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

[Pyser]

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







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

Which essentially means no game planning.

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

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

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

Or if not, say so.

[gstelmack]

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

[Izulde]

I would definitely be on board with this.

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

[Ben E Lou]

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

Leveling the MP Playing Field? (AI Game Plans in MP) - Front Office Football Central (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=84316)

I'll add to my comments there is that a big con to a GM-only league is that you'd have to be very careful if you drafted a big creeper. When this guy (http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/ihof/ben/playercard.php?playerid=23452) was 28/39, for example, he might have been cut by the AI if I'd had five other WRs on the team with higher ratings.

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

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

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

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

[Marmel]

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

[Pyser]

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

Leveling the MP Playing Field? (AI Game Plans in MP) - Front Office Football Central (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=84316)

I'll add to my comments there is that a big con to a GM-only league is that you'd have to be very careful if you drafted a big creeper. When this guy (http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/ihof/ben/playercard.php?playerid=23452) was 28/39, for example, he might have been cut by the AI if I'd had five other WRs on the team with higher ratings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Julio Riddols]

I like it.

[Izulde]

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

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

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

This sounds good to me.

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

[Joe]

In.

[Pyser]

This sounds good to me.

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

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

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

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

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

[Prinzar]

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

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

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

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

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

[Pyser]

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

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

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

[Julio Riddols]

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

[claystone]

I might be interested.

[Disturbed]

I would definitely be interested in this.

I hate game planning.

[Ben E Lou]

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

I was wrong.





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



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

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

http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/Ben%20E%20Lou/ai_game_plans.png

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

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

[Ben E Lou]

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

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

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

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

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

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

either way ben's post is disheartening

[Julio Riddols]

So Nerfing WR's will be needed.

[Pyser]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

anyone else have thoughts?

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

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

[Pyser]

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

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

[Ben E Lou]

i guess my other thought is that, so what if the game becomes a race to collect wr's?I think leaving it up to the coaches could be a simple way to tone down the WR dominance, while making other positions fairly important too (like defense as a whole).Hmmmm.... ;)



how is that any different from every other non-nerfed league in existence?I think this is the bottom line of what I think about this:

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

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

[Pyser]

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


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


RULES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pyser]

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

doesnt seem too hard to me.

[AlexB]

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

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

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

[Marmel]

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

[Pyser]

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

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

good point.

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

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

[Izulde]

I figure this is worth a shot if nothing else.

[Prinzar]

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

Also they need to be nerfed still

[Prinzar]

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

[gstelmack]

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

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

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

[Julio Riddols]

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

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

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

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

[Pyser]

there you go then

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

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

[claystone]

there you go then

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

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


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

[redfox000]

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

[gstelmack]

How about allowing teams to gameplan defense?

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

[PackerFanatic]

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

[Pyser]

quick update:

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

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

[gstelmack]

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

[Pyser]

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

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

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

it was pretty damn fun in the ccfl

[Izulde]

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

[Pyser]

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

[Pyser]

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

[stevew]

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

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

[Izulde]

Has this gone dead in the water?

[Pyser]

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

[Julio Riddols]

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

[Mike Lowe]

I love this idea as I always like to create some sort of separation between GM and coaches (since there are coaches in-game already).

What about slowing things down though and still just "simming" a few games a week...perhaps even just on Sunday's?

I'm in a daily OOTP league right now, and while it seems a bit slow, it's incredible the amount of time and aging that league gets to do--it just flows beautifully.

A league such as this would really make coaching hiring that much more important.

2012 roster file? I'm interested...just waiting for elicense to resend me my license!

[claystone]

Ok, we might have a commish for the league. Still working on the details, but we should have it resolve soon.

Most likely we will have this league up and running soon.

[Mike Lowe]

Any more thought on my questions/comments above? I'd love to help out, although can't commish. Sounds like we got one though!

[Mike Lowe]

Is there a way to lock this to AI, or can the commish just have the setting "Let coach set gameplan before each game" selected.

What about depth charts? It might even be fun to let the coach do that too haha

[Pyser]

i think the commish can set it to update the game plans before every game.

as for the rest everything is up to the group.

[Pyser]

as the thread title says, this league is now a go. so start claiming teams, and lets figure out how to run it:

-real or fictional players
-free for all in free agency to start, or 25 round draft (with scouts taking over after that)
-a name
-any house rules, etc

i'll take the pats.

[Pyser]

forgot to add a league requirement is that this moves fast. minimum 4 sims a week. could go as high as 6. also negotiable.

[Mike Lowe]

Man, that's fast. If we do real NFL teams with real players, I'll deal with it. I don't really care which team I get...

As for free agency, if we use real teams/rosters, I'd say just let the game determine who signs where, just give enough time for that first sim so that all GM's new and newer will have time to submit.

[Mike Lowe]

Another cool feature would be to have the actual draft picks match...so Cincy would have Oak's picks for Carson Palmer, etc.

I'll try my luck with Detroit (my home team).

[Julio Riddols]

I'll take the Bengals. Any kind of way everyone else wants to set up the league is fine with me.

[weinstein7]

I'll circle the wagons and take the Buffalo Bills.

My understanding is that the commissioner may not actually be playing in the league. If this is correct, this could be an opportunity to try out something I've been interested in, which is basically for the commissioner to take on more of a "dungeon master" kind of role - adjusting draft classes and such - to make things more unpredictable. No idea if the hypothetical commissioner would take to take this amount of interest, and what others think, of course.

[Julio Riddols]

DMGMFL?

[Pyser]

official team list:

Team ID
0 Arizona
1 Atlanta
2 Baltimore
3 Buffalo - Weinstein7
4 Carolina
5 Chicago
6 Cincinnati - Julio Riddols
30 Cleveland
7 Dallas - Claystone
8 Denver
9 Detroit - Mike Lowe
10 Green Bay
31 Houston
11 Indianapolis
12 Jacksonville
13 Kansas City - Scorp
14 Miami - Izulde
15 Minnesota - Schnick24
16 New England - Pyser
19 New Jersey
17 New Orleans
18 New York - Southpaw330
20 Oakland - Normie32r
21 Philadelphia
22 Pittsburgh
23 San Diego
25 San Francisco - Dave731
24 Seattle
26 St. Louis
27 Tampa Bay
28 Tennessee
29 Washington

[Pyser]

DMGMFL?

whats it stand for?

[Mike Lowe]

Are we going with real NFL players from that file that's floating around for 2012? It's pretty solid actually.

I'll take the Lions as indicated earlier.

[Pyser]

we could use real players, but with a dispersal draft i dont know how much it would matter. plus with our speed most guys will be gone in a year or 2 (real time), and in game time in 12 seasons.

basically, i dont care, is what im saying :)

[claystone]

I'll take Cowboys

[claystone]

Rules Suggestion:

1. Nerf QB/WR
2. Lets use Cap Reduction like in BFL and CMFL Leagues
3. 4 game sims a week
4. Real or Fictional players is fine with me.
5. 25 round draft and then have the game pick the remaining.
6. Use the anti-tanking rule.
7. No trading 1st round picks (we can talk about this)

Guys add your 2 cents.

[Southpaw330]

I'll take the Giants.

[Pyser]

a cap crunch is non-negotiable. i should have mentioned that. thats the only rule that must be in place to make the league interesting (and no franchising players along with it).

[Izulde]

I'll grab the Dolphins.

[Izulde]

My own thoughts re: fictional vs. real - if we're going to start off with the 2012 rosters or with historical rosters, then real players.

Otherwise, if it's a dispersal draft, we might as well just go fictional. Nothing more obnoxious to me than a dispersal draft of real players - completely ruins the sense of historical continuity.

[Julio Riddols]

I'm down with a fictional draft. I think its probably the easiest way to do things.

[Mike Lowe]

I vote for real players and no draft:

1) It allows for both NFL history to work its way into league
2) We end up creating our own fictional league anyway (best of both worlds)
3) It creates more of a challenge to have to build/rebuild a team to your liking
4) Ugh, sitting through a huge 25-50 round draft...yeah no thanks

I'm out if we do a draft of any sort or go fictional. The other rules I'm fine with. :)

[Normie32r]

I'll take the Raiders. Love the idea of a GM only league.

[Pyser]

GMFL is the name. website to come today.

my vote for set up:

1-minimum 25 round dispersal draft
2-fictional players
3-6 sims a week. since there is no gameplanning, in season tweaks will only be injury related, so it's not like theres a whole lot of strategy
4-increased injuries. maybe 150
5-anti tanking lottery (worst team doesnt automatically get #1 draft pick)


house rules that are non negotiable:
-cap crunch (25-30%)
-minumum 3 year free agent contracts in all pre-draft free agency stages
-no franchising players
-must start a rb rated 30 or higher current, OR 40 or higher future (we can figure out exact numbers as a group, these seem like easily hittable guidelines to me)

[scorp]

So all gameplan stuff is rex, and what position everyone plays is rex?
do you get to choose 3-4 or 4-3 defense etc. and do you pick who plays each position. Rex puts the wrong guy in LB spots in a 3-4 very often.

As GM you draft a player to play a certain spot or role for the team, so do we chose that?


interested in the league, Miami is gone so KC I guess.

[Mike Lowe]

I'll stick with Detroit even if we go fictional. I really really really hope we go NFL real rosters to start with and build from there! I want to win with my Lions finally haha

[weinstein7]

So all gameplan stuff is rex, and what position everyone plays is rex?
do you get to choose 3-4 or 4-3 defense etc. and do you pick who plays each position. Rex puts the wrong guy in LB spots in a 3-4 very often.

As GM you draft a player to play a certain spot or role for the team, so do we chose that?


interested in the league, Miami is gone so KC I guess.

I think you'd be allowed to set depth charts as well as playing time, just not the game plan. I would hope so anyway...

[Pyser]

So all gameplan stuff is rex, and what position everyone plays is rex?
do you get to choose 3-4 or 4-3 defense etc. and do you pick who plays each position. Rex puts the wrong guy in LB spots in a 3-4 very often.

As GM you draft a player to play a certain spot or role for the team, so do we chose that?


interested in the league, Miami is gone so KC I guess.

you still set depth charts. im pretty sure you still can choose your defensive scheme, too.

[weinstein7]

I vote for real players and no draft:

1) It allows for both NFL history to work its way into league
2) We end up creating our own fictional league anyway (best of both worlds)
3) It creates more of a challenge to have to build/rebuild a team to your liking
4) Ugh, sitting through a huge 25-50 round draft...yeah no thanks

I'm out if we do a draft of any sort or go fictional. The other rules I'm fine with. :)

This would be my vote as well, though I don't feel quite as strongly about it. My old single-player routine was always to start with an existing franchise and then impose various house rules on myself going forward. I just couldn't "connect" to fictional set-ups.

[Julio Riddols]

I'm cool with starting with 2012 rosters if those are available.

[dave731]

I would like the 49ers if they are available...

[Schnick24]

This sounds great. I'll take the Vikings if available, otherwise, any team is fine.

[claystone]

I'm also cool with using real players, (2012 Roster) with no draft. You can start the league quicker.

As for the other rules that Pyser added which was the same as the ones I wrote as well, I'm all for them.


1-25 Round Draft/ or some kind of draft with fictional players (EDIT)

2-6 sims a week. since there is no gameplanning, in season tweaks will only be injury related, so it's not like theres a whole lot of strategy

3-increased injuries. maybe 150

4-anti tanking lottery (worst team doesnt automatically get #1 draft pick)

5-No Trading 1st round picks


House rules that are non negotiable:
-cap crunch (25-30%)
-minumum 3 year free agent contracts in all pre-draft free agency stages
-no franchising players
-must start a rb rated 30 or higher current, OR 40 or higher future (we can figure out exact numbers as a group, these seem like easily hittable guidelines to me)

I added to the rules.

[Pyser]

updated team list:


Team ID
0 Arizona
1 Atlanta
2 Baltimore
3 Buffalo - Weinstein7
4 Carolina
5 Chicago
6 Cincinnati - Julio Riddols
30 Cleveland
7 Dallas - Claystone
8 Denver
9 Detroit - Mike Lowe
10 Green Bay
31 Houston
11 Indianapolis
12 Jacksonville - Abe Sargent
13 Kansas City - Scorp
14 Miami - Izulde
15 Minnesota - Schnick24
16 New England - Pyser
19 New Jersey
17 New Orleans
18 New York - Southpaw330
20 Oakland - Normie32r
21 Philadelphia
22 Pittsburgh
23 San Diego
25 San Francisco - Dave731
24 Seattle
26 St. Louis
27 Tampa Bay
28 Tennessee
29 Washington

[Mike Lowe]

How is the nerfing done in a solo league? What's the procedure? It's new to me.

Also what is a cap crunch?

Goodness I hope we end up w real undrafted rosters.

[Ben E Lou]

I should probably share this here. Claystone talked me into commishing this league, but I just sent this email to pyser and him after reading the recent posts here:

(slightly edited here for some clarifications)

Pyser/Claystone:

I'm writing to touch base. Pyser and I had talked about me setting up a randomized custom player pool and randomized custom draft files for this league, but now there's talk of doing "real" rosters. It never in a million years occurred to me that a "GM" league would start with pre-set rosters. It makes absolutely no sense at all not to let people start out a GM league by defining their rosters via a dispersal draft or free agency, and I'll probably bow out as commish if that happens. I could get excited about doing some fun custom coding on a fictional player pool and fictional draft files, but using a canned "real" roster set would suck any interest I have in doing this away. It would feel like nothing but a job that I'd enjoy less than my real job.

--Ben

One other comment: now that virtually everyone understands the importance of WRs, I see little/no reason to nerf QBs and WRs in a dispersal-draft league. They get spread around properly. The CMFL is showing that to be the case in the early going. Actually league-wide ypa and QB rating there are lower than the first season of the BFL (where the QBs and WRs were nerfed.)

[claystone]

Actually Ben is right about the CMFL league which i'm part of. Let's keep to the Draft. It is a "GM" Only league and when you are a GM only league, you are picking your players to make your team. That is the whole purpose of creating a league like this.

The rules that have been put together for CMFL league would work perfect for this league. Most of the rules have posted above are in the CMFL league.

[claystone]

Here are the rules from the CMFL League

RULES

Player Pool: Fictional, FOF-generated
Teams: NFL Default
Cities, Stadiums, and Fan Loyalty Equalized
Cohesion/Chemistry On
League Name: GM League (GML) or GM Only League (GMOL)
Web Site:
Injury Setting: 75, since we'll be simming quickly
Sims Per Week: TBD
Cap Increase Range: 0 to 99.
30% Cap Reduction via lost cap room
House Rules:
FA1:2-12: all deals to UFAs must be a minimum of 3 years. During all other stages, any length is fine.
No franchise tag.
No LB may be position-switched more than once in any given season.
Take no more than 70 players to TC.
Each team must be under the league salary cap at the conclusion of FA1:12, and again by the time Regular Season Week 1 is simmed. Failure to do so will result in league mandated cuts and a possible loss of draft pick(s). Teams are allowed to be over the cap at other times in the offseason, preseason, and regular season.

Not House Rules--The catch-all is "if it's allowed in FOF and not specifically banned here, then it's allowed in the GML." So, the following are not house rules, but I want to be clear that these standard FOF rules are in place.

Sign and trade is illegal, as per FOF rules.
All renegotiations are allowed, as per FOF rules.
You can't trade a draft pick that doesn't exist yet in the game.
Anti-Tanking rule (Lottery)
No trading First round picks.

[Pyser]

i used to HATE fictional player leagues, but as other MP leagues i've been in have matured, and as i've dabbled in leagues that started up with fictional players only, i've really come around, and think most people will find that it doesnt make as big a difference as they think. especially if you hand pick most of your team, you will be invested.

that said, about claystone's rules, i have a few changes:

1-increased injuries please, not decreased. 150. less injuries and no gameplanning would make the regular season a very boring 3 weeks of waiting.
2-add the rb rule, (30 current or 40 future rating rb must start)
3-completely against the no trading first round pick rule

also, question for ben. if we equalize all stadiums and financials, is it possible to make all stadiums have the maxed out # of luxury boxes? since coaches will matter more in this league, meaning financials will too, if we are evening everything out, it should be at the max settings i think, money-making wise.

[Mike Lowe]

I agree about keeping injuries high and would prefer 200.

Why just a RB starting rule? This seems either too exclusive or too restrictive. Why would someone do this anyway aside from tanking?

I too am against restricting trading of 1st round picks.

Why are we equalizing markets, etc.? That seems silly, unnecessary, and very unrealistic. If that's the case, we should all play in domes too with perfect weather. Sorry, that's just lame. Is it dynamic at least?

I'm 50/50 on the tanking rule, but it does seem cool. I just think teams will continue to try and tank if they want because picks 1-3 are always more valuable than pick 4.

[claystone]

Pyser,

I asked Ben to set up the website forum for the league. He's believe he might be able to get one up by tomorrow, if not Monday. We can have everyone sign up there once it is up.

[scorp]

I prefer fictional players historic drafts suck, in a league were you want to draft you winning ability you don't want everyone fighting for a few scraps at the top of the draft

[Abe Sargent]

I have not played multiplayer FOF at all, and I think this would bea fun way to do it, so I'm in.

I'd like my Jaguars ,please.


I'm down for whatever, but can someone explain what the role of the anti-tanking rule is, does, and why it would be needed in a sim where we are only GMs?

[Izulde]

I'd be fine with fictional players - just not real players with a dispersal draft.

[Pyser]

I have not played multiplayer FOF at all, and I think this would bea fun way to do it, so I'm in.

I'd like my Jaguars ,please.


I'm down for whatever, but can someone explain what the role of the anti-tanking rule is, does, and why it would be needed in a sim where we are only GMs?

there are still ways to tank (mostly depth chart settings)

basically, the anti-tanking rule is that the top 10 draft picks or so are entered into a lottery. in the ccfl, you also get more cap room per win for all non playoff teams. not sure we need that part here though.

[Pyser]

Why just a RB starting rule? This seems either too exclusive or too restrictive. Why would someone do this anyway aside from tanking?

Why are we equalizing markets, etc.? That seems silly, unnecessary, and very unrealistic. If that's the case, we should all play in domes too with perfect weather. Sorry, that's just lame. Is it dynamic at least?


the rb rule is because ben found in testing that by carrying only rated 10 rb's or worse, it forces the ai to throw way more, and that puts the stats out of whack.

as for equalizing markets, try and think of it more as you are an owner/gm. it's on you to make sure your team makes money, your team's style works with the stadium, etc.

that said, ben, if we are equalizing all stadiums, i do think giving every team the max # of luxury boxes would be good. everything is equal to start, but if we dont do that, it gets out of whack pretty quickly.

[Abe Sargent]

there are still ways to tank (mostly depth chart settings)

basically, the anti-tanking rule is that the top 10 draft picks or so are entered into a lottery. in the ccfl, you also get more cap room per win for all non playoff teams. not sure we need that part here though.

Not sure I'm a fan then. For two major reasons, one self-serving, and one not. I would want as accurate a sim as possible within the structure of the league. Plus, as this is my first multiplayer league, I'm likely to be in the back at the beginning, and I wouldn't want to finish a season 1-15 and draft 7th. I imagine that I would consider finishing last and not getting the top pick worse than finishing 7th or 8th and getting the top pick from luck of the draw.

[Abe Sargent]

Actually, the more I think about it, the more a lottery seems like its pro tanking, not anti tanking. Allow me to explain.

Let's suppose you take the worst 8 teams, and then do a lottery for picks 1-8. That would be the bottom 25%, right? Now, if that is the case, then the best spot to be in is the 8th worst team. You cannot have your draft position decreased from what it would otherwise be, and you have a 7 in 8 chance of improving it. In fact, finishing 8th is a huge prize. If my team is looking like its 10th or 12th or 15th, I may want to tank to try and hit 8th or 7th in order to get a shot at the top pick. All I have to do is get to 8 and I have a shot.

You can substitute any number in for 8 obviously, top 10, top 5, whatever. If I am outside the bubble lottery, then it behooves me to move to the bubble so that I can try to get at the top.

Plus, the bubble hurts the top ranked team and rewards the 8th, 5th, or 10th ranked team innately, and that just seems counter intitie

Hey, I've not played multiplayer with FOF before (other ones), and so you are more experienced than me, and I'm in no matter what. It just seems odd. I'd rather us have a different way to punish people who tank intentionally by starting a 3rd string QB over a good one or something.

[PackerFanatic]

I've been in a number of MP leagues and I have honestly never had an issue with tanking for draft picks. Have others really had that big of an issue with it where a rule like this would be necessary?

I am still deciding if I want to join yet...but I just thought I would throw my two cents in :) Go Pack!

[Nemesis]

Actually, the more I think about it, the more a lottery seems like its pro tanking, not anti tanking. Allow me to explain.

Let's suppose you take the worst 8 teams, and then do a lottery for picks 1-8. That would be the bottom 25%, right? Now, if that is the case, then the best spot to be in is the 8th worst team. You cannot have your draft position decreased from what it would otherwise be, and you have a 7 in 8 chance of improving it. In fact, finishing 8th is a huge prize. If my team is looking like its 10th or 12th or 15th, I may want to tank to try and hit 8th or 7th in order to get a shot at the top pick. All I have to do is get to 8 and I have a shot.

You can substitute any number in for 8 obviously, top 10, top 5, whatever. If I am outside the bubble lottery, then it behooves me to move to the bubble so that I can try to get at the top.

Plus, the bubble hurts the top ranked team and rewards the 8th, 5th, or 10th ranked team innately, and that just seems counter intitie

Hey, I've not played multiplayer with FOF before (other ones), and so you are more experienced than me, and I'm in no matter what. It just seems odd. I'd rather us have a different way to punish people who tank intentionally by starting a 3rd string QB over a good one or something.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but who would have the mentality to "lose just enough to get into 8th position on the draft board"? That'll be like 6-10 or 5-11 ish. No sense in it.

Usually the "game changers" are in the first 1-3 picks of the draft, and people who tank, generally will aim for the top 1-3 spots or so. With a lottery, there's no guarantee that they'll get there, thus having them aim for a better goal.. like a winning record.

[Abe Sargent]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but who would have the mentality to "lose just enough to get into 8th position on the draft board"? That'll be like 6-10 or 5-11 ish. No sense in it.

Usually the "game changers" are in the first 1-3 picks of the draft, and people who tank, generally will aim for the top 1-3 spots or so. With a lottery, there's no guarantee that they'll get there, thus having them aim for a better goal.. like a winning record.

You are not misunderstanding me. Some people need concrete examples for for the math so let's create a hypothetical.

Let's say its week 15. The top 8 spots in the draft are given in a lottery. Three games to go an my team is 13th worst team in the league in the standings with a 5-8 record. If I finish 13th, then I get the 13th pick. If i try to win then i could end up anywhere from 5-11 to 8-8. which could move me to the 17th or 19th spot. Why not tank to go to 5-11 or 6-10 and get somewhere into the 6-8 spot to get that lottery pick which may end up a lot higher? The math is very good that I could wind up with a much higher draft pick, and even if I don't, what do I have to lose but the 13th overall pick?



Suppose its Week 16 and the league has just the top five picks given out by lottery. My record is 5-9 and I'm in 7th worst in the standings., If I tank, and lose both of my last games, I should finish 4th or 5th based on tie breakers. Even if I lose and drop to the third spot I still have a 40% chance of getting a higher pick and a 40% chance of lower - the lower one would still be better than my current pick.



Suppose its Week 17 and I am at spot #6 with a 5-10 record in a league that has 5 spots for draft picks in a lottery format. There is no sense in me trying to win, in order to perhaps get to 5. If I get to the 5, then i can move up 80% likelihood and to take a 20% shot at the 1/1 spot.


There are three scenarios wherein having a lottery looks really enticing to a GM outside of it, becuase of the potential to move to the top spot.


Consider this, the worst possible team cannot win with a lottery - they can only break even. The team at the X spot, where X is how far back the lottery goes cannot lose with a lottery, they can only win and break even. As you can see, i you are near the X, it really behooves you to get to or under it.

[Izulde]

I have to agree with Abe here. After all, in the NBA, you're either in the lottery or in the playoffs, so there's an incentive to not be in the lottery.

[Ben E Lou]

You guys who have never played in an FOF MP league are probably a bit naive about how much people want to lose late in the season. ;) Abe, even without a lottery, some 5-9 teams usually want to go 5-11, not 7-9, so they can get pick 10ish instead of 15ish. (FOF draft picks are far more "sure-thing" than NFL picks, so there's often a meaningful difference in moving up just a few draft slots.) Even without a lottery, GMs who aren't tanking will sometimes express disappointment over winning late-season games and therefore "hurting their draft position." That said, without game planning being available as a way to tank, I suspect that tanking would be considerably easier to manage without a lottery than in other leagues. Here's a pretty simple rule set:


COMPETITIVENESS
All owners are expected to make a good-faith effort to compete. "Tanking" (putting forth little/no effort to win) to improve draft position is a no-no. Generally speaking, unless there's a promising backup who could use development, teams are expected to start their best players. The following actions are always considered acceptable and not in violation:

a player injured to any degree may be benched until healed
when a team has clinched a playoff berth, that team may rest its starters if it so choosesBeyond the above, whether a team is in violation of this clause is up to the sole discretion of the League Administration, so if you're in doubt about a course of action, ask before you undertake it.

Penalties for being in violation of this clause may include loss of draft picks, being dropped down in the draft order, or any other penalty deemed fit by the League Administration, up to and including expulsion from the league.In short, non-playoff teams would basically be expected to start their starters unless they have a solid young backup. I would think that this would take care of most tanking issues in this environment.

Working on getting the forum set up now.

[Prinzar]

I'll take the Jets if they're free, or anyone else if they're taken. It makes no difference really.

Would really like to see tanking punished by draft picks being lost. It happens subtly in most leagues I'd guess because gameplans are so easy to manoeuvre, but this league is easy to spot so I'd vote a draft pick loss immediately and being auto'd for the remainder of the season
If you wanna swap out for a backup, post in a forum and expect an objection if it's suspicious

[MizzouRah]

I never gameplan either in any of my solo careers, so I'm in.

I'll take St. Louis if they are still available.

[Ben E Lou]

Forum is created. Please register and continue discussion there.

General Manger League Forum (http://www.fof-gml.com/forum/forum.php)