You haven't gotten much positive feeback on this idea I guess, but I'm sure people will be watching with interest. You've laid out some really ambitious stuff here, and I like your ideas a lot. I'm thinking the only thing I'd have to say at the moment was that you might want to simplify things as much as possible at this stage. You seem to be starting off with a focus on getting a decent sim model going and I think that's smart. I like your other ideas on charisma and fame and the like, they're great, but I'd start with producing a program that played out a football game, and produced semi-realistic results. The rest of that stuff just seems a long way down the line. It might feel like you want to lay this massive foundation for something that can be built up into this amazing game, but for now I'd just work on some solid code that takes two teams, plays four quarters of something resembling football, and produces some number of stats.
I think if you don't compartmentalize the project like this then you'll just get overwhelmed and lose focus. Just start with certain aspects and go from there. I think your idea of building separate utilities to complement the game later is sound as well, fits this same basic model of focusing on something you can finish, so you can make some progress through smaller accomplishments.
My other thoughts, I'd try to avoid semi-redundant or ambiguous ratings like "dexterity" and "coordination," as well as breaking strength up into upper and lower categories. One of the great things about a game like FBCB is its simplicity in its ratings categories, and it works so well only partly because basketball is a sport with a more or less universal skillset. A text-sim for me is largely an imaginative endeavor, and I really only need to know "just enough," and not how many pull-ups a guy can do with one arm. There are much better ways to add personality to a player than to create a lot of ratings categories. You seem to have a plan of keeping the number of ratings smaller, as opposed to FOF's 200 or so for every player (though most aren't visible, or applicable, obviously), and I think that's smart. The more I think about it even, the more the basic few that the evil empire EA uses in their ncaa games are enough. I'd personally rather the complexity and nuances in results come from offensive or defensive schemes, and not from my QB's ability to throw 11-20 yard passes. Basically, I would keep individual ratings simple, leave the engine open to a variety of modifiers and such based on schemes or other factors, but don't over categorize things, I just don't feel it adds that much.
Keep posting, I'll be following. And if you need help testing, or bouncing ideas around, consider me willing to help. And good luck.
