Interest in a 4.0c GroupThink?

[QuikSand]

Just curious if there would be any interest in launching another multi-user cooperative FOF franchise? With the latest patch, it might prove entertaining to do... there seems to be some unexplored territory, I think.

-Use draft files imported from TCY?

-Make an effort to concentrate heavily on the team chemistry elements?

-Try out some new FA-related house rules?


I might be interested in joining something like this if there is interest. Perhaps it could even be a double-barreled GroupThink - with one group managing a college team in TCY, and another managing the pro team in FOF4 using those TCY files?

[mrsimperless]

Sounds fun. I've never been involved in one of these, but I wouldn't mind giving it a try. Just need to dig up the FOF4 cd...

[Fritz]

I have pulled in and out of this before, but....

I would be interested in Pro OC if this goes off.

My interest (besides the chemistry) is in maximizing utility from marginal players through the gameplan.

Originally posted by QuikSand
Just curious if there would be any interest in launching another multi-user cooperative FOF franchise? With the latest patch, it might prove entertaining to do... there seems to be some unexplored territory, I think.

-Use draft files imported from TCY?

-Make an effort to concentrate heavily on the team chemistry elements?

-Try out some new FA-related house rules?


I might be interested in joining something like this if there is interest. Perhaps it could even be a double-barreled GroupThink - with one group managing a college team in TCY, and another managing the pro team in FOF4 using those TCY files?

[Godzilla Blitz]

I'm game.

Interested in:

Game plan settings
Chemistry
Cohesion
Player Development
Key attributes (i.e., what attributes contribute most to an effective RB, etc.)

As an aside, I was seeing some things regarding chemisty that got me thinking that it was only calculated once per season, during training camp. I emailed Solecismic, and the reply came back that the effects of chemistry have been significantly increased in the latest patch, and that chemistry is calculated before each game.

[Coffee Warlord]

If (and this is a big if) I can find both CD and CD key, I'd be interested.

Or I could assist in TCY if you throw that in as well. Be more interested in personnel/scouting/etc than game plans.

[QuikSand]

Hmmm... if we wre to launch just a FOF career with this, I think the consensus might be to do something brutally difficult. Perhaps we play with some barbaric financial or transactional limitations - thus forcing us to focus heavily on role-players and castoffs... thereby placing more emphasis on things like team chemistry, gameplanning, and so forth.

Of course, we'd have to make wise decisions with our player selection - but it might be most intriguing to also have to seriously consider the other factors that are in this game but tend to get overlooked when a decent basic strategy simply nets you far more talent than everyone else.

[primelord]

I'd be interested again as well. I enjoyed the last two we did. I am up for really filling any position. Probably not an Co-ordinator spot since I have done both of them in the last two, but anything else would be fine.

[Fritz]

a basic idea:

you must keep team leaders (that is, they must be your first consideration) and you may not aquire players that conflict with them.

If a leadership role changes, you must move a player off the roster before the start of the next off-season.


This reduces the field of players to pick from, and works towards chemestry. I guess it works towards cohesion (some) as well.


edit:

you must start a leader. (often I find that leaders are not the best players. bad luck, huh?)

[primelord]

Originally posted by Fritz
a basic idea:

you must keep team leaders (that is, they must be your first consideration) and you may not aquire players that conflict with them.

If a leadership role changes, you must move a player off the roster before the start of the next off-season.


This reduces the field of players to pick from, and works towards chemestry. I guess it works towards cohesion (some) as well.


edit:

you must start a leader. (often I find that leaders are not the best players. bad luck, huh?)

I would be in favor of a rule like that. We basically played with that rule in our last group think and it was probably the only rule that made things at all challenging for us. And it cost us Kent Wolfe dammit!!!!

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by primelord
I would be in favor of a rule like that. We basically played with that rule in our last group think and it was probably the only rule that made things at all challenging for us. And it cost us Kent Wolfe dammit!!!!

well, we used the popularity rule heavily last time, and obviously it cost us in some areas. I'd defeinitely be interested in this, and would like to see a much larger emphasis on leadership/conflicts as well.

[primelord]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
well, we used the popularity rule heavily last time, and obviously it cost us in some areas. I'd defeinitely be interested in this, and would like to see a much larger emphasis on leadership/conflicts as well.

Oh you're right it was popularity not leadership. My bad. :)

[Godzilla Blitz]

Oh, wait.

You said "Group Think", didn't you? I thought you were talking about where we each play our own games, but use the same draft files, but that is obviously something different.

GroupThink means we all run the same team?

[Noble_Platypus]

I am interested. I play FOF4c all the time

[albionmoonlight]

I think that I would like to be a part of this one. I am also more interested in a coordinator spot than a talent evaluation spot (I am that guy who actually likes gameplanning as much as roster building).

So I make sure that I don't bite off more than I can chew--can former groupthink coordinators tell me how much time it took per week?

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by Godzilla Blitz
Oh, wait.

You said "Group Think", didn't you? I thought you were talking about Group Sex, but that is obviously something different.

[Buccaneer]

My interest (besides the chemistry) is in maximizing utility from marginal players through the gameplan.

Fritz, my friend, you play a very different game than I.

[larrymcg421]

I'm interested in this. I'm much better at TCY so I'd be willing to handle any position (recruiting or O.C.) on that side. Or I'd be interested in a sports reporting type thing.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Godzilla Blitz
Oh, wait.

You said "Group Think", didn't you? I thought you were talking about where we each play our own games, but use the same draft files, but that is obviously something different.

GroupThink means we all run the same team?

Yes, with the terminology we have used here before (admittedly pretty abstract):

"GroupThink" = multiple managers working together (usually in defined roles) to collectively manage one team

"Village Challenge" = multiple managers taking turns in managing one team

"Petri Dish" = multiple managers each using same draft files and managing different teams


I'm currently thinking #1 form the above... but I could be persuaded otherwise if there was a pull in a different direction.

[QuikSand]

For what it's worth, I have a mature FOF4 game (post-patch) that is sitting idle. I'd be happy to use those game files as the start for a new career.

Pluses - fictional teams, fictional players, mature statistics base and career leaderboard

Minuses - tough to get TCY draft files for the year 2020 (or wherever that game lies right now), no easy ability to use true "empty cupboard"

[Buccaneer]

Originally posted by primelord
I would be in favor of a rule like that. We basically played with that rule in our last group think and it was probably the only rule that made things at all challenging for us. And it cost us Kent Wolfe dammit!!!!


But there were no consequences otherwise. If you guys are going for another round of this, my suggestion is to really come up with draconian rules that does not significantly limit decision making - nothing something subtle like chemisty or leadership. Otherwise, you will endure the same un-challenging results.

By the way, the basis for my response to Fritz comes from my current TCY career. There are only two things I do in that game: recruit and fast sim each week. I do not even look at my roster except to figure out relative position strengths (to see where I need to recruit), let alone any details about any of the players. I am letting my assistants handle everything except recruiting and hiring. I am finding that the AI does a mediocre job in handling my team (but the game is designed to where I have to accept that for me). Even when the few times I let the AI handle recuiting for a few weeks, it does a terrible job (despite the ludicrous statement in the game saying you should let the AI handle it because it is too complex).

My point is that the AI in TCY and in FOF cannot manage your team adequately, let alone their own teams. This puts you, as the human gamer, far ahead by default in making decisions. Concentrate on those features that you deem fun in the GroupThink (whether they make that much of a difference or not) as well as coming up with rules to make it more competitive.

[Fritz]

I should say that if anyone else is itching to be OC, please speak up

[QuikSand]

Well... maybe we need to let this echo a bit more, but if we don't want to bother with TCY, then I guess this could be ready to go pretty easily. I could advance my last career (playing Lake Erie) to the next season, and post the files for anyone to download. We could semi-arbitrarily pick a team to take over, and go from there.

My thinking is that if we want to focus a lot on things like chemistry and cohesion, then we probably want to play a mature team, rather than my usual "empty cupboard" strategy. Perhaps we want to shed most of the existing team, but I think we'll be better served by making most of our initial personnel decisions out of a well-developed free agency pool, rather than from rookies and undrafted players -- we'll be able to build the team in our image more easily that way, I reckon.

So, that leaves us with the TCY dilemma. I'd love to be using TCY files, but getting a companion TCY career all the way up to 2020 or so sounds unreasonable - unless someone wanted to basically quick-sim a number of years just to get us to that point, and then have the TCY career go from there.

[Bee]

I'd be interested in being involved again.

[condors]

the AI has been much improved on drafting, if you want something challenging i would enjoy reading about another island of misfit toys dynasty(no drafted players ever)

[Coffee Warlord]

I'll look for my CD and CD key tonight for FOF. If I find it, I'm still in, if I don't, well, looks like I'm SOL. I'll let ya'll know.

[Bee]

House Rules:

If we want to involve team leaders, perhaps their jobs should depend on on the field performance? For example, if the O-line gives up XX number of sacks over 2 years the o-line leader has to be released/replaced? Each position group could have "required" stats that must be met or the team leaders have to be released. I would suggest at least a 2 year time period to avoid having to cut a player due to injury or 1 bad year.

I like Fritz's ideas as well with the possible exception of having to start leaders. I think that might take away a lot of decision making in roster management.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Bee
I like Fritz's ideas as well with the possible exception of having to start leaders. I think that might take away a lot of decision making in roster management.

Nah.

There is one backfield leader (RB/FB/QB?)
One recievers leader (WR/TE)
One OLine leader (T/G/C)
One D7 leader (DE/DT/OLB/ILB)
one secondary leader (CB/S)

so 4 of 22 starters. Backfield is the only place where it might be a real issue, but then again, I like that.

[Fritz]

dola

I think the bigger challenge with what I propose will come when leadership shifts and players move into conflict and have to be jettisoned.

[Bee]

Originally posted by Fritz
Nah.

There is one backfield leader (RB/FB/QB?)
One recievers leader (WR/TE)
One OLine leader (T/G/C)
One D7 leader (DE/DT/OLB/ILB)
one secondary leader (CB/S)

so 4 of 22 starters. Backfield is the only place where it might be a real issue, but then again, I like that.

Isn't that 5 of 22? ;)

I also thought the QB leader was separate from the RB/FB, but I could be wrong about that since I never paid much attention to team leaders.

[Godzilla Blitz]

As fun as this sounds, I'll probably have to take a seat in the stands. We've got a baby due in five/six weeks and work is getting busy; adding another thing to do will be a bit tricky. I'll be reading along though! I'm interested in seeing how this turns out, and would love to be able to download the game files to follow along as things move forward.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Bee
Isn't that 5 of 22? ;)

I also thought the QB leader was separate from the RB/FB, but I could be wrong about that since I never paid much attention to team leaders.

a quick look through one of my games show that the backfield is always led by a back. The QB does not seem to lead anything.

do you have some sort of small animal running around your bowels?

[Bee]

Originally posted by Fritz
ARE YOU MOCKING ME ???!?!?!?!

a quick look through one of my games show that the backfield is always led by a back. The QB does not seem to lead anything.

I think the QB is separate in that he has affinity/conflict with the position leaders. I don't know if there is just one QB that has those relationships or if all QBs do.

and yes. :p

[QuikSand]

Hmmm... I wonder if to establish complete team harmony, it might end up being necessary to have all your team leaders within one of the particular zodiac subsets... all your QBs and all your team leaders would have to be from the same group, and nobody on the team could be from those signs that are polarized against.

Might end up being pretty tricky...

[Bee]

Originally posted by Fritz
do you have some sort of small animal running around your bowels?

I didn't know Marmel was going to be involved in this GroupThink...

[Bee]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Hmmm... I wonder if to establish complete team harmony, it might end up being necessary to have all your team leaders within one of the particular zodiac subsets... all your QBs and all your team leaders would have to be from the same group, and nobody on the team could be from those signs that are polarized against.

Might end up being pretty tricky...

Wouldn't that in the end be the same type of approach we've taken before (only players from a certain state, or college conference, etc)? Not that it's necessarily a bad thing, but in the end it's still increasing the challenge by limiting the pool of players we are choosing from. I don't know if it's even possible to increase the challenge any other way though...

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Bee
Wouldn't that in the end be the same type of approach we've taken before (only players from a certain state, or college conference, etc)? Not that it's necessarily a bad thing, but in the end it's still increasing the challenge by limiting the pool of players we are choosing from. I don't know if it's even possible to increase the challenge any other way though...

Yes, I think it might end up that way - which I judge to be a bad thing, actually. I always felt like playing the agme with restrictions like that (geographical) ended up taking the decision-making away from me, and put the team more in the hands of lady luck (We do well if a stud QB comes along fromt he right state or school, we stink if one doesn't).

But it might not have to get that rigid. It certainly does look like the team would have to be built around the QB position, though. (Unless we were willing to just let those conflicts go)

[Bee]

Perhaps we could have a financial penalty based on affinity/conflict? Either a % reduction in salary cap for every conflict or players in conflict have to be paid double the requested bonus during contract negotiations? Something along those lines. That would give us the decision making back but at a cost. Just a thought.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Yes, I think it might end up that way - which I judge to be a bad thing, actually. I always felt like playing the agme with restrictions like that (geographical) ended up taking the decision-making away from me, and put the team more in the hands of lady luck (We do well if a stud QB comes along fromt he right state or school, we stink if one doesn't).


the difference is that the restrictions are fairly mild (better than half the signs can play on the same team) and they do shift over time

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Fritz
...and they do shift over time

Can you explain this?

I presume that you mean that as we acquire new team leaders, then the other players will have to ba adjusted.


I can see your point, though. If all our QBs are in a certain sign, then there will only be one or two other signs that have conflicts with them - so we might have team leaders from several different signs, and a scattered batch beyond that - with only a few signs that need to be avoided for any particular player.

I am interested in doing this... not trying to badmouth the idea.

[Bee]

Originally posted by QuikSand

I am interested in doing this... not trying to badmouth the idea.

ditto for me. I like the idea, but just want to make sure we look at it from all angles and try to brainstorm any adjustments before we get started.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Can you explain this?


Sure. Since sign X only conflicts with Y and Z it would be possible for you to have 3 players at TE who are X(leader), P and S. Over time P may become the leader. The leadership has shifted to P, which may not get along with R and S. Suddenly you have a conflict.

Also, players who may not have been available to you in FA because of this restriction one year might be fair game the next time they become Free agents.

This is very different than the static "Players from Texas" rule, which is devoid of any real strategy.

[QuikSand]

Okay, I'll take a stab at a set of house rules for the FOF side of this... with the presence of a simultaneous TCY career still up in the air.

- - -

PLAYER ACQUISITIONS
-Players other than undrafted rookies may only be acquired during the draft and the 20-stage FA process
-No initiating trades, other than tades during the draft involving current year's picks only
-Team may respond to trade offers that pass the standard fairness test (alter and confirm)
-Team may not accept a first round draft pick in trade for a reserve player
-Every FA offer to a player requesting any bonus (not including current team members) must include a signing bonus at least as large as the highest year's salary
-Team may make unlimited FA offers before the first week of free agency, and then no more than two more offers before the end of the FA process

ROSTER MANAGEMENT
-Team may not renegotiate or extend any player contracts
-Team may not enter the regular season with a chemistry conflict
-All positional team leaders must be starters for the team
-All positional team leaders must receive at least a qualifying offer from the team for a new contract

FINANCES
-Ticket prices for each level must remain consistent with lower of two closest teams, geographically
-If team runs an operating deficit, the following year the team must remain 10% under the salary cap
-The preceding effect is cumulative - two running annual deficits require staying 20% below cap, etc.
-Cannot have both scout and coach in the top ten salaries of the league

- - -

Quick first cut... what else do we need in there? Will this be too easy?

[QuikSand]

This really isn't all that different from what I usually play - except for the chemistry stuff, for which I can't reliably forecast a magnitude of impact. Do we perhaps need something tougher on player acquisition and/or financials?

And - my idea on financial penalties might be frought with problems... this could be an inescapable spiral. We do badly, and therefore lose money... so we have to get rid of players, causing us to do badly... and we never get out of the rut. Beats me.

[QuikSand]

One more thought... if there's going to be a concurrent TCY career, that could add another level of difficulty for us. I once played with a rule that I needed to have at least one player from the TCY school on at every roster position.

I don't know how we'd reconcile something like that with our team chemistry rules...but it's one more possibility, I suspect. Would force us to fill up teh roster with a bit more junk than we would otherwise, plus we might have some fun trying to get soemthing out of margina players who happened to go to VaTech (or wherever).

[Swaggs]

I will throw my hat in, if there is room. I have been looking for a good reason to get back into FOF4.

[Fritz]

I have a couple of other monor rules I like to use:

a coach with a losing record the season his contract expires can not be rehired (what have you done for me lately rule)

Last place in the division gets the coach fired (unless it is his first year with the team)

Last place in the conference gets the "starting" QB sacked (unless he is in his first 3 seasons)

Last place in the league gets the coach, starting QB, and scout canned.

[Bee]

If we go with running a concurrent TCY GroupThink, we'll want to make sure we have enough dedicated members to handle both dynasties (unless the TCY part will only be for generating draft files?). One of the things I've noticed with the GroupThink dynasties is a lot of interest early on and then real life interrupts and there ends up being only 2-4 people really making decisions.

The one concern I'd have with the rules at this point would be free agency. With the patched game, I think that's by far the biggest weakness in the game and we might need to come up with something to make that aspect of things a little more difficult.

[Buzzbee]

I'd be willing to sim through some TCY seasons to get up to 2020. Also might be interested in managing some aspect of a TCY portion of the challenge.

Potential angles at handling a TCY integration:

Must draft a player from the Solecismic 8.
(With 8 schools to choose from it probably wouldn't limit your decisions, but might affect what other players you draft)

Players from each conference always on pro roster.
(Might limit the player pool to some degree during periods of "cohesion turnover" without eliminating desision making)

Must have a player from "Select State U" on roster at all times.
(Probably not a good rule since it doesn't really affect play unless you had to get rid of said player due to cohesion. Would only affect one roster spot)

Can't draft "All-American's" or other "award winners".
(Reduction in talent level for the human team and increase in talent level for CPU teams)

Can't draft players leaving school early for the draft.
(Might have no impact, or might even eliminate potential busts, so this might not be a good rule)


That's all I can think of off the top of my head.

I'd be willing to create the TCY draft files and compile a list of players that were "off limits" during the draft (if of course there are any). I could even sim several seasons at a time and "queue up" the draft files if needed, so that you would have them ready whenever needed. Would eliminate the potential logjam of having to wait on the TCY "coaches" to finish their season.

[QuikSand]

Fritz, I like the "accountability" rules, and will include all of them as I update our working rules.

Bee, I agree - free agency is the weakest area we have to worry about. I like the rule forcing you to make most of your moves at the outset, rather than waiting for late-round values. Past that - what else? An overall limit on the number of players per year, or something of the sort?


On the matter of waning interest - there's litle we can do. Your observation is right on, but it's tough to sort out who will stick around and who won't. My inclination is to have a few people assigned to specific roles off the bat, and to have others who remain interested pick up more formal roles over time.

Maybe a good start would be once we pick our new team, we assign a position group to the potential participants - and get a full analysis of their skills, salary issues, and chemistry issues. The investment of time in that might be a good sign as to who's willing to stay with all this for a while.

[QuikSand]

Does anyone think that having a concurrent TCY multi-manager dynasty going on at the same time as this will be worth the hassle?

Or would we be better off just having a stock of draft files and possibly TCY saved games) as a resource.

I am split... I like the idea of having two connected dynasties running, but I fear that might be too many moving parts (and I don't think I'd have to patience to be perosnally involved in keeping the TCY thing afloat, tempering my willingness to endorse that option).

[QuikSand]

Here is a link to the FOF starting files (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13019)

[larrymcg421]

A while ago I tried to get a TCY groupthink started but there were only a couple people interested.

If we can get a couple more people for TCY, then I'd be willing to run that side of it.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally posted by Fritz
I should say that if anyone else is itching to be OC, please speak up

As stated, I would like to put my hat in the ring for OC or DC, but it does not matter which one.

[QuikSand]

Well, how about we start here. We've gotten a variety of inquiries, and I'll semi-randomly assign some position groups for each of us to start out with. Once we pick our new FOF team, then each of us can take a group, and give an analysis of what we ought to do with the current players -- who should be retained, where we need to spend money, and what we ought to do in terms of chemistry.

We'll go with these assignments, unless this completely pisses anyone off:

QB - Noble_Platypus
Backs - Fritz
Receivers - larrymcg
O Line - Swaggs
D Line - Bee
Backers - albionmoonlight
Secondary - primelord
Special teams - TBA (QuikSand, for now)

Everyone on that list - please download the game files, and we'll discuss in this thread what team we ought to target. (Presumably we're the new caretakers of a previously inept franchise, so we should pick pretty someone down on their luck)

[Buzzbee]

QS - While the idea of a TCY/FOF GroupThink sounds like a cool idea, there are some things to ponder.

What would be the "hook" between the two? Shouldn't there be some sort of common goal between the TCY and FOF parts? If there isn't, then it sounds like this would merely be some guys doing a TCY GroupThink and other guys doing an FOF GroupThink. Unless the hook is that it is the SAME guys doing both GT's. It seems like there needs to be some integration.

What would the focus be of a TCY GroupThink? To develop a particular college into a dynasty? Knowing what school was being "developed" might affect the decisions of the FOF GT in a detrimental way (knowing that they TCY GT had a national champion team might lead to an advantage over the CPU during drafting). Is there another approach that could be taken for a TCY GT?

The FOF GT would DEPEND on the TCY GYT. This might lead to a logjam if FOF is waiting on draft files from TCY.

[QuikSand]

Kitty Hawk might be a good fit, after four straight losing seasons. I don't really care.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Buzzbee
QS - While the idea of a TCY/FOF GroupThink sounds like a cool idea, there are some things to ponder.

What would be the "hook" between the two? Shouldn't there be some sort of common goal between the TCY and FOF parts? If there isn't, then it sounds like this would merely be some guys doing a TCY GroupThink and other guys doing an FOF GroupThink. Unless the hook is that it is the SAME guys doing both GT's. It seems like there needs to be some integration.

What would the focus be of a TCY GroupThink? To develop a particular college into a dynasty? Knowing what school was being "developed" might affect the decisions of the FOF GT in a detrimental way (knowing that they TCY GT had a national champion team might lead to an advantage over the CPU during drafting). Is there another approach that could be taken for a TCY GT?

The FOF GT would DEPEND on the TCY GYT. This might lead to a logjam if FOF is waiting on draft files from TCY.

All good points. The connction that I see would revolve around some requiremant that many of teh players from the TCY team woudl end up on the FOF team, and their careers would continue from one dynasty to the next. This didn't work too well the one time I really tried it (importing draft files from one of SkyDog's careers into FOF 2001) but it's conceptually worth something.

However, the more thought I give - the more I think we'd just be better off having the TCY career sort of quick-simmed in the background, and have the draft files provide the players... withotu any attempt to maintain a serious TCY dynasty alongside the FOF one.

Well taken.

[QuikSand]

My thinking for a one-time house rule (appropriated from the last GT) would be that any player on our current team that we wish to keep must receive a brand new contract, at his asking price. So, those who are going to analyze positions - let's keep that in mind. We;d have to re-up with anyone we intend to keep onward.

[albionmoonlight]

FYI:

Our high speed internet struggles at home continue. The cable guy is supposed to come tomorrow and set it up (after 2 previous aborted attempts). If he does, I will look at this over the weekend. Can't do it tonight, though.

[larrymcg421]

I'm willing to give it a go with FOF4, but I would strongly prefer running a concurrent TCY dynasty.

The dynasty would be very difficult as the ideas I have (a Sol 8 Ivy League Dynasty with very high GPA/SAT requirements, a Sol 8 Montana dynasty where a certain number of players had to be from Montana) would probably prevent us from being a powehouse.

Plus it could lead to another challenging house rule for the FOF4 side. Instead of making draft decisions by looking at the FOF4 ratings of the players, we would have to judge players based on their TCY ratings and/or career stats. Someone could start the draft and report on who was taken. And the others, who do not have the benefit of the draft file, would have to make decisions based on the TCY file.

I'd take part in this grupthink however you guys want, but I think this is something worth considering.

[QuikSand]

Trouble with anything involving the Sol-8 and the TCY-to-FOF link is that the players come through with random small schools listed as thir colleges... so you won't see tons of "Montana Tech" or "Dartmouth" players, you'll see all those guys get strewn about as being from a variety of small schools - making them very tough to track in the FOF game over time.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by QuikSand
We'll go with these assignments, unless this completely pisses anyone off:

QB - Noble_Platypus
Backs - Fritz
Receivers - larrymcg
O Line - Swaggs
D Line - Bee
Backers - albionmoonlight
Secondary - primelord
Special teams - TBA (QuikSand, for now)

Just to clarify... thease are not permanent assignments... we'll still end up with an OC, DC, and heads of scouting and so forth. This is just to get the ball rolling, and to have some multiple input on the team we'll be taking over.

[QuikSand]

Fritz, since you have expressed specific interest in the OC position, maybe it woudl be wise for you to share some thoughts about what you might be looking for scheme-wise (if you have any preconceived notions). That way, those who are evaluating the offensive players can think in those terms, as appropriate.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally posted by larrymcg421


Plus it could lead to another challenging house rule for the FOF4 side. Instead of making draft decisions by looking at the FOF4 ratings of the players, we would have to judge players based on their TCY ratings and/or career stats. Someone could start the draft and report on who was taken. And the others, who do not have the benefit of the draft file, would have to make decisions based on the TCY file.

I like this idea. However, how well do TCY stats and rating lead to FOF4 high ratings? I don't know because I never use TCY files.

If there is enough of a connection to make this idea work, it has potential.

[larrymcg421]

Actually, the Sol-8 thing is easily fixed by editing the draft files. If we run the Montana thing, I'd just have to add the college names to the cnames.dll file. It wouldn't take long to find the seniors on the 8 rosters and edit them in the draft file.

I've done this myself for TCY/FOF concurrent careers.

[QuikSand]

We tried something along those lines for a while (with FOF 2001) but alas, it came apart as to many people dropped out. We were playing entirely blind - only one person had the FOF files, and would post stats and such, but nobody else ever got to see the actual player ratings.

Really upended the game a lot - but we never got to play it through enough to tell what would have happened over time.

It makes for two huge changes, though-- it slows the game down to a fraction of the speed you can move with a more traditional career, and it places a huge burden onto the person who actually has the game files.

In my book, that's an interesting idea for a different laboratory.

[Bee]

I won't be able to download the files until Friday night. I have a FFL draft tonight and I work tomorrow.

Perhaps to make Free Agency a little tougher, we could go with only 1 offer per position group (the position groups outlined by Fritz above) before the beginning of free agency and then after all those offers have been either accepted or declined, we could make another round of offers (1 per position group). Just a thought.

[primelord]

I am not a big fan of playing teams in the Sol 8. It always seems easier to land recruits you shouldn't be able to get with Sol 8 teams and it's easy to start dominanting your weak conference. Althoguh I do admit I haven't played a Sol 8 team since before the last patch.

I think a more challenging scenario is what several other FOFC players have done and take weak schools in strong conferences. And to make it even tougher choose a weak school in a state where there is a lot of competition for recruits.

Anyway I can live with a Sol 8 team if that's what we decide to go with, but I would prefer not to.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Fritz, since you have expressed specific interest in the OC position, maybe it woudl be wise for you to share some thoughts about what you might be looking for scheme-wise (if you have any preconceived notions). That way, those who are evaluating the offensive players can think in those terms, as appropriate.

One of the primary evolutions of the FOF game is the complexity of the gameplans. This is where my energies are focused right now. It would be more than fine if I was told who is playing where and for how much time.

My idea is to simply look at who we have and figure out a way to make them play well. We could be a running team or passing team, we could be speed or power, horizontal or veritcal. If we have a poor RB and the HC says "Fritz, we need ball control" I want to give us ball control.

I want to spend time fully manipulating the o-gameplan to see if it is worth tinkering with.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Bee
Perhaps to make Free Agency a little tougher, we could go with only 1 offer per position group (as outlined by Fritz above) before the beginning of free agency and then after all those offers have been either accepted or declined, we could make another round of offers (1 per position group). Just a thought.

A possibility... would a limit per position group make more sense that a limit overall?

I'm not sure I like the idea that even if we are all set at DB but need three new starters at OL, we can't make offers in the places we want to focus, because of a seemingly arbitrary rule. (That starts to sound like eliminating our degrees of decision-making)

I don't know how much we want to hamstring ourselves... would just tighter financial rules provide us the overall incentives we want, without dictating any particular steps along the way?

[larrymcg421]

I'd have no problem with a non-Sol 8 dynasty.

Some other ideas I had were a Temple dynasty as sort of a screw the Big East for dumping us thing. Baylor, Vanderbilt, or Duke would be cool too.

[QuikSand]

Who do we think will be actually running the games, once we are into the season? In the past, it has been a joint responsibility of the OC an DC (trading off, as I recall). I'm open to a similar arrangement, or something else if we come up with it.

By the way, I'm just trying to act as a catalyst right now - I've played the "GM" role before, and enjoy it fine - but I don't necessarily think that has to be my role. I tend to be among the last men standing in these things, and usually am among those who want to keep the progress up... but I'm happy to take another role if needed. (I always love rookie scouting)

[Fritz]

I was not trying to limit us to one player per position group, I was suggesting we keep our leaders on the team. Again, I am talking about a maximum of 5 players per off-season, so I don't see where that cripples decision-making. I can see where some people might not like that suggestion though.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Fritz
I was not trying to limit us to one player per position group, I was suggesting we keep our leaders on the team. Again, I am talking about a maximum of 5 players per off-season, so I don't see where that cripples decision-making. I can see where some people might not like that suggestion though.

I had to re-read that several times to conclude that all he meant was Fritz/you had laid out whate the position groups were...not that you had the idea for any particular restrictions in that regard.

[albionmoonlight]

Since it sounds like Fritz wants to tinker more in depth as an OC, I would be fine (assuming that I am DC) if he ran the games so he could tinker every game. He could send me files every four weeks of the season so that I could change things on the defense in response to what is and is not working.

That would keep the games moving (sim 4 at a time) but still allow the DC to have a reasonable amount of control.

How was it done in the past?

[QuikSand]

If that works for both you and Fritz, then I'd be happy to have you two as cooridnators and have you two split up the simming any way you like it.

[Bee]

Originally posted by QuikSand
A possibility... would a limit per position group make more sense that a limit overall?

I'm not sure I like the idea that even if we are all set at DB but need three new starters at OL, we can't make offers in the places we want to focus, because of a seemingly arbitrary rule. (That starts to sound like eliminating our degrees of decision-making)

I don't know how much we want to hamstring ourselves... would just tighter financial rules provide us the overall incentives we want, without dictating any particular steps along the way?

I agree to some extent with your concerns, but one of the problems with free agency in FOF is that it is very rare to be turned down by a free agent. The angle I'm trying to come up with is to actually limit us doing exactly what you are saying ( bringing in 3 new starters at OL). It's too easy to do that with the current AI, even limiting our offers to the beginning of free agency. If we limit the offers to position groups, it puts us into a position of picking which 2 of the 3 we want the most.

I'm not sure what kind of financial rules you had in mind. The issue with financial rules in regards to free agency is it is generally a two-edged sword. If you force yourself to pay more money, you are more likely to sign the player. If you force yourself to pay less, you help your salary cap if he does sign.

I'm open to anything you want to do, just trying to toss out some ideas to kick around and see if anything looks good.

[Bee]

Originally posted by QuikSand
I had to re-read that several times to conclude that all he meant was Fritz/you had laid out whate the position groups were...not that you had the idea for any particular restrictions in that regard.

Correct. Sorry if you thought I implied anything else Fritz. I'm from WV, English isn't my first language. ;)

[Fritz]

If the game was run on a 4 game cycle, it seems that it would easy to make some direction decisions for the OC/DC to work on.

The team could pick things to work on in a "cycle" and the coordinator could focus some on making that happen. For instance, after 4 weeks our QB has 4 TD and 7 INT, the RB is averaging 3.1 YPC, and we are getting killed late in games.

The team may tell the OC to get the ints down, the ypc up, and keep the game in hand late.

On the other side of the ball after 4 weeks our D has 2 Sacks and 3 INT, and are allowing 5.1 YPC.

The team may tell the DC to generate some ints, stuff the run, and get some more pressure on the QB.

You can't really do that week to week and keep the game moving, but 4 4-game cycles is doable.

[Bee]

Another thought on Free Agency:

If we go with an overall limit of offers to free agents, perhaps we could add a bit of realism? Base the number of offers each year on our previous year's record. No one wants to play for a bad team, while better teams can usually sign more free agents if they have the cap space. Perhaps with the caveat that if we have an all-pro at a position, we can't sign a free agent at that position?

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Bee
I'm not sure what kind of financial rules you had in mind. The issue with financial rules in regards to free agency is it is generally a two-edged sword. If you force yourself to pay more money, you are more likely to sign the player. If you force yourself to pay less, you help your salary cap if he does sign.

Maybe we could come to some sort of compromise:

-we can only pursue players during weeks 5, 10, and 15 (arbitrary picks), and may only offer them exactly what they request at that time


...or perhaps we could even require ourselves to overpay players who remain available later on in free agency? (Have to double their requested signing bonus, or something like that)

[digamma]

larry and primelord--I'd be interested in pitching in on the TCY side of things.

[Bee]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Maybe we could come to some sort of compromise:

-we can only pursue players during weeks 5, 10, and 15 (arbitrary picks), and may only offer them exactly what they request at that time


...or perhaps we could even require ourselves to overpay players who remain available later on in free agency? (Have to double their requested signing bonus, or something like that)

Something along those lines might be challenging. What if we limit our offers before free agency to 90% of requested and then after week 10 we have to pay double signing bonus (using your normal rule of signing bonus is equal to highest year salary, but doubling it). I'm just afraid we'll still end up getting too many high end free agents if we offer them their requested contracts at the beginning of free agency.

Edit: I don't know if reducing the contract offers by 10% will make a big difference or not in how many free agents we are able to sign, I'm just throwing something out there as a possibility.

[primelord]

Just as an FYI I thought the switching every 4 games between the OC and the DC worked very well last year. It allowed both Wade and I to make adjustments without slowing the pace down to a crawl. And having two people responsible for the simming was nice since if one person can't get the sim done in a reasonable time for whatever reason the otehr one could pick up the ball.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Bee
Something along those lines might be challenging. What if we limit our offers before free agency to 90% of requested and then after week 10 we have to pay double signing bonus (using your normal rule of signing bonus is equal to highest year salary, but doubling it). I'm just afraid we'll still end up getting too many high end free agents if we offer them their requested contracts at the beginning of free agency.

My proposal above wouldn't allow us to pursue anyone until week 5 - presumaby the real studs are gone by then. We'd be able to forage after a few weeks, but cannot offer a cheaper deal or a longer one than they seek.

I agree - I don't want us to be able to fat on star players... but at the same time, it is a legitimate strategy to spend an inordinate amount on one or two players and try to make do with cheapies elsewhere... I don't want rules that completely preclude something like that.

Tough to find a good balance. (And a shame that we have to do so much of this ourselves)

[Bee]

Originally posted by QuikSand
My proposal above wouldn't allow us to pursue anyone until week 5 - presumaby the real studs are gone by then. We'd be able to forage after a few weeks, but cannot offer a cheaper deal or a longer one than they seek.

I agree - I don't want us to be able to fat on star players... but at the same time, it is a legitimate strategy to spend an inordinate amount on one or two players and try to make do with cheapies elsewhere... I don't want rules that completely preclude something like that.

Tough to find a good balance. (And a shame that we have to do so much of this ourselves)

Yep and the other concern is that we end up picking up all the solid players that slip through for minsal. :(

[primelord]

Not to shift gears too much on your guys, but if we do plan on playing a detailed TCY career along with this should we have some house rules that require us to carry a certain number of players from our college team?

It seems if we don't have something along those lines we might as well just be simming TCy in the background for the draft files.

[QuikSand]

Yes, this thread has gotten very disjointed... but I've suggested that maybe we have to keep one player from the TCY school at easch position group. There have been a fewother suggestions along the same basic lines... I think if we're going to play both games seriously, we'll need to have a connection between them.

[Buzzbee]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Yes, this thread has gotten very disjointed... but I've suggested that maybe we have to keep one player from the TCY school at easch position group. There have been a fewother suggestions along the same basic lines... I think if we're going to play both games seriously, we'll need to have a connection between them.

Quik - I see a lot of potential from the FOF side in regard to using a TCY GroupThink to draw from. Using Conference ties, University ties, etc. in shaping the FOF roster. One concern I would have is what purpose or motivation would the TCY coaches have in this excercise? For the FOF side you have the goal of using players from a particular school or conference to build the roster of a winning team (for example). But for the TCY side, what is the motivation? What is to link a TCY GroupThink to the associated FOF GroupThink? Without some sort of goal related to the FOF GroupThink (GT for short, from now on) it is nothing more than a TCY GT which sends its draft files to the FOF GT. No motivation, no goal, other than to build a winning program.

There is a link from FOF to TCY, but no link from TCY to FOF. I've tried to come up with some goal for a related TCY GT, but haven't had any success.

A certain number of players from the TCY school taken in the FOF draft? Number of Hall of Famers from the TCY GT school? Provide a pipeline of Virgos and Libras to the FOF GT? Produce one star at particular position/s each year, to be determined by the FOF coaches (sort of like a farm system)?

I'd love to see a combined TCY/FOF GroupThink, but am having difficulty seeing how a TCY GT is going to be anything more than a source for FOF draft files.

Thoughts?

[Coffee Warlord]

Oh I have a bizarre idea.

Okay.

We set up a little system where however we do in TCY determines:

1) How much we can spend in FOF.

and/or

2) How many players outside of our TCY team we can try and acquire.

So the better we do in TCY, the more freedom we have in FOF to acquire talent.

[Noble_Platypus]

does all of the TCYs talk mean that anyone who doesnt have it cannot be involved?

[Buzzbee]

Noble Plat - I don't think that would be the case at all. The way things are shaping up it looks like there would be two separate groups doing the GroupThinks. One for FOF and one for TCY. That is of course if there is an associated TCY GroupThink, which at this point seems uncertain.

[primelord]

Anyone with either TCY or FOF or both can be involved as much as the like. In the past we have always assigned individual roles, but have always encouraged participation in all areas from everyone involved. And even people who aren't actively involved, but are just readers are welcome to join in at any time and give their opinions too.

So Noble even if we do a full blown TCY portion you won't need it to be involved. You can either just focus on the FOF portion or even if you can't use the game files you're still welcome to give your .02 on the moves made in the TCY world.

[Bee]

I'll throw out an idea as well involving TCY if we decide to go that route. This may end up being too much work for the TCY folk, but we'll run it up the flagpole anyway. :D

What if we have those involved in TCY GT make recommendations on the draft based on TCY without looking at FOF? Those involved in the FOF GT could say we need a RB in round 1, the TCY GT could make a recommendation of say 3 RBs and the FOF GT would have to pick one of those 3 RBs?

Or we could just let the TCY GT actually do the entire draft based on TCY with some general direction from the FOF GT. For example, in round 1 we say we need a RB and the GT tell us who to draft.

Just a thought, it's early so if the idea is stupid don't blame me. ;)

[QuikSand]

Again, I'm willing to go along with some kind of novelty suggestion like that... but my initial impression is that it's a whole different kettle of fish than we initially are buying in for.

What I'd see coming would be a situation where we immediately depress the value of our draft picks, and instead end up relying primarily on free agents for our real team needs. Assuming the TCY-to-FOF trail hasn't gotten revolutionized in recent upgrades (which there's noevidence of happening), then this would amount to a nearly total crapshoot for us with our draft picks.

In that situation - imagine if we really do need a RB for the coming year. What are we going to (reasonably) decide? Go sign a free agent we can see and measure? Or try our luck with a first round draft pick that could very well be a guy nobody would draft?


Again - I'm okay if we want to turn this into a very different kind of challenge. I'l still play. But my main idea to get this started was to be serious about the game(s) after the final patching, and see where that akes us. Adding some "playing blind" elements might be interesting... but we're no longer really just putting together a career like anyone might do on their own. Just a different approach, that's all.

[Bee]

Good point. I think it gets too far off what was initially suggested. Maybe an idea to be used for a different GroupThink challenge.

[cuervo72]

Why don't you determine what would be a safe combo of signs, possibly just drafting/signing from one of the triumverates (say, Aries, Scorpio and Gemini)? It cuts down the pool of players by 75%, but wouldn't effect numbers by position and you wouldn't go by states, schools, etc. It would make signing/drafting star players with those signs that much more important, and you'd probably pay a premium for it (through $$ or trading for pics). It would however take out the consideration of having to drop players who come into conflict after a leader leaves.

[Buzzbee]

Quik - Here's an idea I've been mulling over so I'll throw it out to see what people think.

Two posts ago I was throwing out some potential links between FOF GT goals and TCY GT goals. The last suggestion kinda stuck with me and I've developed the idea a little bit.

Perhaps the FOF GT coaches could request a certain player for the TCY coaches to develop. For instance, Fritz might want to develop a sturdy running game. The request to the TCY coaches would be to develop a quality RB and then a few quality offensive linemen. Same could be done by the DC. This would have to be a forward thinking approach, with an eye to the future. While it would be ideal to have 4-5 years so that the TCY coaches could recruit the position/s, a 2 year window would probably be more realistic.

The FOF coaches could determine a reasonable expectation where the player/s would fall in the draft and attempt to take them during that round. If the FOF coaches fail to draft the "Chosen Ones" then perhaps the FOF coaches would be obligated to offer a trade for the player, or attempt to sign them in FA at the first opportunity.

Just wanted to throw it out there to see what people think. If people think it is a sucky idea, so be it.

[QuikSand]

If the link from TCY to FOF were pretty predictable, then I think this would be absolutely loads of fun. If we had some semblance that the efforts put into the tCY taem woudl really pay off in quality, playable talent for the pro level (and that there would be a correlation between the best college players and the best pro players) then I think this would be absolutely the way to go, hands down.

I emphasize the "if" above, because I think that's the weak link. Very weak.

[QuikSand]

I have launched a new thread, in the dyansty section, fo ur to start talking about the Kitty Hawk Flyers, which (in the absence of any sentiment otherwise) will become our new franchise.

Kitty Hawk Analysis (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13066)

There is a link there to the game files as well.

Please spend a little time with the KH roster, and do some sizing up of their prospects. Recall - anyone we want to keep must first get a new contract from us, and we will certainly be looking closely at team chemistry in this career.

[Buzzbee]

Originally posted by QuikSand
If the link from TCY to FOF were pretty predictable, then I think this would be absolutely loads of fun. If we had some semblance that the efforts put into the tCY taem woudl really pay off in quality, playable talent for the pro level (and that there would be a correlation between the best college players and the best pro players) then I think this would be absolutely the way to go, hands down.

I emphasize the "if" above, because I think that's the weak link. Very weak.

When you say "this" are you referring to my suggestion of a TCY "farm system"? I can't tell from your post what you mean by "this" and I'm starting to get my hopes up.

[QuikSand]

Yes, I mean your "farm" idea as "this." I think it would be great if it worked... but I think the games would fail us. We'd have the TCY people doing tons of work to recruit and develop studs in certainn areas - then they'd come into the FOF game as bums time after time, and it would get depressing very quickly.

[Buzzbee]

Possibly. I mean there are going to be busts, so as long as the TCY team accepts that, then I don't see that as a gamebreaker. Also, I think the combination of the B patch for TCY (increased the correlation between college performance and pro "potential") and the latest C patch (reduced the overall level of talent from TCY drafts) would tend to mitigate the bust factor while giving somewhat realistic results.

One question I have is what effect will the farm system approach have on the cohesion/chemistry angle of the FOF team? Will this simply add to the challenge, or will it be the fly in the ointment?

[Bee]

Has anyone tested the correlation between college performance and the pro "potential" since the games have been patched? Previously there was very little correlation, but while improved, I really don't know how much the patches change things.

[Buzzbee]

If the farm system is the way we go, would it be feasible to back up the start date of the TCY GT to start the pipeline? In other words, start the TCY GT in 2016 or 2018 to provide the FOF team the opportunity to "request" players for the 2020 season?

I'm thinking no since that would require at least two seasons of TCY GT before the FOF GT really even started. Too much to ask.

Perhaps the TCY link could kick in for the 2022 or 2023 season. Might give the FOF team some time to prepare and adjust as needed? Or simply accept that the players provided by the TCY GT will be sub-par roster fillers the first few years.

[Buzzbee]

Originally posted by Bee
Has anyone tested the correlation between college performance and the pro "potential" since the games have been patched? Previously there was very little correlation, but while improved, I really don't know how much the patches change things.

If I have some time tonight when I get home from work, I might try to do a little analysis to see what if any correlation exists. Quick and dirty type stuff of course.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Buzzbee
I mean there are going to be busts, so as long as the TCY team accepts that, then I don't see that as a gamebreaker.

Well, yes and no. If we were talking about maybe 50% of the "stars" from the TCY team went on to be solid professionals, then I think it would work fine.

But what if that portion is a lot more like 20%, or even less? In previous versions, that's a lot more in keeping with what we've seen. And recall, all the updates are being made on the FOF4 end of things, to the best of my understanding - so the draft files themselves are still coming through basically the same.


Your question about chemistry is another good one - we might be at cross purposes if we really invested heavily into the TCY players, being forced to take many who woudl have conflicts with our team leaders. Might undermine both ideas a bit.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Buzzbee
If I have some time tonight when I get home from work, I might try to do a little analysis to see what if any correlation exists. Quick and dirty type stuff of course.

I haven't seen anything of this sort, from anyone. But I don't read dynasty reports, so I might well have missed something.

[albionmoonlight]

Didn't some people throw up some stats to show that TCY/FOF was not very far off on this point. There are a lot of colleges out there, and--just through sheer numbers--a lot of players who put up great stats in college are not going to become great pros. There is simply not enough space in the pro game.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
Didn't some people throw up some stats to show that TCY/FOF was not very far off on this point. There are a lot of colleges out there, and--just through sheer numbers--a lot of players who put up great stats in college are not going to become great pros. There is simply not enough space in the pro game.

I'm not trying to be critical - I agree that the numbers make it practically essential (especially since there are so many "outstanding" players in TCY - there's no meaningful way to separate out the top 25 players at any one position, so many of them by necessity must translate into lesser pro prospects).

I just think that with the TCY-to-FOF transition being what it is, that really limits the ability to provide fun for the TCY simmers in this enterprise.

[Buzzbee]

Originally posted by QuikSand
I'm not trying to be critical - I agree that the numbers make it practically essential (especially since there are so many "outstanding" players in TCY - there's no meaningful way to separate out the top 25 players at any one position, so many of them by necessity must translate into lesser pro prospects).

I just think that with the TCY-to-FOF transition being what it is, that really limits the ability to provide fun for the TCY simmers in this enterprise.

So does that mean that the idea of a TCY/FOF GT is dead? So far it seems like TCY will be used to simply generate draft classes since we haven't come up with an entertaining and viable way to link the two. Is that the way it is sounding to you QS?

[QuikSand]

I'm hoping that this just got missed on the page rollover... so I'm re-posting.

Originally posted by QuikSand
I have launched a new thread, in the dyansty section, for us to start talking about the Kitty Hawk Flyers, which (in the absence of any sentiment otherwise) will become our new franchise.

Kitty Hawk Analysis (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13066)

There is a link there to the game files as well.

Please spend a little time with the KH roster, and do some sizing up of their prospects. Recall - anyone we want to keep must first get a new contract from us, and we will certainly be looking closely at team chemistry in this career.

I'm hoping that this explains the silence over there...

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Buzzbee
So does that mean that the idea of a TCY/FOF GT is dead? So far it seems like TCY will be used to simply generate draft classes since we haven't come up with an entertaining and viable way to link the two. Is that the way it is sounding to you QS?

That's my leaning right now... especially since so far the talk about the TCY side has really come from the people who have expressed interest in the FOF side primarily, and are viewing the TCY as really just an input and/or source of other roster rules.

The only downside to havign an active TCY career going is that the FOF game becomes dependent upon it... but that seems pretty resolvable in my mind. If the TCY thing fades, the FOF side goes on and just uses somebody else's TCY draft files. No harm done, really, unless we built lots of complicated house rules on the TCY link.


My thinking is that if people who have expressed an interest in running the TCY side want to pull that together, they ought to have plenty of time to get a season done in time to provide a draft file for the 2001 draft. Maybe that's the best way to go... if it happens, great... if not, no harm done.

The FOF side, of course, would pledge to use the TCY side's files if they get up and running. And we'd pledge to add some roster-related rules to keep the college graduates heavily involved.


Sound fair?

[QuikSand]

By the way... I don't mean ot cast this so much as "us" and "them" -- if a TCY career gets going, I expect I would get the files and chip in as much as is welcomed.

[QuikSand]

Just seeking to keep this alive... we've gotten a little bit of info over in the dynasty thread, but hopefully will see some more come Monday. Doesn't seem to be anything brewing with the TCY side at all, though.

[QuikSand]

Uh, bump, or something.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by QuikSand
QB -
Backs -
Receivers -
O Line - Swaggs
D Line - Bee
Backers - albionmoonlight
Secondary -
Special teams - TBA (QuikSand, for now)


Fritz, as OC, has given some input on the various offensive skill positions - so we have something to work with. I did a quick once-over with the secondary, but nothing in much detail.

If anyone out there is interested in joining this exercise, the dynasty thread is where the real discussion is now... but we're by no means overflowing.