The FOF Draft (and a suggestion)

[Dutch]

I do believe WR is the most valuable position in the game and, maybe surprsingly, I think that most people *DO* realize that. Last season in the CCFL, I offered 3 1st rounders to three different people and was rejected outright and without hesitation because they desperately wanted to retain the services of their Top 10 WR's)

So, having said that, the problem I see is that the value of Top-5 draft picks will continue to go through the roof. And newcomers will still be eyed by the FOF hawks and some hawks will "play dead" in order to gain those must desired top draft picks.

We love to say that FOF Logic does not equal Real Football Logic

Drafting in the top 10 has always been a covetted goal in FOF MP. Perhaps it's just time to give up on the reverse order snake draft (Real Football logic) and just go with a fully randomized draft (FOF logic). I'm sure it would be too much to ask Jim to do, but I think a simple patch to the game that offered randomized draft orders would be a huge boost to MP leagues by eliminated the need to tank and seriously degrade the value of trading for newcomer's draft picks.

Thoughts?

[JesterBlaze]

I personally think my all-time record is of highest importance so "playing dead" is to be dead already since those losses are recorded.

If the value continues to go through the roof then it must ultimately prove worth it for the trend to continue. The only way to prove worth it is to get wins, removing you from top-5 next season. This seems the way it was always intended. I don't see the value of the WR position connecting to randomizing the draft order.

[Disturbed]

I would be 100% behind this.

A random draft order would be great to see.

[QuikSand]

Random draft order sounds kinda appealing, until suddenly the guy who's crushing every one of my leagues suddenly lands picks 1.1 and 1.3 and 1.6 by random draw. Without even having to work for it by trade-raping some hapless owner.


I think the real "big change" to make is just to emasculate the player pool. We have had experimental leagues that did this to some degree, maybe it's time to do it again. Take every WR/QB rated over a certain level, or with a "giveaway bar" greater than a current level, and eliminate them from the draft pool. Put all those left tackles and cover corners and so forth back into play as the "best guy available," give the guy trying to run an offense other than "send your BPR deep and see what happens" and maybe we get closer to actually playing some football.

[TRO]

What about eliminating the draft and make them free agents?

[Subby]

What about eliminating the draft and make them free agents?
Tried that and it didn't really work. People love the draft!

[aston217]

Random draft order sounds kinda appealing, until suddenly the guy who's crushing every one of my leagues suddenly lands picks 1.1 and 1.3 and 1.6 by random draw. Without even having to work for it by trade-raping some hapless owner.


I think the real "big change" to make is just to emasculate the player pool. We have had experimental leagues that did this to some degree, maybe it's time to do it again. Take every WR/QB rated over a certain level, or with a "giveaway bar" greater than a current level, and eliminate them from the draft pool. Put all those left tackles and cover corners and so forth back into play as the "best guy available," give the guy trying to run an offense other than "send your BPR deep and see what happens" and maybe we get closer to actually playing some football.

I agree with this.

And I had heard there were some leagues with no draft and all FAs...sounds disappointing! Drafts are awesome.

[Nemesis]

Also, what about the team that finishes 1-15, and can't land top, uncontested, talent required to be competitive, because they have to draft in the middle of the draft?

[Ben E Lou]

Well, the underlying issue is that, relative to the NFL, the top 5-10 picks in any given FOF draft are *FAR* more likely to pan out as stars. You don't have to be all that good at drafting in FOF to get a VG player in the top 10. It's well nigh automatic. That (along with the lack of players, fans, and media getting pissed) makes tanking a much more attractive proposition in FOF than in real life.

But I suspect the "fix" to make the draft more "realistic" might turn off more people than the good it would do to MP. I strongly suspect that if top ten picks in FOF were as non-sure-things as in real life, many people would absolutely hate it.

To a few other points...


Yes, FOWL was a no-draft league. All but the worst 224 draftees were in the FA2 pool.
Subby's comment about it "not working" needs to be clarified. It "worked" in the sense that it completely eliminated all incentive to tank. It "worked" in the sense that less-savvy owners of potentially bad teams weren't able to make the huge mistake of trading away future first round draft picks.
The problem with FOWL wasn't so much the system as with the FOF MP universe of potential GMs. There simply weren't enough people willing to play without a draft to keep the league remotely close to full. The system itself worked great and accomplished pretty much exactly what it was intended to accomplish.

[gstelmack]

FWIW, if we wanted to try experiments with the draft order, the order is right there in the binary save file. I could probably write a utility that would randomize the draft order, or do a snake draft, or do an NBA-style lottery among the non-playoff teams. Would certainly make trading future picks more interesting, and maybe even make future picks more valuable.

[aston217]

Really though, lopping off the top 10, maaaybe 15 if you want to get real aggressive about it, players from the draft pool should make multiplayer drafts pretty interesting.

You still have the chance to get very good players at the top, but it isn't like a "Well, dang. Here is an obvious super-stud, there is an obvious super-stud, there's another one! I'll just sit at #8 and see which one comes down to me."

I think that is much more effective than any order mixing up would be. I don't think a snake draft format is particularly enjoyable. That's when you want to give teams a (fairly) level ground no matter what their draw of picks is, but I don't think that is the issue. The issue is the talent at the top. Teams who do poorly SHOULD get good draft compensation. It just should not give them such a clear-cut advantage.

[Warhammer]

The question is, why is the team doing poorly?

[aston217]

Because they can't do well?

[Ben E Lou]

Because they can't do well?Not always. Some people tank. Or at the very least, they do not go all-out to win.

[Kozure]

So we can't trade for the stud player, so we want to figure out a way to circumvent the issue by randomizing the draft order. I see this as just another way that great GMs can rip off lesser GMs, but now the great GMs don't even so much have to send a pm.

But at least now the lesser GM doesn't have to be publicly embarrassed by giving away a top pick. :)

Don't we want GMs to stop giving away the players we all know make our teams great? We shouldn't be able to put 13-3 teams that score 500 points a season on the field every year. We should have to go through a bad year or two or three like everyone else. If that means we can't always get the players we want with out late 1st round picks, so be it.

[Kozure]

Not always. Some people tank. Or at the very least, they do not go all-out to win.


Yes, people do tank, but fixing it this way creates an entirely different problem for those that do poorly and aren't tanking.

[JesterBlaze]

It might sound harsh to some but tanking can be countered the same way it is in real life: drop the worst 3 or so GMs each season and anyone who lost x amount of games more than their average, or the previous season, or something.

Trades can be veto'd by a trade committee of veterans or trading future picks can be limited to time spent in league, current record or power ranking, or with the new trend "total WR points" of some meaningful sort.

[Ben E Lou]

Yes, people do tank, but fixing it this way creates an entirely different problem for those that do poorly and aren't tanking.
Agreed. I'm not a proponent of this suggestion. As stated above, I personally would like a less certain draft. That increases the near-non-existent value of late-round picks, decreases the value of early picks, and at least somewhat eliminates the incentive to tank. But I'm not sure how good such a system would be for FOF.

[isaccoubaldi]

I like to see implemented in a MP league a simple rule: for nothing in the world a GM can trade a first round pick (present or future).
He can use the other round (2-7) if he want to buy/sell a player.

[johnnyshaka]

The problem with FOWL wasn't so much the system as with the FOF MP universe of potential GMs. There simply weren't enough people willing to play without a draft to keep the league remotely close to full. The system itself worked great and accomplished pretty much exactly what it was intended to accomplish.[/LIST]

I'm not sure that's entirely true...FOWL is very quick paced (IIRC, essentially a full season in one week, real time) and I know I bowed out after a while simply because I just couldn't keep up.

Personally, I loved the concept of on having FAs. It didn't really eliminate the draft, because you had to still evaluate all the rookies, it just evened the playing field.

[Ben E Lou]

I like to see implemented in a MP league a simple rule: for nothing in the world a GM can trade a first round pick (present or future).
He can use the other round (2-7) if he want to buy/sell a player.Or simply: no trading future 1sts. The problem doesn't come when someone deals away a current first that they know is high. The problem is typically people overestimating their team in the future and thinking "oh, that pick will be 1.20 or so" and then it ends up being 1.3 or so.

[Ben E Lou]

I'm not sure that's entirely true...FOWL is very quick paced (IIRC, essentially a full season in one week, real time) and I know I bowed out after a while simply because I just couldn't keep up.Oh sure, I get that. But most of the feedback I got in asking people to join wasn't "too fast for me." It was "no draft? Forget it."

[Kozure]

Agreed. I'm not a proponent of this suggestion. As stated above, I personally would like a less certain draft. That increases the near-non-existent value of late-round picks, decreases the value of early picks, and at least somewhat eliminates the incentive to tank. But I'm not sure how good such a system would be for FOF.

Didn't think you were a proponent. I just was just posting what I was thinking.

I just believe the draft as it is now is the best system. We should have to pay through the teeth for the 1.1 pick when a stud receiver is there to be drafted.

The biggest issue, to me, is GMs that trade away future first rounders after they just went 2-14 with little to no chance of improving their record by the time that pick comes up.

I've seen GMs trade their entire teams away to rebuild and then trade their own first the next season to draft a safety at 1.31. I just find it incredible that it happens and see little to do about it.

[jzicc]

Would simply maxing the Volatility of the 1-20 ranked players produce enough of the variability to do what is needed?

[Ben E Lou]

Would simply maxing the Volatility of the 1-20 ranked players produce enough of the variability to do what is needed?I don't really think so. Let me check something....

[Kozure]

Would simply maxing the Volatility of the 1-20 ranked players produce enough of the variability to do what is needed?

No, I doubt it would.

[Ben E Lou]

I don't really think so. Let me check something....
Yeah, it's as I suspected (and this is gives yet another data point as to why you should simply ignore volatility when drafting).

There were 45 players drafted in the CCFL this year with volatility of 80 or better. None of them got the VSOD. The one guy in the entire draft class who got the VSOD had 29 volatility. *shurg*

[Ben E Lou]

Actually that's 81 or better. I searched on volatility>80. Good gracious. I've long ignored volatility when drafting. But even I didn't realize it was *that* insignificant. Running the same query on IHOF and WOOF databases...

[Ben E Lou]

IHOF had 46 draftees with 81 volatility or higher. 2 draftees got VSOD. Their volatilies: 50 and 59. So, yeah, not bothering to check WOOF.

[Kozure]

Ben, what about volitility booms? Any stats on that? I'm figuring it's about equal at vsod.

[Ben E Lou]

Volatility booms are a little harder to tease out. (Busts are easy to find via query because they have negative current in TC.) By inspection, it looks like two guys in the CCFL had volatility booms (and not normal unmasking). They had 81 and 87 volatility. My take on this has always been:

1. VSOD and VSOL are both very rare.
2. They are more likely to occur with high volatility.
3. But they are so rare that in the huge majority of cases, ignoring the number is the right move.

[dzilla77]

Volatility booms are a little harder to tease out. (Busts are easy to find via query because they have negative current in TC.) By inspection, it looks like two guys in the CCFL had volatility booms (and not normal unmasking). They had 81 and 87 volatility. My take on this has always been:

1. VSOD and VSOL are both very rare.
2. They are more likely to occur with high volatility.
3. But they are so rare that in the huge majority of cases, ignoring the number is the right move.
I am not sure I agree with the statement that VSOD and VSOL are very rare - particularly for rookies.

I had the opportunity to get two post TC files this year in CCFL. First file, which was run incorrectly and had to be redone, had 2 rookies VSOL (a mid first round pick and a later round pick) and one high first round pick do nothing (no change in future). Second file, had the 2 rookies that VSOL'ed, one VSOD'd, the other no change the the high first rounder had a slight bump (4 points) in future. The mid first round guy had a volatility of 29.

If they were very rare, I shouldn't have seen two VSOLs in one TC and then a (likely) VSOL and a VSOD in the second one. Either that or I don't know what a VSOL or VSOD really is.

[dzilla77]

Also, shouldn't we fix the root cause, which is that there is such a disparity on the value of certain positions (e.g. WR) over others and that the talent level drops off too quickly in the first round. I realize that those are programming fixes, but I don't really see a draft lottery or some other change to the draft order fixing the issue.

[aston217]

Not always. Some people tank. Or at the very least, they do not go all-out to win.

I know - where I was going with that is...

And why do some people tank to get top draft spots? Because it is so easy to get obvious megastars. So why not reduce that incentive by lopping off the top 10-15 players of a draft?

I think that is a good equalizer if it's possible to do. I agree with you that a less certain draft is really the way to go.

[Ben E Lou]

I am not sure I agree with the statement that VSOD and VSOL are very rare - particularly for rookies.

I had the opportunity to get two post TC files this year in CCFL. First file, which was run incorrectly and had to be redone, had 2 rookies VSOL (a mid first round pick and a later round pick) and one high first round pick do nothing (no change in future). Second file, had the 2 rookies that VSOL'ed, one VSOD'd, the other no change the the high first rounder had a slight bump (4 points) in future. The mid first round guy had a volatility of 29.

If they were very rare, I shouldn't have seen two VSOLs in one TC and then a (likely) VSOL and a VSOD in the second one. Either that or I don't know what a VSOL or VSOD really is.I don't recall all the details of that particular draft, but what I know is this: in any given draft class of 224 players, you'll typically only see 1-3 VSOD and 1-3 VSOL. That's less than 1.5% each way, even on the high side. At seven picks per year, that's one in either direction per team roughly every five seasons. Maybe our definitions of "very rare" are just different. To me that's not enough to take it into account as a meaningful factor.

[dzilla77]

I don't recall all the details of that particular draft, but what I know is this: in any given draft class of 224 players, you'll typically only see 1-3 VSOD and 1-3 VSOL. That's less than 1.5% each way, even on the high side. At seven picks per year, that's one in either direction per team roughly every five seasons. Maybe our definitions of "very rare" are just different. To me that's not enough to take it into account as a meaningful factor.

I think I still have the original file before you re-ran it, if you are interested. Let me know and I'll send it to you.

My point was more about the fact that I saw it with two players in the first file (both VSOL) and two (I think) in the second file with one of those being the same except a VSOD. Maybe I just had bad luck, bu 2 out of 10 picks seems a little more than 1.5% (although I haven't run the stats).

Also, what is your definition of VSOL & VSOD?

I do agree with you that volatility because of its VSOD risk is not really a significant factor.

[Dutch]

Traditional Draft
PRO's
The poorest teams can get top 10 draft picks.

CON's
Trade hawks prey on poor teams in order to get into the top 10.
Tankers push poor teams out of the way to get into the top 10.

Randomized Draft
PRO's
Future 1sts have equal trade value

CON's
Playoff teams will get into the top 10
Poor teams will slide out of the top 10

Pick your poison, I suppose.

[MIJB#19]

Or simply: no trading future 1sts. The problem doesn't come when someone deals away a current first that they know is high. The problem is typically people overestimating their team in the future and thinking "oh, that pick will be 1.20 or so" and then it ends up being 1.3 or so.How about the reverse? I've sold plenty future 1st round picks at 1.5 value, that ended up being 1.15 or 1.20.

[Nemesis]

How about the reverse? I've sold plenty future 1st round picks at 1.5 value, that ended up being 1.15 or 1.20.

I somehow have to think you're in the minority there.

[dubb93]

I think a good rule for a full league with known tankers would be to fill the league up with 36 owners or so and drop the 4 worst record(2, 3, 8, take your pick) owners in the league each year and give them to the 4 that were sitting out.

Would discourage tanking pretty well as you lose the team and would let the 4 new owners take a shot establishing themselves in the league with good draft picks. Not having actually played MP in 2007 I'm not sure what the turn out is in alot of leagues or if this is even feasible, but at a distance seems it could serve as a deterrent to tanking. IRL if you tank you get fired. In a way this could bring that aspect to FOF.

[Yoda]

The problem with a lot of these suggestions, is that it seems like it's looking to protect owners from themselves. To protect their team.

So, why not franchise players for them as well. While we are at it, when teams miss any important stage- we need to make sure a file is submitted for them. Should also do a check in thread once a week to make sure people are paying attention.

A good number of the problems faced in leagues are from the fact things occur in FoF that don't occur in the NFL.

Firing owners doesn't work because people have different ways they like to build teams. And honestly, I don't want to be in a league where I know that I could be out because of a few bad dice rolls.

Protect owners from themselves... by limiting their ability to trade off draft picks.... but let them miss stages, miss free agency, no resigning their players... there are a whole lot more things that go along with that.

I missed 1 free agency stage in the CCFL 6 seasons ago and still really haven't recovered from it.

[Dutch]

Yes, good point, we have to all just play the game, ultimately and somebody will win and somebody will lose. That's the whole idea. There are lots of good points in this thread, actually, that make me question the wisdom of making trades more generic in nature. I'm certainly not suggesting we equalize everything down to generic dice-rolls though. Just trying to work through the reality that there are great delta's between the top and the bottom of pretty much any 32-mbr league.

[Joe]

Traditional Draft
PRO's
The poorest teams can get top 10 draft picks.

CON's
Trade hawks prey on poor teams in order to get into the top 10.
Tankers push poor teams out of the way to get into the top 10.

Randomized Draft
PRO's
Future 1sts have equal trade value

CON's
Playoff teams will get into the top 10
Poor teams will slide out of the top 10

Pick your poison, I suppose.

Lottery.

[NawlinsFan]

Yes, good point, we have to all just play the game, ultimately and somebody will win and somebody will lose. That's the whole idea. There are lots of good points in this thread, actually, that make me question the wisdom of making trades more generic in nature. I'm certainly not suggesting we equalize everything down to generic dice-rolls though. Just trying to work through the reality that there are great delta's between the top and the bottom of pretty much any 32-mbr league.


....and those of us that inherit one of those bottom feeders have a hard time remaining positive and enjoying the game/league while trying to rebuild when the team has been devastated. I took over a team almost 3 seasons ago with almost no picks in my first off season, a squad that had been ravaged from a lack of oversite, unbalanced trades and it's finances non-existent. In these 3 seasons I have won 6 games and based upon my current roster and draft availability I am looking at the likelihood of needing at least another 5 or more seasons just to get to the point that I can have a reasonable season while the league powerhouses continue rolling along and enjoying the fruits of those that let their teams be ravaged. It's frustrating, but it's not the games fault.

[gstelmack]

....and those of us that inherit one of those bottom feeders have a hard time remaining positive and enjoying the game/league while trying to rebuild when the team has been devastated. I took over a team almost 3 seasons ago with almost no picks in my first off season, a squad that had been ravaged from a lack of oversite, unbalanced trades and it's finances non-existent. In these 3 seasons I have won 6 games and based upon my current roster and draft availability I am looking at the likelihood of needing at least another 5 or more seasons just to get to the point that I can have a reasonable season while the league powerhouses continue rolling along and enjoying the fruits of those that let their teams be ravaged. It's frustrating, but it's not the games fault.

Eh, I took over Scranton in WOOF in cap hell, having to trade away some good players to get under cap and rebuild the team. First season was 0-16, second was 4-12, then 7-9, and now 10-6 and a wildcard berth. The biggest luck was that second season had a lot of parity and I ended up with 1.2 as a 4 win team. Keep Ben's positional value chart in mind, be willing to trade away key players that are earning too much for better value, and pay attention to game planning and adjusting to what your team does well (I REALLY want to throw downfield, but don't have the personnel or cohesion to do it).

[Ben E Lou]

Eh, I took over Scranton in WOOF in cap hell, having to trade away some good players to get under cap and rebuild the team. First season was 0-16, second was 4-12, then 7-9, and now 10-6 and a wildcard berth. The biggest luck was that second season had a lot of parity and I ended up with 1.2 as a 4 win team. Keep Ben's positional value chart in mind, be willing to trade away key players that are earning too much for better value, and pay attention to game planning and adjusting to what your team does well (I REALLY want to throw downfield, but don't have the personnel or cohesion to do it).Well, not to pimp WOOF or lessen the great rebuilding job you've done, but my observation is that it's significantly easier (and more realistic) to rebuild in a league with a heavy cap reduction than in one where it's rare that anyone of consequence hit FA, and it's rare that anyone trades away talent out of cap necessity. You've mostly rebuilt through good drafting (and of course I'd argue that you're better at that than at least 85-90% of FOF MP owners.) But you've been able to augment that with some quality starters acquired via trades from people forced to make moves because of the cap (myself included in that group. ;)) That's an additional important rebuilding quiver in the arrow that just isn't available to owners who aren't in one of the three cap-reduced leagues.

[gstelmack]

The cap setting is a good point, there were actual FAs to be had.

[Tempest56]

To add another element into the mix - I took over Michigan in the DFL three seasons ago, after it had been empty for two seasons and had been bottom-feeding for nine (no playoff appearances and no records better than .500). By the second season they were a playoff-caliber team and within a game of the divisional lead. Same thing again in the third season.

I also joined the CFL at about the same time - the Albany Crows - in a similar situation. The Crows have two playoff trips in 26 seasons. Three games left in this one, and it looks like they're getting trip #3 this year.

I'm no genius either (these are my first two MP leagues ever), and I'm pretty sure it's not because of any salary cap reductions as it's across two leagues. My point is - turning a team around isn't a 5-10 season journey, even if you're starting from a horrible mess. If a know-nothing like me can pull it off twice, maybe it's more what you're doing and less that it's super-difficult?

[scorp]

maybe this won't work, but what if any league concerned set a limit on the # of WR's a team can have that possess :
a certain overall value, or BPR bar# or whatever the league feels makes the WR so good.

That leaves more WR's for the rest of the league and should help balance things out some. If a team is at the limit of stud WR and wants to trade up, then he must trade away a WR or can't move up to get him. or can't draft the WR if somehow he falls.

Maybe a bad idea but it's different anyways.

[JesterBlaze]

Firing owners doesn't work because people have different ways they like to build teams.

But all should be aimed at winning.

If you pick up a bottom-2 team you should get a 3 year contract. It's not really even tanking if the 2-14 team wants to stay there. Better be out of the bottom 3 before year 3 though.


Just trying to work through the reality that there are great delta's between the top and the bottom of pretty much any 32-mbr league.

of most any football league anywhere. Patriots, Colts... Lions, Bengals... there's no clear cut long-term delta here? :) Sometimes GMs (not saying you) think the "ebb and flow" is guaranteed and they just have to wait their time.

[aston217]

Firing owners doesn't work because people just want to play this game for fun. It's not that serious of a matter that we need to start kicking people out of leagues for not doing well in a game.