Announcing an FOF college football multiplayer league!

[Passacaglia]

Okay, so I've been in a league based on real NFL players and real NFL teams, one based on fictional players and fictional teams, and one based on real teams from 1970 and real players from 1970. So why not one based on college football? Here's the post I made on the temporary board, which no one responded to:


Okay, so here's an idea I just came up with today, but the more I think about it, the more I like it, and think it's not too crazy after all. I call it the "We Want TCY2 League" but even the name can be changed if people like something else more.

Basically, it's a college football league. It obviously won't have 100+ colleges -- it'll have 32. Divisions can be conferences, or if a conference happens to have a lot of teams in the league from the same conference. Conferences would most likely have to be perfectly equal, so I don't think we need to be too picky about things like that.

Here's some ideas I've been tinkering with:

It seems like in most leagues I'm in, the draft is just entered manually. I figure that leaves a lot of room for flexibility. Instead of a draft, we could have some kind of recruiting process, and I'll enter in the results. The player with the highest adjusted grade will be 'drafted' first, and I'll just have the teams trade their draft picks, then enter in the choices such that the right team gets the right guy, per our recruiting system.

No trades, no free agency. These aren't part of the college game, so they're not needed. The only expection I can see is that you can cut players, and another school can pick them up (i.e. offer them a scholarship).

4 years, and you're out. The only exception being redshirting. There are 7 inactive spots -- 7 redshirts.

So, with no free agency, we're basically talking about players on their rookie contracts, or making the league minimum, or RFAs. This means that the cap should be no problem at all.

It's unfortunate that FOFC isn't up now, for me to post it there. I planned on waiting, but I got so excited about the idea, that I couldn't wait. Anyway, is anyone interested? And if so, do you have any ideas on it?



Here's some more ideas I batted around:

Even as I typed "7 redshirts" yesterday, I knew that I didn't really mean we could only have 7 redshirts. I just meant you have room for 7 guys on your inactive roster. Teams should feel free to abuse 'injured reserve' to their liking, or keep him on the active roster and hope he doesn't play. As long as the guy doesn't play (even as a kick holder) in the regular season or playoffs, he can be redshirted.

Medical redshirts can be part of the game, for sure. I see no problem with "6 to play 4" as long as the guy is listed as "out" when we carry over to the next season. Or maybe it should be when preseason is over, and we start the regular season.

I figure that recruiting can be pretty simple, or we can jazz it up. At first, I envisioned five stages, where we each have 100 points per stage to spend on players as we see fit, and at the end of the 5th stage, whoever has the most points gets him. It doesn't have to be 5 stages -- since recruiting will take the place of FA, the draft, and late FA, we have a lot of time to work with, while still having a faster offseason than real leagues. But then I thought we could make distance a factor -- maybe that for every point you allocate to a player, you receive 1/x points toward him, where x is the distance your college is from his hometown (and 0=1/3). Also, each rookie will have a college listed. This college could be considered his 'first choice' or 'idolized' school, and that school will get some kind of bonus, like maybe receving 1.25 times as many points as they spent, or something. Also, I thought a little bit about trying to have recruiting happen while the season is going on. We could use TCY imports, and that way, we can at least go by stats for a while, and we'll know where everyone is from, and what their 'first choice' will be. I haven't used TCY imports that much, so they might just be pretty unpredictable. Maybe we can do some recruiting stages during the season, then some more after the season is over, and we can get a good look at them through the draft preview.



Some more thoughts:

Obviously, the quality of the league will be pretty low. There will be very few guys above 50. I think that will make the game pretty interesting.

You can't just select what formations you want to run, like you can in TCY. So if you want to run certain formations a lot, you'd better be sure your QB knows them (which I believe you can find out before they're drafted).


I'll get the sign-in sheet started in this post, too.

1. Passacaglia -- Michigan Wolverines
2. Thul -- (spot reserved, no school chosen yet)
3. EaglesFan27 -- USC Trojans
4. cartman -- Texas Longhorns
5. George W Bush -- Georgia Bulldogs
6. MrBug708 -- Tennessee Volunteers
7. Franklin Noble -- Arizona State Sun Devils
8. Sublime -- Boston College Eagles
9. JeeberD -- UTEP Miners
10. Gallifrey -- Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets

[Passacaglia]

I figure people can just sign up, pick a college, and we'll try to align things as best we can. Maybe have a Big Ten conference, Pac Ten conference, etc. If things get dicey, we can even create an SWC or something, too.

[Passacaglia]

TIMING

The way I see it, even though I like the eNFL's three-per-week schedule, since we don't have these players as long as we would in an NFL-based league, we might as well go with just two-per-week.

[Eaglesfan27]

This sounds intriguing.. I want the USC Trojans :)

[cartman]

hmm, I'm intrigued as well. I'll claim the Texas Longhorns, either in the Big 12 or SWC
:D

[Passacaglia]

Rock on! Welcome EaglesFan27 and cartman! Thanks for the word of flexibility on the placement of Texas. I figure the decision will wait until we have 32 teams, then the picture will be clear. A team like Texas has flexibility, as it can be in a Big 12 or SWC, and if someone takes Notre Dame, I figure they can be in a Big Ten conference, or an Independent, or even a Big East, since I believe they sometimes take Big East bowl bids.

[Joe]

give me the Georgia

[Passacaglia]

I've been thinking of a couple ideas for starting the league:

1. Start with a normal file, then we'll do 4 sets of recruiting. This will give us a chance to actually choose the players on our teams, so we don't have to adjust it to our style. The disadvantage is that I'd have to sim 4 seasons. I can take instructions on what they want to do with each player recruited (start them, redshirt them, backup, etc.), but it might get a little hairy. Also, when we look at records and stuff, those 4 years would screw things up.

2. Maybe I could create a league file filled with players that have 4 or less years of experience, and we can do a pref draft with that.

3. Or, we can just do a straight up pref draft, then get rid of all the players with 5 or more years of experience.

[Passacaglia]

Okay, I've created a pretty good player file, which has 1758 players, which is what the game recommends. The only thing is, none of them have names yet, and they all have the same height and weight -- 5'8", 175. QBs have a scramble frequency evenly distributed from 1 to 99. If that scramble frequency is bigger than 66, they're listed as roll-out -- otherwise, it's 50/50 whether or not they're short passing or roll out. Players are born between 81 and 84, depending on their year, although that can be easily changed, depending on what year we start the league. Freshmen are 20% developed, sophs 40%, juniors 60%, seniors 80%. The players should be distributed according to the info on the help file, as to whether or not they are roster fillers, superstar, etc.

If anyone wants to have a look at the file, PM me.

[Passacaglia]

The file I created looks pretty good. One issue is that the list of last names I found was in all caps, while my list of first names was not. I don't think that's a HUGE deal, but we can figure something out if people really have a big issue with it. Also, I might need to bump it up higher than 1758, since there are some players with normal looking last names -- I figure that maybe there aren't enough players, so the game adds more. Maybe 32*60=1920 players? I'll go 2000 just to be safe.

But the hard stuff looks good. Everyone is 4 years or less experience. The best QB is a senior, rated 60/66, follwed by a 47/68 junior, and a 26/38 junior. I think that's a little low even for our league, but there are 10 other QBs with future ratings above 50, all freshmen, so there's room for development. And other positions look better.

Here's the number of players at each position with current ratings 50 or higher:

QB -- 1
RB -- 3
FB -- 10
TE -- 6
FL -- 2
SE -- 4
LT -- 1
LG -- 2
C -- 6
RG -- 5
RT -- 3
P -- 25
K -- 7
LDE -- 6
LDT -- 5
NT -- 7 (not counting a 49/87 freshman!)
RDT -- 5
RDE -- 8
SLB -- 11
SILB -- 7
MLB -- 10
WILB -- 6
WLB -- 11
LCB -- 5
RCB -- 0
FS -- 0
SS -- 6

[MrBug708]

I'll take Tennessee

[stevew]

How are you planning to graduate everyone?

[Passacaglia]

I noticed a problem with scramble frequency correlating with preffered QB style, a holdover from when I thought the file should have had a number from 1-100 for scramble frequency, when it really wants 0-9, a number which describes the player as being from roster filler to rare superstar. Now about 40% of the QBs should be rollut (the ones with scrambling frequency 2 or higher), and the rest are 50/50 short or long passes.

I also upped the number of players to 1920.

Also, jersey numbers are completely random -- they don't match positions at all. They can be changed by the coaches, though.

[Passacaglia]

How are you planning to graduate everyone?

Either cut them, or don't renew their contract. They'll hang around FA for a while, but after a while where no one signs them, they'll go away. There shouldn't be cap issues with this, for three reasons:

1. You won't have to deal with losing pro-rated signing bonus, since most of these guys will still be playing out their rookie contract.

2. There's really no need to renegotiate someone's contract. If a player's contract runs out before 4 (or 5) years, just let them become an RFA, and then you're the only one who can bid on them anyway.

3. Coaches will be conscious of this, and won't bother to do something stupid like extend a player to a 5-year deal, when they will only be able to play one year.

[Cuckoo]

I'm interested in this. If it takes form, hold Oklahoma for me. I'll enjoy going up against cartman in the burnt orange. :)

[Cuckoo]

DOLA

I've never done an FOF multiplayer as yet so I may need tutoring.

[Passacaglia]

No problem, Cuckoo!

Since this league will have a lot of crazy rules, it might be a little difficult if you've never done any FOF multi player leagues before. On the other hand, all the rules will make it MUCH different from any other FOF league, so there might be a lot of stuff you don't need to worry about.

I'm currently in two leagues now (I was in 3), so I have quite a bit of FOF multiplayer experience, enough that I feel pretty confident being a commish, and helping people out with problems. Also, one of the commissioners of the HFL, Thul, will be in the league, and he'll be around to help me out. So I think that with the experience we have so far, we'll be able to answer any problems you (or any other multi player newbies) might have.

Thanks for joining, guys! Hopefully, sign-ins will pick up when the work week starts, and when more people realize the board is up!

[Cuckoo]

I'm going to pull back my request for Oklahoma. Sorry Passacaglia. I really only have time to do one multiplayer league, and I think I'd rather do one with NFL teams right now.

I'll definitely keep my eye on this though. It looks like an interesting idea. Good luck.

[Cuckoo]

DOLA again.

You posted about the same time I did. :)

I just wanted to say that it's not the rules or anything that made me change my mind, just that I know that I can't commit to more than one league right now, and I don't want to take up a spot where someone can do more. Again, I'm sorry. I read your post and responded before I really thought about it.

[Passacaglia]

No worries, Cuckoo! I have some neat ideas for the waiting list, which I might as well mention now. If a team vacates, and you're the next one on the waiting list, you have some options:

1. No response -- you are then removed from the waiting list.
2. Take over the same team that the vacated coach left.
3. Take over a new team. To do this, you'll have to 'build a program.' This would involve cutting all the players from the old team, then recruiting new ones yourself. You can offer scholarships to any unsigned players if you want. And maybe we'd give some kind of bonus in recruiting points.
4. You can pass, staying at the top of the list, but letting someone else go before you. You might want to do this if you're hoping to build a program in a certain division.

I think it was more clear this morning, but it's just an idea. If people think it's too crazy (like most of my ideas), it doesn't have to happen.

[Passacaglia]

Once you've signed up, you might want to think about color schemes. You can use the TCY spreadsheet made by shkspr as a guide, if that helps. Also, if your college isn't in a city listed by the game, you might want to choose a nearby city, and have it renamed. For example, Ann Arbor and Ausin are in the game, so they're fine. Norman isn't, so if there's an Oklahoma coach, they'll need to choose a city, and we can rename it. Also, Pasadena isn't in the game. I don't know if you want USC to be located in LA or Pasadena, but if it's Pasadena, we'll have to change something.

[Eaglesfan27]

I'd prefer for it to be located in LA (at the coliseum) :)

[SFL Cat]

Only problem I see with a league like this is the inability to run offenses like the option.

[SFL Cat]

dola

Also, are you simply going to force teams to release players once they've used up their "elgibility"?

That seems like it could develop into a bookkeeping nightmare, plus a glut of "free agents" that won't be available to sign with anyone.

[cartman]

Of course, Pass, you know what this means, don't you?

The day that all of this is set up, Jim is going to release TCY2 with multiplayer support...

:D

[Passacaglia]

dola

Also, are you simply going to force teams to release players once they've used up their "elgibility"?

That seems like it could develop into a bookkeeping nightmare, plus a glut of "free agents" that won't be available to sign with anyone.

Exactly. I don't think it will be THAT much of a nightmare. According to the FOF help file, it is our job to retire players who shouldn't be part of the league, or some such. My belief is that after a year or two, those players will just go away.

The option does bug me. I'm not sure exactly what to do about that. Maybe we can have a lot of QBs with high scramble frequency? It won't be a 'true' option, but at least it will get QBs running. I can get QBs to have a higher scramble frequency in the intial pref draft file, but that wouldn't help the future drafts. Maybe I can created draft files, too. Today got me to be pretty good at these things, so creating one per season might not be so bad. Besides, it might help the league get better if we have more players in the draft files, anyway.

And I thought about TCY2, cartman. Initially, I planned to wait until there was a game release, but as I thought more and more about this, I thought it was too cool to wait, and I wanted to do it now.

[JeeberD]

Sounds really intriguing, but I don't think I have time for a third multiplayer league. I'll be keeping an eye on this, though...

[Passacaglia]

No problem, Jeebs! We don't want the likes of UTEP competing for the national championship with Michigan and Tennessee, anyway! Just kidding. Any school choices are welcome!

I did some tests on getting my QB to run more. I grabbed a guy with scramble freq. in the high 90s, and passed every down. The best I could get was 14 runs per game out of him. However, by using the "recommended" gameplan, he still ran 5-10 times, which isn't bad. It's no option, but it might do. I haven't tested this, but I wonder if you can run a decent wingback formation by lining your RB up at WR, and bumping your reverse frequency to 100.

[fantastic flying froggies]

Sounds really intriguing, but I don't think I have time for a third multiplayer league. I'll be keeping an eye on this, though...I'm just like Jeebs...I would love to join, but a 3rd league would probably be too much for me to handle/enjoy...

I would have loved to coach Army though...I'll be following, and who knows, maybe I'll join at some point...

[Joe]

how would recruiting be handled? If in the game recruiting= the draft, then the worst teams will end up snagging the best "recruits," when in real life, the opposite would be true.

[Passacaglia]

It won't be that in the game recruiting=the draft. We'll handle recruiting ourselves, and I'll input the results so that the players all get on their proper team, as if they were drafted. The most heavily recruited player will be drafted first, and so on.

The way I expect to handle recruiting: There will be five "weeks," and in each week, each team will receive 100 points, to spend on players as they wish. Want to put all 100 points in that stud QB? Go ahead, but you'll have no points left to spend on the rest of your team.

I thought about trying to model GWB's statement, that the better teams should get the better recruits, by giving better teams more than 100 points. But with only 32 teams, I don't think we need to model this. As much as I love a good game of 'asshole,' I don't think it will really work here, and with so few teams, I don't want to make some of them at a disadvantage so soon. We'll all just be the 32 'best' college football teams, playing on equal ground.

[MIJB#19]

It won't be that in the game recruiting=the draft. We'll handle recruiting ourselves, and I'll input the results so that the players all get on their proper team, as if they were drafted. The most heavily recruited player will be drafted first, and so on.

The way I expect to handle recruiting: There will be five "weeks," and in each week, each team will receive 100 points, to spend on players as they wish. Want to put all 100 points in that stud QB? Go ahead, but you'll have no points left to spend on the rest of your team.

I thought about trying to model GWB's statement, that the better teams should get the better recruits, by giving better teams more than 100 points. But with only 32 teams, I don't think we need to model this. As much as I love a good game of 'asshole,' I don't think it will really work here, and with so few teams, I don't want to make some of them at a disadvantage so soon. We'll all just be the 32 'best' college football teams, playing on equal ground.Just a suggestion:
You could base the 100 points system on the record of each team for the past season to represent the reputation of the school. For example, keep 100 as the 8-8 score and adjust by 5 (wild guess) per additional loss or win. Playoff teams could get a bonus for playoff game wins.
Maybe to represent power houses, let the all time records also influence the prestige/reputation. This could be used in the initial recruiting too.

[Passacaglia]

I could do that, but I feel like that's something that would apply better if there were 100+ teams. With only 32 teams, I don't want there to be a lot separating the haves from the have nots. I see this as representing the league including only the teams actually vying for the national championship.

On the other hand, if people decide they want there to be some sort of separation, we can give it a try.

[Passacaglia]

Just a bump for the morning crowd. I know that a lot of people are already in leagues, and that people are thinking TCY2 might come out with multi player anyway, but in the meantime, I think this will be a lot of fun!

[Passacaglia]

Also, for those of you who have signed up (or wish to), any suggestions are welcome! Even you, MIJB! I didn't mean to dismiss your idea -- I think it might be really interesting, and I figure we can take a vote on it, once we've got our 32 teams in place.

[Sublime]

I'm interested and this would be my first Multiplayer league, but i think i have a good handle on how everything works (though i might need some direction on some things). I'll snag up Boston College.

[JeeberD]

Aww hell, go ahead and sign me up. My UTEP Miners need to be in the same "conference" as those evil Sun Devils. I have a bone to pick with their coach... ;)

Maybe ASU and I can be in the Old School WAC?

[Passacaglia]

Heh, that's funny. I did threaten FN with putting ASU back in the WAC. We'll see how the teams pan out, and maybe an arrangement like that will be a necessity.

Thanks for caving in, Jeebs! ;)

[Passacaglia]

And Sublime, no worries about it being your first multi player league! We've got a lot of vets here, who will be able to help you out. Good luck!

[Passacaglia]

Does anyone know anything about creating player files? I put in 1920 players, and it seems like the game itself is still creating some of its own. Anyone have any ideas why that is? How many players should I have in one of these?

[Gallifrey]

I have created player files, and yes, if you do not meet the min requirement it will fill in the rest.

[MIJB#19]

Also, for those of you who have signed up (or wish to), any suggestions are welcome! Even you, MIJB! I didn't mean to dismiss your idea -- I think it might be really interesting, and I figure we can take a vote on it, once we've got our 32 teams in place.No problem, I just read the thread and thought I'd suggest something for a workable "weighted recruiting points" system.

FWIW, the IHOF is too sacred to me to be able to get involved in another FOF game, whether it's single or multi player.

[Passacaglia]

Thanks, Gallifrey. What do you mean by the minimum requirement? Is there a minimum requirement for each position, or is it just a total? I figure that my 1920 is evenly distributed among the 27 positions, but that leaves only 1920/27 = 71 running backs. Since there are 32 teams, and for some reason, each team has 4 RBs on roster, I need 128. Right?

So when you've created player files, were they evenly distributed among the positions? I'm trying to avoid any imbalance, so I think I might not want to do that.