New GM Only MP League Is a GO - Go to fof-gml.com/forum to claim a team

[Pyser]

FORUM IS CREATED. PLEASE GO THERE TO CONTINUE DISCUSSION
http://www.fof-gml.com/forum/forum.php







Wondering if anyone thinks there would be interest in this idea: a General Manager ONLY league.

Which essentially means no game planning.

Sign your players, hire your coaches, and walk away.

You can still set depth charts, I suppose, but it might be even more interesting if you let the "coach" handle that, too. But that could go either way.

Just throwing it out there, genuinely wondering if anyone finds that appealing.

Or if not, say so.

[gstelmack]

I was having similar ideas recently. Rex everything but the offseason roster. You draft, sign FAs, then let the season happen as it may.

[Izulde]

I would definitely be on board with this.

I'd like it even better as a GM only historical league.

[Ben E Lou]

You have a short memory, pyser. You started a very similar thread to this a few months ago.

Leveling the MP Playing Field? (AI Game Plans in MP) - Front Office Football Central

I'll add to my comments there is that a big con to a GM-only league is that you'd have to be very careful if you drafted a big creeper. When this guy was 28/39, for example, he might have been cut by the AI if I'd had five other WRs on the team with higher ratings.

And of course you'd almost be forced to turn Chemistry off because of the AI releasing position leaders.

On the pro side, you could sim the regular season in one shot.

If you dialed it down and allowed the setting of depth charts, you'd also have to allow in-season signings, otherwise things could get screwy there.

Finally, I'll reiterate what I said in your other thread: doing this would make WRs even more important, because it would take stud tight ends off the field a significant amount of time. The AI simply will not play the TE anywhere near as much as custom game plans will, even if he's a stud.

[Marmel]

I would be interested if it was a league exactly like every other, except using the AI generated gameplan was mandatory. I would still like to draft, sign FAs, set depth charts, etc

[Pyser]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

You have a short memory, pyser. You started a very similar thread to this a few months ago.

Leveling the MP Playing Field? (AI Game Plans in MP) - Front Office Football Central

I'll add to my comments there is that a big con to a GM-only league is that you'd have to be very careful if you drafted a big creeper. When this guy was 28/39, for example, he might have been cut by the AI if I'd had five other WRs on the team with higher ratings.

And of course you'd almost be forced to turn Chemistry off because of the AI releasing position leaders.

On the pro side, you could sim the regular season in one shot.

If you dialed it down and allowed the setting of depth charts, you'd also have to allow in-season signings, otherwise things could get screwy there.

Finally, I'll reiterate what I said in your other thread: doing this would make WRs even more important, because it would take stud tight ends off the field a significant amount of time. The AI simply will not play the TE anywhere near as much as custom game plans will, even if he's a stud.

i certainly do have a short memory. sleep deprivation for the win!

ben, i'm not suggesting the AI handles all roster decisions. there's no reason for the AI to sign or cut anyone, all that would be handed off would be game planning.

so we couldnt do the season in 1 shot to allow for injuries, but the rest i think would work

[Julio Riddols]

I like it.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by Pyser

i certainly do have a short memory. sleep deprivation for the win!

ben, i'm not suggesting the AI handles all roster decisions. there's no reason for the AI to sign or cut anyone, all that would be handed off would be game planning.

so we couldnt do the season in 1 shot to allow for injuries, but the rest i think would work

This sounds good to me.

Would we be using just default FOF, or would we use the QB nerfing setup?

[Joe]

In.

[Pyser]

Originally Posted by Izulde

This sounds good to me.

Would we be using just default FOF, or would we use the QB nerfing setup?

well, first thing we would need is a commish. i dont know how to do any of the necessary things to run a league, let alone nerf a draft

im certainly not opposed to a nerfed league. i think a cap crunch would be a good addition, since i think we need more to do to keep it interesting

i also think the cccl/bfl 6 sims a week should be used, since the only thing to do in season would be set depth charts. if it wasnt for injuries, as ben said, we could sim a season in as little as a day if we wanted to

anyway, ive got some PMs from interested people, so i think we should talk it out exactly how to do this

[Prinzar]

A roster building/ managing league would need serious cap reduction to keep it interesting. It's too easy to build a solid roster, and keep it forever with the normal game limits

I'd be in for the league. I'm more of a roster builder than a gameplan guru anyway so it would suit me

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

maybe in. it would depend on how everything comes together. couple thoughts

- with rex'd gameplans i don't think nerfing qb's is necessary
- without injuries there'd have to be a huge salary cap crunch

[Pyser]

i actually think we should set injuries to 200 to keep it more interesting in season

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

i like injuries too but that would require a lot of exports

[Julio Riddols]

I like the cap crunch, injuries can be set wherever as far as I am concerned. No need to nerf QB's, but nerfing WR's would seem fine.

[claystone]

I might be interested.

[Disturbed]

I would definitely be interested in this.

I hate game planning.

[Ben E Lou]

I just ran a quick test. My thought all along has been that this setup would make QBs and WRs a little more important than when game plans are allowed.

I was wrong.





This setup would make WRs a LOT more important than when game plans are allowed.



The problem that I knew was there is worse than I realized: offensive AI game plans adjust to personnel better than defensive AI game plans. Practically speaking, that means you can overload your personnel in one direction to force the offensive game plan AI to go fairly strong in one direction, but the defense won't adust correctly. So just get some great WRs, the worst RBs and FBs you can find, and the AI will throw a ton, and the defenses will be befuddled.

I took existing SP team that had well-balanced running/passing talent, cut all RBs and FBs and replaced them with the worst RBs and FBs available in FA. None of the backs I signed have a current rating higher than 10. WR1 is 73/73, WR2 is 60/60, and TE1 is 72/72. QB is 74/74. In the one season I ran, the offensive game plan was 37-42-21 on first and 10, fwiw. Here's what happened that year with AI game plans turned on.



Keep in mind that the AI uses lead-draining offense at 4 minutes per score, so in more than half its games, it probably didn't throw more than 1 or 2 passes in the fourth quarter. If it didn't, you'd get sillier numbers than when regular game plans are allowed if you did this properly.

And there's no reasonable rule I can think of that could stop this: "you must have at least one RB rated x/x or higher" ftl.

[Ben E Lou]

...and to satisfy my own curiosity, I tried this same idea with a no-cohesion, non-awesome-coach, chemistry-turned-off year 1 drafted team. (The team above is mature, so of course it has great chemistry, cohesion, and coaching.) Same deal, just not as extreme numbers. I drafted the first 17 rounds manually: QB-WR-WR-TE-WR-WR-TE-WR, then 8 offensive linemen with pass blocking as their main strength. I let the AI draft the rest of the team, then cut all RBs and FBs, replacing them with the worst guys in the FA pool. The results were similar just knocked down a bit, I presume because of lack of chemistry/cohesion/coaching. I ran the season five times, and here are the ranges of the key stats during that time:

TD passes: 39<----->46
QBR: 111.2<----->127.9
Wins: 14<------->16
QB YPA: 8.6<-------->9.4

And again, that's with terribad offensive cohesion. Those numbers would rise, as they always do, over the course of the first 8ish seasons.

My takeaway from looking at this is that this would ultimately be a contest to see who could gather the best WRs, because there would be no opportunity to mitigate, via gameplanning, the big advantage that the guy with the best WRs will enjoy.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

i have no evidence (maybe ben knows) but i've always felt like injuries were the cpu's way of dealing with outliers. for instance your all world wr will inevitably get injured and become a very good wr.

either way ben's post is disheartening

[Julio Riddols]

So Nerfing WR's will be needed.

[Pyser]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

...and to satisfy my own curiosity, I tried this same idea with a no-cohesion, non-awesome-coach, chemistry-turned-off year 1 drafted team. (The team above is mature, so of course it has great chemistry, cohesion, and coaching.) Same deal, just not as extreme numbers. I drafted the first 17 rounds manually: QB-WR-WR-TE-WR-WR-TE-WR, then 8 offensive linemen with pass blocking as their main strength. I let the AI draft the rest of the team, then cut all RBs and FBs, replacing them with the worst guys in the FA pool. The results were similar just knocked down a bit, I presume because of lack of chemistry/cohesion/coaching. I ran the season five times, and here are the ranges of the key stats during that time:

TD passes: 39<----->46
QBR: 111.2<----->127.9
Wins: 14<------->16
QB YPA: 8.6<-------->9.4

And again, that's with terribad offensive cohesion. Those numbers would rise, as they always do, over the course of the first 8ish seasons.

My takeaway from looking at this is that this would ultimately be a contest to see who could gather the best WRs, because there would be no opportunity to mitigate, via gameplanning, the big advantage that the guy with the best WRs will enjoy.

wow you took it to an extreme quickly. i suppose the league wouldve gotten there eventually.

as others have said, nerfing wr's should help. i also think a simple house rule of starting a 30 rated rb or future higher than 40 is pretty easy (they are always available in fa)

i do think one of the biggest differences ben is that you did this in SP, where you were the only team doing this. in mp, others thinking similarly would make it harder to construct that perfect team.

this is getting more difficult, i admit, but i still believe theres a viable league in this

anyone else have thoughts?

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

i dunno. there's a lot to overcome. you're going to need a really ambitious/dedicated commish

[Pyser]

i guess my other thought is that, so what if the game becomes a race to collect wr's?

how is that any different from every other non-nerfed league in existence?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Pyser

i guess my other thought is that, so what if the game becomes a race to collect wr's?

Originally Posted by Pyser

I think leaving it up to the coaches could be a simple way to tone down the WR dominance, while making other positions fairly important too (like defense as a whole).

Hmmmm....

how is that any different from every other non-nerfed league in existence?

I think this is the bottom line of what I think about this:

Other leagues: race to acquire WRs, but at least there's an opportunity via game planning to overcome, or for lesser owners with great WRs to put in bad game plans and hurt themselves. (As I said in your oher thread, I firmly believe that there are MANY people out there who'd do better by rexing than the foolishness they are using.)

This idea: race to acquire WRs, and the winner of that race also wins the league because he can't hurt himself by his game plan, and the rest of the league can't help themselves by their game plans.

[Pyser]

ben, i'd love for you to join the league so we can settle it on "the field". also to contribute some nerfed drafts, which would help a lot. or i'd like to hear any ideas you have that might make a league like this work in any way, though i understand you are very, very opposed to it.


here's where i think we stand on the ideas. maybe there's a league in this, maybe there isnt.


RULES:

1) No game planning. Commish sets it to AI game plans. Self explanatory.

2) Nerfed league. Tones down the amount of dominant WR's (and QB's too, i suppose).

3) Cap Crunch. Since there's no game planning, the main objective here is roster building and management. This makes it more challenging and interesting.

4) Upped injury setting. I'd prefer 200, but 150 would be fine. This keeps it more interesting during the season, and also increases the importance of a deep roster (see #3).

5) Must start a RB rated 30 or above in current ratings, OR 40 or above in future ratings. This is to avoid Ben's silliness above, forcing your team to throw all the time.

6) Minimum contracts of 3 years for free agents, no franchising players. Prevents 1 or 2 year free agent deals, and forces more players to hit free agency, along with the cap crunch.

Seems doable to me, but maybe I'm just being stubborn.

[Pyser]

it's just a league for people who dont like game planning, or who have no interest in coaching.

doesnt seem too hard to me.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Pyser

6) Minimum contracts of 3 years for free agents, no franchising players. Prevents 1 or 2 year free agent deals, and forces more players to hit free agency, along with the cap crunch.

Been following this with interest, as I too have never gotten into game planning, but as ever the commitment to multiple weekly actions is something I can't make. Hope it does work for those that can though, as it offers a different challenge to other leagues.

One thing puzzles me: how does tying FAs to minimum 3 year deals force more players to hit FA? Surely if some are 1-2 year deals they will be FAs every 1-2 years instead of every 3 years????

[Marmel]

I'm good with anything as long as there is no game planning. It is the only thing I despise about the game. I'm not too big on turning the injury number up. I would prefer down, but that is just me I guess. I don't care at all about the WR stuff - I don't see this as a hyper competative league with all the GM's not gameplanning, but I'm probably just naive

[Pyser]

Originally Posted by AlexB

Been following this with interest, as I too have never gotten into game planning, but as ever the commitment to multiple weekly actions is something I can't make. Hope it does work for those that can though, as it offers a different challenge to other leagues.

One thing puzzles me: how does tying FAs to minimum 3 year deals force more players to hit FA? Surely if some are 1-2 year deals they will be FAs every 1-2 years instead of every 3 years????

good point.

i'm not entirely sure why ben's leagues do this, but it definitely seems to work when coupled with the cap crunch. i'm guessing it just evens out everyone's offers so that top players aren't just signing 1 or 2 year deals, or a low first year, crazy high 2nd year salary?

everything is open to negotiation. nothing is set in stone here.

[Izulde]

I figure this is worth a shot if nothing else.

[Prinzar]

Ok I think I've got the answer to the stud WR problem, 50% reps? (60 may be the lowest, I can't remember). Should encourage owners to build 4 good WRs due to the rotation

Also they need to be nerfed still

[Prinzar]

Anybody up for the commish role? I would give it a go if nobody else wants the job.
Never been a commish before but I'm curious about this league and would really like to see it start

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Pyser

i'm not entirely sure why ben's leagues do this, but it definitely seems to work when coupled with the cap crunch. i'm guessing it just evens out everyone's offers so that top players aren't just signing 1 or 2 year deals, or a low first year, crazy high 2nd year salary?

This was originally to keep folks with lots of cap room from offering 1 year deals with $50 million in bonus or some silliness, then using the franchise tag to sign them to extended deals worth far less than they would have gone for in FA. So when 1 big WR hits, whoever has the most cap room to hit the max offer would get the guy for that one year of cap room, then next year would reneg him to a 10 - 15 million deal while the 3 year deal thing has these guys going for 20-30 million.

I don't know if it's as important in the cap crunch leagues, but it's been kept around to avoid similar silliness.

[Julio Riddols]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

This was originally to keep folks with lots of cap room from offering 1 year deals with $50 million in bonus or some silliness, then using the franchise tag to sign them to extended deals worth far less than they would have gone for in FA. So when 1 big WR hits, whoever has the most cap room to hit the max offer would get the guy for that one year of cap room, then next year would reneg him to a 10 - 15 million deal while the 3 year deal thing has these guys going for 20-30 million.

I don't know if it's as important in the cap crunch leagues, but it's been kept around to avoid similar silliness.

This. Even with the lack of franchising, 1 year and 2 year deals are too easy to manipulate the cap with. FA2 should be anything goes though, seeing how it consists of guys nobody grabbed in FA1 or the draft.

3 year deals force teams to tie up money and actually gamble a little bit when signing a player, so when a major signing busts on you, it usually hurts bad.

[Pyser]

there you go then

point is the system works, along with the cap crunch.

so how many people do we have so far for the league?

[claystone]

Originally Posted by Pyser

there you go then

point is the system works, along with the cap crunch.

so how many people do we have so far for the league?

I'll be in if the league would do 3 games or more per week.

[redfox000]

sounds interesting as i too despise MP leagues due to the gameplanning...but I also couldn't commit to that many activities per week. How about allowing teams to gameplan defense? for those that are saying the rex defense doesn't adjust for passing, it would allow the user to at least help out there?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by redfox000

How about allowing teams to gameplan defense?

You can't, the commish either sets the league to Rex gameplans, or doesn't. There is no fine-grained control unless you completely trust the players to do it manually.

[PackerFanatic]

I think I would be interested in this. Gameplanning has always been my absolute downfall in this game and it would be interesting to see how things go with a level playing field on that front.

[Pyser]

quick update:

unless anyone here knows how to nerf files, it seems unlikely that this league will do that. basically, ben is the one who handles that, but as you can see above, he doesnt have much faith in our little experiment here

other than that, and needing a commish to host and run things, i say we get started?

[gstelmack]

Ben's draft file generator for nerfing QBs/WRs is a web page he made publically available.

[Pyser]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Ben's draft file generator for nerfing QBs/WRs is a web page he made publically available.

ok, thats good. hopefully whoever is the commish knows how to work that

also, what do you guys think of a free for all to start the league? where everyone is a free agent?

it was pretty damn fun in the ccfl

[Izulde]

I have zero interest in a free agency free for all personally.

[Pyser]

im just one vote. we havent even discussed real/fictional players or teams and all that

[Pyser]

bumping with new title, maybe others can put the word out that we need a commish?

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Pyser

bumping with new title, maybe others can put the word out that we need a commish?

as long as it isn't in the off topic forum.

[Izulde]

Has this gone dead in the water?

[Pyser]

i dont think so. we just need a commish to move forward so that we can recruit. then with interest we could all decide how to run the league

[Julio Riddols]

Well I'm in if there is ever a Commish.