FOFCL: The basics #1 Actual or fictional players.
 

GrantDawg suggested we start with the very basics and go from there. The question is:

Do we start with actual players or fictional players?

Please type in your response and vote for one or the other. Thanks!


My vote is for fictional.

Fictional.

Fictional.

actual

Fictional

actual

fictional

fictional*



*I don't mind chipping $2 in for Vegas Vic, but I aint splitting even one real NFL player's salary with anyone.

actual

Fictional.

Fictional.

I can play with either but would rather use real, but ficitional are fine also.

Changing vote to:

Real

fictional

Always the damn underdog.

Actual.

Fictional.

Actual

actual

Abstain. I'm good either way.

11-7 in favor of Fictional at this point...

Fictional (although I am quite fine with either).

cr

"Fictional" appears to be heading for a victory here, and I think that's a good thing. As QuikSand has aptly pointed out in his past dynasties, fictional players come without any pre-conceived notions. It allows for greater game immersion, and with the X-factor you won't be subject to watching players like Charlie Batch winning league MVP honors.

Let's do a little math here. 53 players per team, 32 teams. That's just shy of 1,700 players in the league, not counting free agents.

Having to wade through 1,700 players before the inaugural season, particularly under a set of circumstances where things are moving along at a set schedule, isn't my definition of 'immersive.'

The word 'tedious' comes to mind, though.

actual

Preferring that only to make the start up easier.

Actually, I think that would be a very good definition of immersive. If you are not immersed after doing that, when would you be? I would say this errs on the side of too immersive.


Fictional.

I think there is a flaw in your argument. The total number of players drafted does not equal the number of players you would have to "wade" through. As one team owner you are only going to make 53 picks, and most likely we would only be able to manage 10 or so rounds of an actuall draft, if that. So you will most likely only have to evaluate players for 10 or fewer picks. How many players will you actually evaluate for those picks? Who knows? 40? 50? 100? My guess is that early on people would look at the best overall players available and then look at a few specific positions they'd like to target. So to say we'd have to wade through 1700 players is a little overstated.

Also, using actual players might help some, but I would imagine we would use a full X-factor which would make the players a little less familar.

Also, if we use actual players, does that mean you aren't going to look through them anyway?

Dola -

I'd probably prefer fictional, but really don't care which is chosen.

Fictional

fictional.

if we don't use fictional players, I'll quit

fictional

Can I change my vote to real? ;)

no

I am going to have to ask you for some identification, son.

here's my identification

*finger*

Well we have 17 fictional votes, so it looks like fictional is the choice.

I'll jump on the fictional bandwagon, because I like to be on the winning team.

Didn't say that. But if we're using actual players, as you mention, there's already at least some familiarity there. Yes, an X-factor would change things some, but it still puts us ahead of the 8 ball in terms of getting ANY evaluation done.

Yes, I'll give you that it does add to the familiarity and probably makes the evaluation a little easier and quicker. I just wanted to point out that it wasn't quite as extreme as you presented. The familiarity just doesn't seem like it will make a huge difference.

Of course it looks like this point is moot now anyway.

You made me so happy by not saying mute, as is internet custom :)

Irregardless, my team will be dominate after they turn things around 360 degrees and go nucular on every one.

One of my pet peeves too. The word is moot. Rhymes with boot. Simple enough. :)

Supposively the league is voting to ban nuclear weapons at the stadiums. I guess they didn't axe your opinion.

LOL, I hope you weren't making fun of nuclear, the incorrect pronunciation.

Awwww MAAAN!!! I didn't even THINK of Nuculer.

It's nucular, Lisa, NUCUUUUULAR...

splunge

Too bad, its a slam dunk there.