably vote against using someone else's player file, as it would annoy me if their evaluation of certain players did not agree with mine. Someone may rate Leftwich's future potential as "average starter" while I would call him a "future superstar."

I think it would help a lot if QS or Jim (when he has free time after POSTING THE SCREENSHOTS) could fill us in on all the available options for creating an initial player pool? Is there anything that created a completely random set of players?

cuervo72 · 10-21-2003, 09:59 AM

Creating an OPU (one player universe) will create a random set of players, as long as that's still an option. That's what I would actually lean towards.

Bee · 10-21-2003, 10:02 AM

I think I'd prefer a completely randomized set of players if that's possible in FOF2004. My next choice would be the initial fictional player set.

cthomer5000 · 10-21-2003, 10:14 AM

Firstly, I'm against a detailed allocation draft. I feel something so time consuming could potentially kill the league before it gets started.

Ideally I think we would have a preference draft (ala FOF2001). That way we could hope to give our teams the shape we're going to want it to take, and can do it quickly.

I'd prefer fictional players, but have no real opposition to starting with "real" players if that's the will of the majority.

cthomer5000 · 10-21-2003, 10:18 AM

dola, I stole Daimyo's set of options from the other thread.

Here's my order of preference:

1. Fantasy universe w/ preference draft
2. Fantasy universe w/ random dispersal
3. Real universe w/ preference draft
4. Real universe w/ random dispersal
5. Real universe w/ NFL rosters
6. Fantasy universe w/ forum draft of first ~10-20 rounds, list draft the rest
7. Real universe w/ forum draft of first ~10-20 rounds, list draft the rest

Fritz · 10-21-2003, 10:43 AM

Ben - would you create a some sort of "members only" sub forum for things like a voting poll on this. Not trying to be secrative, but a restricted area might be of some utility.

Ben E Lou · 10-21-2003, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fritz
Ben - would you create a some sort of "members only" sub forum for things like a voting poll on this. Not trying to be secrative, but a restricted area might be of some utility.

It MIGHT be easier just to monitor who votes (which I can do). I think to create a members-only area, i have to type in all 32 names, and in a rather clunky interface. Hopefully, we can count on people's good faith. Otherwise, I can check who is voting (and how) if it gets controversial. If i have to do that same thing over and over, then I'll deal with the interface

Fritz · 10-21-2003, 12:50 PM

The problem with OPU is you start with a lot of junk and the first team to get a few decent players has huge advantage.

Bee · 10-21-2003, 12:56 PM

So Fritz isn't down with OPU?

TroyF · 10-21-2003, 01:00 PM

I agree Fritz. My preference would be an all fictional universe right from the start with no draft.

TroyF

Fritz · 10-21-2003, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bee
So Fritz isn't down with OPU?

don't force me to rap

Subby · 10-21-2003, 01:11 PM

We have to have a draft. That's half the fun, baby...

cuervo72 · 10-21-2003, 01:12 PM

Hmm, good point about the OPU. Of course, starting with 32 roughly equal teams, those who can put together a good game plan might have a huge benefit. The first few drafts could even that out

Depending on what year we start in, we could have someone sim 10 years, generate a player file, then have the commish import it and disperse the players, if that's possible. Or just shuffle the "fictional" players Jim provides. Without the correct team designations it would be more difficult to associate the fictional players with the real ones.

Daimyo · 10-21-2003, 01:17 PM

The best way to do a vote on something like this with multiple choices would be for everyone to list their top three options (from all the options that turn out to be available), assign each a point value (#1 = 3pts, #2 = 2pts, etc), and then go with the highest scoring option. Straight one-choice polling is the easiest, but its not very good for something like this with so many choices.

Bee · 10-21-2003, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Daimyo
The best way to do a vote on something like this with multiple choices would be for everyone to list their top three options (from all the options that turn out to be available), assign each a point value (#1 = 3pts, #2 = 2pts, etc), and then go with the highest scoring option. Straight one-choice polling is the easiest, but its not very good for something like this with so many choices.

We could split it up.
Poll #1
Fictional
Real

Poll #2
Dispersion Draft
Preference Draft
Online Draft

mckerney · 10-21-2003, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bee
We could split it up.
Poll #1
Fictional
Real

Poll #2
Dispersion Draft
Preference Draft
Online Draft

We should obviously determine which roster set we are using before we try decide how we are going to do things, because if we are using real rosters I don't think we should do any kind of draft.

Bee · 10-21-2003, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mckerney
We should obviously determine which roster set we are using before we try decide how we are going to do things, because if we are using real rosters I don't think we should do any kind of draft.

right. I was just assuming I'd get my way and it would be fictional players.

Daimyo · 10-21-2003, 01:46 PM

I think you're going to get much more useful information and better results if you put them together as 6 or 7 options and have everyone list their top 3-4 choices....

Samdari · 10-21-2003, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mckerney
We should obviously determine which roster set we are using before we try decide how we are going to do things, because if we are using real rosters I don't think we should do any kind of draft.

I agree. In fact, when starting this thread, I mentioned I thought that contents of the initial player pool (i.e. what players are in the league) and initial player distribution (what players are on which team) were separate issues. The way I see it, only three real options might be available for the initial player pool.

1) Completely fictional. Current knowledge dictates that an OPU is the best known way to do this (?)
2) Player file shipped with game. Again, an FOF4 inspired educated guess tells us this will be 'based' on NFL players, just not have their names.
3) Third party created player file. This would likely tack the real names onto the players and have the ability levels filtered through the eyes of the file's creator.

cthomer5000 · 10-21-2003, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Samdari
I agree. In fact, when starting this thread, I mentioned I thought that contents of the initial player pool (i.e. what players are in the league) and initial player distribution (what players are on which team) were separate issues. The way I see it, only three real options might be available for the initial player pool.

1) Completely fictional. Current knowledge dictates that an OPU is the best known way to do this (?)
2) Player file shipped with game. Again, an FOF4 inspired educated guess tells us this will be 'based' on NFL players, just not have their names.
3) Third party created player file. This would likely tack the real names onto the players and have the ability levels filtered through the eyes of the file's creator.

Maybe not to most, but to me the issues go together. I absolutely do not want a full allocation draft to start the league. I would go with whatever roster option would ensure we avoid that. While I prefer a fictional league, I would choose real players if that would help us avoid the need for an allocation draft.

To me, most people who want a fictional league will want an allocation draft, becasue then the team will be completely theirs. Most "real roster' proponents would probably be fine with stock rosters, because they can already identify with the weaknesses and strenghts of their team without heavily scouting everyone and everything.

I just want whatever will avoid 32 teams drafting 53 players.

Samdari · 10-21-2003, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cthomer5000
Maybe not to most, but to me the issues go together. I absolutely do not want a full allocation draft to start the league. I would go with whatever roster option would ensure we avoid that. While I prefer a fictional league, I would choose real players if that would help us avoid the need for an allocation draft.

To me, most people who want a fictional league will want an allocation draft, becasue then the team will be completely theirs. Most "real roster' proponents would probably be fine with stock rosters, because they can already identify with the weaknesses and strenghts of their team without heavily scouting everyone and everything.

I just want whatever will avoid 32 teams drafting 53 players.

Well, I am opposed to a full player-by-player draft as well. While it would not cause me to drop out, electing to do this would convince me that this was a vapor league and I would join another as well. Any league planning that kind of draft would almost certainly fold before the draft completed.

Is your objection to any sort of draft distribution, or the delay in humans making each pick? If there were a 'preference' type draft, would you still be against it, or just the complete draft?

I understand that you want to vote for the composition method which is most likely to lead to a certain distribution method, but I still do not see where they have to be linked. Is there anyone who has 'conditional' preferences like this, i.e. if the pool is fictional they want a draft, but if its real they want stock rosters?

cthomer5000 · 10-21-2003, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Samdari
Well, I am opposed to a full player-by-player draft as well. While it would not cause me to drop out, electing to do this would convince me that this was a vapor league and I would join another as well. Any league planning that kind of draft would almost certainly fold before the draft completed.

Is your objection to any sort of draft distribution, or the delay in humans making each pick? If there were a 'preference' type draft, would you still be against it, or just the complete draft?

I understand that you want to vote for the composition method which is most likely to lead to a certain distribution method, but I still do not see where they have to be linked. Is there anyone who has 'conditional' preferences like this, i.e. if the pool is fictional they want a draft, but if its real they want stock rosters?

My top vote would be for a preference draft (with either fake or real rosters). If that's not possible, I'd glady take over the Arizona Cardinals if I had to. I just think rather than focusing on the draft, the whole league's objective should be to get into season play A.S.A.P. Otherwise we do run the risk of becoming a vaporleague, as you stated.

Ben E Lou · 10-21-2003, 04:33 PM

My thoughts (assuming this sequence is possible)....

1. Completely fictional, but with history. Sim 15 seasons first.
2. Dump 15-year-old player file into pool.
3. Draft 10 rounds live. (Allow 30 secs per pick. could be done in less than 3 hours. Those who can't attend, use scout recommend.)
4. Pref. draft the rest of the way.

TroyF · 10-21-2003, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SkyDog
My thoughts (assuming this sequence is possible)....

1. Completely fictional, but with history. Sim 15 seasons first.
2. Dump 15-year-old player file into pool.
3. Draft 10 rounds live. (Allow 30 secs per pick. could be done in less than 3 hours. Those who can't attend, use scout recommend.)
4. Pref. draft the rest of the way.

That'd work for me.

TroyF

mckerney · 10-21-2003, 05:37 PM

I like that idea as well.

Senator · 10-21-2003, 05:39 PM

My vote as well.

Fritz · 10-21-2003, 05:40 PM

the history part does nothing for me. We can make history.

Celeval · 10-21-2003, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SkyDog
3. Draft 10 rounds live. (Allow 30 secs per pick. could be done in less than 3 hours. Those who can't attend, use scout recommend.)

Wouldn't work. We can try it, but I'll tell you right now that 30s is pretty much unworkable. It takes 30s sometimes to find someone on a draft list to cross them off.

My experience has been with BBPro and OOTP drafts, smaller draft pool; and anything under a minute is unworkable.

Just a warning, I'm willing to try. :-)

Kevin

Vince · 10-21-2003, 06:15 PM

I like SkyDog's idea, but what about guys like Darkiller? They wouldn't be able to make it (well, I don't KNOW that, but based simply on time difference it seems unlikely)...perhaps have them send in a list?

I'm with Fritz too, the history thing isn't a key for me. If we wanted to just draft at the very beginning, that would be fine. I don't have much experience with OPU, however, and perhaps creating a history would eliminate the advantage a team getting a few stars immediately would have (assuming we even use an OPU).

Personally, I think we should go with SkyDog's idea, but maybe modify it to a minute per pick? Could take a while, maybe we do it on multiple nights?

FBPro · 10-21-2003, 06:59 PM

I could handle a limited round draft, but 30s per pick isn't enough time.

Kodos · 10-21-2003, 07:02 PM

I agree. 30 seconds is not enough, especially for poor dialup bastards like me.

Fritz · 10-21-2003, 07:24 PM

suffer.

Bee · 10-21-2003, 07:31 PM

Since I have a cable modem, I'm all for the 30 second time limit. Any advantage is a good advantage.

cuervo72 · 10-21-2003, 08:31 PM

Well, I'm not sure about the history part, but at least with simming the seasons and dispersing the players you will get a mix of players rather than having all first year guys. I mentioned something like it above so I'm good with that. Only thing you have to watch out for with that are players who look great but after you draft them immediatly go downhill, but I guess that would be a draft consideration. But I think I still prefer starting completely from scratch though with a bunch of 1 year guys. Preference draft for first X rounds would be fine with me.

cthomer5000 · 10-21-2003, 08:48 PM

I think perhaps it would be a good/interesting idea if the roster set we use is set up so that every player is in the last year of his contract. This would allow everyone to make decisions about re-signing or cutting without taking a gigantic cap hit for contracts they didn't negotiate. It would also make for a really interesting first off-season.

mckerney · 10-21-2003, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cthomer5000
I think perhaps it would be a good/interesting idea if the roster set we use is set up so that every player is in the last year of his contract. This would allow everyone to make decisions about re-signing or cutting without taking a gigantic cap hit for contracts they didn't negotiate. It would also make for a really interesting first off-season.

I'm not sure that'd be a good idea, as we'd get killed financially on signing bonuses.

Buzzbee · 10-21-2003, 09:05 PM

As I said before, I think a live draft (for however many rounds) sounds very intriguing, BUT, I think it will be difficult to get 32 people online for 2, 3, 5 or however many hours. Darkiller and MIJB are two that come to mind who might need special consideration. I'm open to try it, but have serious doubts about whether we can pull it off.

I'm not a big fan of preference drafts. I like to have more control. However, I realize that with 32 people, we're going to have to make some concessions in order to move forward. Yes, scouting and preparing a draft strategy is part of the fun, and I anticipate the offseason college draft will fill that need. Like others have expressed, I don't want to see us smother under our own weight in trying to start with evenly matched teams.

Part of the fun to me is to take a weaker team (which I fully expect to have) and give you big shots a run for your money. I'm a newbie compared to most of the people tagged for this endeavor, and while determining how to "start" the league will have an impact, it won't be the deciding factor. If this league only lasts a few seasons, then who drafted which player won't really matter since there was no test of time. And if this league last for many seasons, who drafted which player won't really matter since the cream will rise to the top.

Pardon the drunken ramblings of a newbie initiate.

Celeval · 10-21-2003, 09:14 PM

An 'ideal' situation which might not be possible would be to have an initial preference draft [or static rosters], and start things right at the beginning of an offseason; with talent in the free agent pool and a collegiate draft. That way no-one gets stuck with a full roster of players they don't like, there's a good bit of team customization right off the bat, and we don't have to worry about 50+ rounds.

cuervo72 · 10-21-2003, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Buzzbee

Part of the fun to me is to take a weaker team (which I fully expect to have) and give you big shots a run for your money. I'm a newbie compared to most of the people tagged for this endeavor, and while determining how to "start" the league will have an impact, it won't be the deciding factor. If this league only lasts a few seasons, then who drafted which player won't really matter since there was no test of time. And if this league last for many seasons, who drafted which player won't really matter since the cream will rise to the top.

Pardon the drunken ramblings of a newbie initiate.

I figure either way I'm going to be one of the weak teams at inception, so any way we want to allocate players I'll end up agreeing with. I hope to grow as the league does. I know I'm flip-flopping here on what to do at startup, but really as long as we do startup I'll be happy.

That last part reminds me....a beer sounds good right now.

BTW - your favorite team just played another playoff game....

SackAttack · 10-21-2003, 09:20 PM

Am I the only one who really isn't that keen on an initial draft?

I mean, fictional or real players, I can live with either one, but if we're going with fictional players, I *know* I'm not going to have the time to scout out several hundred players with the intention of getting the 53 that I want, and quite frankly, I can't imagine that ANY of you seriously have that kind of time. If you do, pass along your supervisor's name and phone number, we'll have a chat.

In all seriousness, though, my thoughts are, if we're going to have a draft, use real players. At least then there's SOME familiarity to fall back on. If we're going fictional, either have it completely computer selected (so everybody gets equally screwed by the computer

) or just random assignation of fictional players to the starting roster set.

Josh

cuervo72 · 10-21-2003, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SackAttack
I can't imagine that ANY of you seriously have that kind of time. If you do, pass along your supervisor's name and phone number, we'll have a chat.

My supervisor is in bed right now.

Oh, you mean at work...

FBPro · 10-21-2003, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cthomer5000
I think perhaps it would be a good/interesting idea if the roster set we use is set up so that every player is in the last year of his contract. This would allow everyone to make decisions about re-signing or cutting without taking a gigantic cap hit for contracts they didn't negotiate. It would also make for a really interesting first off-season.

I'm afraid that would be a mess.

FBPro · 10-21-2003, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SackAttack
Am I the only one who really isn't that keen on an initial draft?

I mean, fictional or real players, I can live with either one, but if we're going with fictional players, I *know* I'm not going to have the time to scout out several hundred players with the intention of getting the 53 that I want, and quite frankly, I can't imagine that ANY of you seriously have that kind of time. If you do, pass along your supervisor's name and phone number, we'll have a chat.

In all seriousness, though, my thoughts are, if we're going to have a draft, use real players. At least then there's SOME familiarity to fall back on. If we're going fictional, either have it completely computer selected (so everybody gets equally screwed by the computer ) or just random assignation of fictional players to the starting roster set.

Josh

Count me among that number, I could go with stock or computer draft, I would even be open to a very limited live draft though it isn't a necessity for me.

cthomer5000 · 10-21-2003, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FBPro
I'm afraid that would be a mess.

I don't know if it would be. Everyone would have the ability to sign extensions in-season with their players, so most big time players wouldn't even see the FA market.

Anthony · 10-21-2003, 10:39 PM

i'm against artificially creating a history.

i really think we should just stick with real NFL teams and real NFL rosters. that way we can get up and running rather quickly (and not have a draft to slow things down before the season is even started) and concentrate on gameplans.

save your scouting for the first ammy draft.

Bee · 10-22-2003, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SackAttack
Am I the only one who really isn't that keen on an initial draft?

Nope. An initial draft is my last choice. I just don't have nearly enough time to do something like that. If that's what we do, I'll probably just let the computer pick my team and play it where it lies.

KWhit · 10-22-2003, 08:48 AM

I think an initial draft would be great, but only if it's 10 rounds or less. Then do a preference draft for the rest, as Skydog suggested.

History might be nice, but it's not a huge consideration for me.

GrantDawg · 10-22-2003, 08:54 AM

History would be nice, but I'm for a full preference draft (unless we go with my first chioce which is real team/rosters).

SackAttack · 10-22-2003, 02:35 PM

I still think that having ANY kind of an initial draft is simply going to be too cumbersome for a sizeable portion of the owner pool here. Schedules aren't going to coordinate 100%, because of the time zones, and draft lists have limited flexibility. Those who have too much time on their hands are going have an advantage over those who are enjoined from participation by factors outside their control.

Start with stock rosters, or if there simply has to be a shakeup of the rosters, let the computer AI handle the drafting. Equality will come through the amateur drafts, over time, and with 16 games per regular season, an FOF league is going to move much more quickly than, say, an OOTP league anyhow.

Darkiller · 10-22-2003, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hell Atlantic
i'm against artificially creating a history.

i really think we should just stick with real NFL teams and real NFL rosters. that way we can get up and running rather quickly (and not have a draft to slow things down before the season is even started) and concentrate on gameplans.

save your scouting for the first ammy draft.

agree.

10-21-2003, 10:43 AM	#6
Fritz Lethargic Hooligan Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: hello kitty found my wallet at a big tent revival and returned it with all the cash missing	Ben - would you create a some sort of "members only" sub forum for things like a voting poll on this. Not trying to be secrative, but a restricted area might be of some utility. __________________ donkey, donkey, walk a little faster Last edited by Fritz : 10-21-2003 at 10:47 AM.

10-21-2003, 12:50 PM	#8
Fritz Lethargic Hooligan Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: hello kitty found my wallet at a big tent revival and returned it with all the cash missing	The problem with OPU is you start with a lot of junk and the first team to get a few decent players has huge advantage. __________________ donkey, donkey, walk a little faster

10-21-2003, 01:11 PM	#12
Subby lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: sans pants	We have to have a draft. That's half the fun, baby... __________________ Superman was flying around and saw Wonder Woman getting a tan in the nude on her balcony. Superman said I going to hit that real fast. So he flys down toward Wonder Woman to hit it and their is a loud scream. The Invincible Man scream what just hit me in the ass!!!!! I do shit, I take pictures, I write about it: chrisshue.com

10-21-2003, 01:12 PM	#13
cuervo72 Head Coach Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Maryland	Hmm, good point about the OPU. Of course, starting with 32 roughly equal teams, those who can put together a good game plan might have a huge benefit. The first few drafts could even that out Depending on what year we start in, we could have someone sim 10 years, generate a player file, then have the commish import it and disperse the players, if that's possible. Or just shuffle the "fictional" players Jim provides. Without the correct team designations it would be more difficult to associate the fictional players with the real ones. __________________ null

10-21-2003, 01:17 PM	#14
Daimyo College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Berkeley	The best way to do a vote on something like this with multiple choices would be for everyone to list their top three options (from all the options that turn out to be available), assign each a point value (#1 = 3pts, #2 = 2pts, etc), and then go with the highest scoring option. Straight one-choice polling is the easiest, but its not very good for something like this with so many choices. Last edited by Daimyo : 10-21-2003 at 01:17 PM.

10-21-2003, 09:59 AM	#2
cuervo72 Head Coach Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Maryland	Creating an OPU (one player universe) will create a random set of players, as long as that's still an option. That's what I would actually lean towards. __________________ null

10-21-2003, 10:02 AM	#3
Bee Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fairfax, VA	I think I'd prefer a completely randomized set of players if that's possible in FOF2004. My next choice would be the initial fictional player set.

10-21-2003, 12:56 PM	#9
Bee Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fairfax, VA	So Fritz isn't down with OPU?

10-21-2003, 01:00 PM	#10
TroyF Coordinator Join Date: Oct 2000	I agree Fritz. My preference would be an all fictional universe right from the start with no draft. TroyF

10-21-2003, 01:46 PM	#18
Daimyo College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Berkeley	I think you're going to get much more useful information and better results if you put them together as 6 or 7 options and have everyone list their top 3-4 choices....

10-21-2003, 04:33 PM	#23
Ben E Lou Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Greensboro, NC	My thoughts (assuming this sequence is possible).... 1. Completely fictional, but with history. Sim 15 seasons first. 2. Dump 15-year-old player file into pool. 3. Draft 10 rounds live. (Allow 30 secs per pick. could be done in less than 3 hours. Those who can't attend, use scout recommend.) 4. Pref. draft the rest of the way. __________________ The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'! Last edited by Ben E Lou : 10-21-2003 at 04:33 PM.

10-21-2003, 05:37 PM	#25
mckerney Coordinator Join Date: Oct 2000	I like that idea as well.

10-21-2003, 05:39 PM	#26
Senator FOFC's Elected Representative Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The stars at night; are big and bright	My vote as well. __________________ "i have seen chris simms play 4-5 times in the pros and he's very clearly got it. he won't make a pro bowl this year, but it'll come. if you don't like me saying that, so be it, but its true. we'll just have to wait until then" imettrentgreen "looking at only ten games, and oddly using a median only, leaves me unmoved generally" - Quiksand

10-21-2003, 05:40 PM	#27
Fritz Lethargic Hooligan Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: hello kitty found my wallet at a big tent revival and returned it with all the cash missing	the history part does nothing for me. We can make history. __________________ donkey, donkey, walk a little faster

10-21-2003, 06:15 PM	#29
Vince Pro Starter Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Willow Glen, CA	I like SkyDog's idea, but what about guys like Darkiller? They wouldn't be able to make it (well, I don't KNOW that, but based simply on time difference it seems unlikely)...perhaps have them send in a list? I'm with Fritz too, the history thing isn't a key for me. If we wanted to just draft at the very beginning, that would be fine. I don't have much experience with OPU, however, and perhaps creating a history would eliminate the advantage a team getting a few stars immediately would have (assuming we even use an OPU). Personally, I think we should go with SkyDog's idea, but maybe modify it to a minute per pick? Could take a while, maybe we do it on multiple nights? __________________ Every time a Dodger scores a run, an angel has its wings ripped off by a demon, and is forced to tearfully beg the demon to cauterize the wounds.The demon will refuse, and the sobbing angel will lie in a puddle of angel blood and feathers for eternity, wondering why the Dodgers are allowed to score runs.That’s not me talking: that’s science. McCoveyChronicles.com.

10-21-2003, 06:59 PM	#30
FBPro College Starter Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: SE	I could handle a limited round draft, but 30s per pick isn't enough time. __________________ GM RayCo Raiders-est. 2004-2012 Charter member of the IHOF-RayCo GM GM Tennessee Titans PFL 2011-2014 GM Tennessee Titans FOWL 2020-2025

10-21-2003, 07:02 PM	#31
Kodos Resident Alien Join Date: Jun 2001	I agree. 30 seconds is not enough, especially for poor dialup bastards like me.

10-21-2003, 07:24 PM	#32
Fritz Lethargic Hooligan Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: hello kitty found my wallet at a big tent revival and returned it with all the cash missing	suffer. __________________ donkey, donkey, walk a little faster

10-21-2003, 07:31 PM	#33
Bee Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fairfax, VA	Since I have a cable modem, I'm all for the 30 second time limit. Any advantage is a good advantage.

10-21-2003, 08:31 PM	#34
cuervo72 Head Coach Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Maryland	Well, I'm not sure about the history part, but at least with simming the seasons and dispersing the players you will get a mix of players rather than having all first year guys. I mentioned something like it above so I'm good with that. Only thing you have to watch out for with that are players who look great but after you draft them immediatly go downhill, but I guess that would be a draft consideration. But I think I still prefer starting completely from scratch though with a bunch of 1 year guys. Preference draft for first X rounds would be fine with me. __________________ null

10-21-2003, 09:05 PM	#37
Buzzbee College Starter Join Date: Jun 2002	As I said before, I think a live draft (for however many rounds) sounds very intriguing, BUT, I think it will be difficult to get 32 people online for 2, 3, 5 or however many hours. Darkiller and MIJB are two that come to mind who might need special consideration. I'm open to try it, but have serious doubts about whether we can pull it off. I'm not a big fan of preference drafts. I like to have more control. However, I realize that with 32 people, we're going to have to make some concessions in order to move forward. Yes, scouting and preparing a draft strategy is part of the fun, and I anticipate the offseason college draft will fill that need. Like others have expressed, I don't want to see us smother under our own weight in trying to start with evenly matched teams. Part of the fun to me is to take a weaker team (which I fully expect to have) and give you big shots a run for your money. I'm a newbie compared to most of the people tagged for this endeavor, and while determining how to "start" the league will have an impact, it won't be the deciding factor. If this league only lasts a few seasons, then who drafted which player won't really matter since there was no test of time. And if this league last for many seasons, who drafted which player won't really matter since the cream will rise to the top. Pardon the drunken ramblings of a newbie initiate. __________________ Ability is what you're capable of doing. Motivation determines what you do. Attitude determines how well you do it. - Lou Holtz

10-21-2003, 09:14 PM	#38
Celeval Pro Starter Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Cary, NC, USA	An 'ideal' situation which might not be possible would be to have an initial preference draft [or static rosters], and start things right at the beginning of an offseason; with talent in the free agent pool and a collegiate draft. That way no-one gets stuck with a full roster of players they don't like, there's a good bit of team customization right off the bat, and we don't have to worry about 50+ rounds.

10-21-2003, 09:20 PM	#40
SackAttack Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Green Bay, WI	Am I the only one who really isn't that keen on an initial draft? I mean, fictional or real players, I can live with either one, but if we're going with fictional players, I know I'm not going to have the time to scout out several hundred players with the intention of getting the 53 that I want, and quite frankly, I can't imagine that ANY of you seriously have that kind of time. If you do, pass along your supervisor's name and phone number, we'll have a chat. In all seriousness, though, my thoughts are, if we're going to have a draft, use real players. At least then there's SOME familiarity to fall back on. If we're going fictional, either have it completely computer selected (so everybody gets equally screwed by the computer ) or just random assignation of fictional players to the starting roster set. Josh

10-21-2003, 10:39 PM	#45
Anthony Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Astoria, NY, USA	i'm against artificially creating a history. i really think we should just stick with real NFL teams and real NFL rosters. that way we can get up and running rather quickly (and not have a draft to slow things down before the season is even started) and concentrate on gameplans. save your scouting for the first ammy draft.

10-22-2003, 08:48 AM	#47
KWhit Coordinator Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Conyers GA	I think an initial draft would be great, but only if it's 10 rounds or less. Then do a preference draft for the rest, as Skydog suggested. History might be nice, but it's not a huge consideration for me.

10-22-2003, 08:54 AM	#48
GrantDawg World Champion Mis-speller Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Covington, Ga.	History would be nice, but I'm for a full preference draft (unless we go with my first chioce which is real team/rosters).

10-22-2003, 02:35 PM	#49
SackAttack Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Green Bay, WI	I still think that having ANY kind of an initial draft is simply going to be too cumbersome for a sizeable portion of the owner pool here. Schedules aren't going to coordinate 100%, because of the time zones, and draft lists have limited flexibility. Those who have too much time on their hands are going have an advantage over those who are enjoined from participation by factors outside their control. Start with stock rosters, or if there simply has to be a shakeup of the rosters, let the computer AI handle the drafting. Equality will come through the amateur drafts, over time, and with 16 games per regular season, an FOF league is going to move much more quickly than, say, an OOTP league anyhow.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)