FOF House Rules Idea - "Action Points"

[QuikSand]

Well, along with many of you, I am still intrigued by the long-term struggle to find a set of "house rules" by which to play solo FOF and maintain a long term career that is:

challenging - I want to face true adversity and difficult decisions
interesting - I want to avoid complete tedium, and enjoy playing
rewarding - I want to feel like my decisions matter to the team's success

We have had a series of conversations, probably some associated with every version of this game, about how to accomplish these varied goals. I suspect a forum search on the word "grail" will pop up at least one such thread.


Anyway - I had an idea recently. I am an occasional board gamer, and I own (and sometimes play) some of the newer-breed board games coming primarily out of Germany. If your board gaming is limited to Monopoly or Scrabble or other old favorites, then you have missed out on a real renaissance in the field. Anyway, specifics aside, I have an idea that might be effectively poached from many of these new board games and dropped into the solo FOF milieu.

The concept is that of "action points" (or something similar) that is drawn from a number of different recent board games - I'm sure it originated somewhere, but I don't know who got the ball rolling. In any event -- in a board game context, the idea is basically than on any turn, you have a budget of points to use to do various thing... depending on the game, you can use your points to do things like draw a card, move a token, play a card, or whatever else is in the game, The various actions each have an assigned cost, and basically it's up to you to decide how to spend you allocated budget most effectively.

Anyway... I think this concept might be useful in the FOF context, though I haven't though it through a ton yet. But the concept would be that you have, for an entire season, a finite number of "action points" (or whatever, maybe there's a more football-y sounding word to use here) to spend on doing the various things that you would do to help your team. Then there are costs associated with the things that you would do... so, to put in an offer for a free agent player might cost you 2 points, and to put in an extension to one of your own players costs you 1 point, and to make a trade within the current year's draft costs you 2 points... and so on and so forth.

I see two possible advantages of this approach:

#1 - one of the things I hate about super-tight house rules is that I tend to lose "control" of the decision-making... but here, I'd be the one deciding exactly what my team ought to be doing, so I think that would help me feel like it was my decisions making the difference

#2 - this could become very flexible based on skill level - if the framework were set up properly, you could just ratchet the annual budget of action points up or down to fit your needs. Maybe one player would get a long term challenge out of playing with an annual budget of 30 points, another might drop that to 20 and then become sufficiently challenged.


Open to thoughts...

[QuikSand]

My first thought here is actually a potential sticking point.

My main quandary in playing FOF solo right now is that I *enjoy* drafting, and I'd really prefer to be able to run my own draft every year. However, if I am allowed to draft 7 players every season and keep them, I know that I'm going to be able to do a better job than the AI teams overall, and just from that base of players I'm going to have one of the better teams right away, regardless of doing anything with free agents and so forth. That's tough... I don't know how you get around that problem, but maybe it's possible to do so by applying the points system here.

[QuikSand]

Some random thoughts...

I think it's likely best to keep the "budget" of points and increments pretty manageable... line maybe 20 per season, If the number if big like 100, and there are tons of things that count as 1 or 2 points toward the 100, I would fear the amount of tedium that would ensue.

I also imagine that some long-term decisions might factor into the budget as well... things like "wide open hiring of a staffer = 2 points" versus "offering staffer his requested contract in week one = 1 point" versus "offering staffer his requested contract in week three = 0 points." Once you have hired that guy with a wide open contract, the 2 points would count against you for the duration of that contract, thereby affecting multiple years' budgets.

I also think that "use of the full salary cap" might be something that could count against your annual budget... so maybe you could get bonus budget space for staying below the cap... maybe an extra point for every 5% or 10% below the cap you are able to remain at certain points of the season.

[Warhammer]

Some one has been playing some Torres, Tikal, or Java methinks...

I think you answer your own question to a certain extent regarding the draft. My belief on the draft is that the most advantage is not gained through the first round of the draft, but is gained primarily in the 3rd to 7th rounds (The human knows how to look for gems, whereas the AI picks some shlub.). So, you can assign action points to each round of the draft. You could also assign points to a "Free Draft" (being free to pick whoever you want) or picking with limits (you get to pick the highest rated player at any one position).

I like the idea, it is flexible, you get to pick your spots, but it would be a pain in the neck to setup.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

My first thought here is actually a potential sticking point.

My main quandary in playing FOF solo right now is that I *enjoy* drafting, and I'd really prefer to be able to run my own draft every year. However, if I am allowed to draft 7 players every season and keep them, I know that I'm going to be able to do a better job than the AI teams overall, and just from that base of players I'm going to have one of the better teams right away, regardless of doing anything with free agents and so forth. That's tough... I don't know how you get around that problem, but maybe it's possible to do so by applying the points system here.

Hmmm...

Could you use the point system to make a mini-game within the draft? Have X points for all non-draft things. And Y points just for the draft.

And then make the draft mini-game based on it taking more points to draft guys with things likely to make them creep up. If done well, you might have to choose between doing all your interviews, drafting the best guys in the first rounds, and drafting the best guys in the later rounds.

[QuikSand]

Well the idea here would be to some up with some general weights/prices for the various things, develop that "menu" as a standard thing to do, and then have that become a sort of template for people who are looking for a challenge. Use the standard "action points" menu of things to do, and limit yourself to 40 total point, or 30, or 20, or whatever for your own level of challenge.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Hmmm...

Could you use the point system to make a mini-game within the draft? Have X points for all non-draft things. And Y points just for the draft.

And then make the draft mini-game based on it taking more points to draft guys with things likely to make them creep up. If done well, you might have to choose between doing all your interviews, drafting the best guys in the first rounds, and drafting the best guys in the later rounds.

You explained that MUCH better than I did.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Hmmm...

Could you use the point system to make a mini-game within the draft? Have X points for all non-draft things. And Y points just for the draft.

And then make the draft mini-game based on it taking more points to draft guys with things likely to make them creep up. If done well, you might have to choose between doing all your interviews, drafting the best guys in the first rounds, and drafting the best guys in the later rounds.

Interesting. Not sure how I fell about it personally, but it's surely consistent with the general idea.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Well, along with many of you, I am still intrigued by the long-term struggle to find a set of "house rules" by which to play solo FOF and maintain a long term career that is:

I'm beginning to think you get more fun out of this than the actual game.

[QuikSand]

Possibly true.

[OldGiants]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Hmmm...

Could you use the point system to make a mini-game within the draft? Have X points for all non-draft things. And Y points just for the draft.

And then make the draft mini-game based on it taking more points to draft guys with things likely to make them creep up. If done well, you might have to choose between doing all your interviews, drafting the best guys in the first rounds, and drafting the best guys in the later rounds.

I like this idea, QS.

For the draft, the cost of action points could be based on how many slots you drop down to snag a gem. In other words, taking one of the top ten names remaining on the overall draft board costs 1 point. dropping down eleven to 20 spots costs 2 APs and so forth. Getting the AP allocation 'right' would force some hard choices while allowing for the needed enjoyment of snagging a late round gem.

Charging APs to use your interviews would be good, too. 1 AP per dozen interviews would cost 5 APs if you used all your 60 interviews.

APs could be position specific too. Grabbing a Center late could/should cost fewer APs, IMO, than anaother spot. This does vary by draft, so it might not work.

I would leave the AP pool for everything. That way you would be forced to decide between focusing on the FA pool to sign/resign or foregoing that to have a nice draft.

A list of high AP worthy items would include:

Signing a Mentor;
Signing a gunner/kick holder/long snapper;
cutting a 'bust' before his contract runs out.

I'm sure there are others.

[st.cronin]

QS, I read along with your highlander dynasty, and since you claim to prefer building to maintaining, what about setting it up so its variable based on your wins? For example, if your team goes 12-4, you only get to do ____. But if your team goes 8-8, you can do an additional _____, and if your team goes 4-12, you can also do ____.

[QuikSand]

st c- my real goal here would be to come up with a rule that makes the maintaining itself interesting to me. Not sure about how I feel about tightening or loosening the belt based on success.

[QuikSand]

Okay, I'm trying to get my head around the idea of extra points being spent within the draft. Regardless of whether the points are from the same pool used for the rest of the season, the same concept still applies, I guess -- you want there to be a "cost" associated with doing the various things that we do to get an edge on the computer teams from within the draft.

I'm not sure how to pinpoint that. Maybe something that just ties to the number of red combine ratings or some other proxy of what we mean by a "sleeper" in the draft?

[st.cronin]

interesting /= challenging

So what you're looking to do is map another game (using aps or something) onto the game of "maintaining" that makes the chore of maintaining interesting.

Is this correct?

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by OldGiants

For the draft, the cost of action points could be based on how many slots you drop down to snag a gem. In other words, taking one of the top ten names remaining on the overall draft board costs 1 point. dropping down eleven to 20 spots costs 2 APs and so forth. Getting the AP allocation 'right' would force some hard choices while allowing for the needed enjoyment of snagging a late round gem.

This is another way to go... I guess in theory, when you are going after some sleeper rookie, you are usually *not* going after a guy who is at or near the top of the overall draft board. Need to think about that - whether it creates some kind of "back door" where you'd still get the sleepers you want, but you'd be trading down just to get them higher on the board when you select them.

Worried about both tedium and workarounds here.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

interesting /= challenging

So what you're looking to do is map another game (using aps or something) onto the game of "maintaining" that makes the chore of maintaining interesting.

Is this correct?

Yeah, sort of. I'm sick of seeing my team have a completely full and dominant roster every year, once I get through some initial building phase. Even in my highlander career (where I think my rules are fairly tough) I have one of the top 2-3 roster ratings every single season, even after losing some quality veterans. it's just not fun for me to have that happen - I want to *suffer* if I boot an important draft pick, or if I screw up and let a key FA walk, or the like.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

... that makes the chore of maintaining interesting.

I guess I would tweak that phrase a bit. It's not that I find maintaining a team to be a chore... it's more that I don't find it very challenging to do. Once I have a team full of my own draft picks, I tend to have pretty high quality players at every position, pretty good depth, and lots of creepers. When that's the case, I don't find any of my major decisions to be all that major -- if I blow a top pick, or lose a quality player, or have a big holdout, or a big injury -- my team survives just fine, since I am so much better and deeper than my opponents. Not that my team is a 16-0 powerhouse every year, but I very rarely have the situation where I actually have to do things like alter my gameplan around deficiencies on my team's roster -- it just doesn't happen.

What I *want* is to feel like my team has an ebb and flow. That maybe things come together for a while, and I'm making "go for it" moves to try to win it all for a certain window of time, and then I suffer through a down period after come contracts come back to bite me in the ass, or certain players leave one way or another.

Playing single player, as it is now, I *never* am in a down period. I have some teams that do better than others, but I am absolutely *never* in a rebuild mode and feeling like I can't even compete for the playoffs. That sucks. I want it to be a real challenge to compete, and that's what I think would make the "maintaining" stage more interesting and rewarding.

[st.cronin]

Part of me thinks you're hosed, unless you can find somebody like your daughter to take over roster management and contract negotiation. Part of me was intrigued by the highlander concept, and thinks if it were tweaked to give you more flexibility in lean years, that that might work for you.

That's all i've got.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Part of me thinks you're hosed, unless you can find somebody like your daughter to take over roster management and contract negotiation. Part of me was intrigued by the highlander concept, and thinks if it were tweaked to give you more flexibility in lean years, that that might work for you.

That's all i've got.

Me too, mostly.

[QuikSand]

Here's a first cut of point costs for draft pick usage... not sure if I like it, but I'm trying to keep things simple:

2 – Select a rookie player with more than one red combine
2 – Select a rookie player with more than three red/blue combines
1 - Select a rookie player with one red combine
1 – Select a rookie player who skipped the combine
2 – Select a rookie player not on the top page of position board
1 – Select a rookie player not on the top page of overall board

[cuervo72]

I wonder if the game would be any more challenging if you tried to hide bars. Edit the "165" bitmap so the red, green, blue, and peach bars are all gray. You'd still get overall player ratings, but you wouldn't know where a player's strengths were or where masks might be. Not sure there would be a particular joy in doing it that way, but it might make it more challenging.

[stevew]

hmm, that's a really interesting idea Cuervo.

[QuikSand]

That is interesting.

[st.cronin]

It seems like what you're looking for, QS, is a rule set that forces you to occasionally have to go Atlanta Falcons and start over. I'm not sure that's possible without something really artificial, or without some financial options that I don't think exist in this game.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

It seems like what you're looking for, QS, is a rule set that forces you to occasionally have to go Atlanta Falcons and start over. I'm not sure that's possible without something really artificial, or without some financial options that I don't think exist in this game.

Well, you're basically right. To totally rebuild is likely not very realistic, and really is more than I even am looking for.

I just want to *sometimes* feel that despite my best efforts, my team just isn't all that good, and that I really need to attend to X, Y, and Z to get things back to respectability. And I'd like to feel that my good decision-making is central to getting out of that sort of a mess.

[Ben E Lou]

Moved per request of thread starter.

[Ben E Lou]

Good concept in general. I'll have to chew on the specifics. But one thing sticks out more than anything:

Originally Posted by QuikSand

My main quandary in playing FOF solo right now is that I *enjoy* drafting, and I'd really prefer to be able to run my own draft every year. However, if I am allowed to draft 7 players every season and keep them, I know that I'm going to be able to do a better job than the AI teams overall, and just from that base of players I'm going to have one of the better teams right away, regardless of doing anything with free agents and so forth. That's tough... I don't know how you get around that problem, but maybe it's possible to do so by applying the points system here.

I'm right there with Quik on this.

[QuikSand]

Here's my current draft of a cost menu for pretty much everything under the rookie draft:

Rookie Draft
2 – Trading down from Top 10 pick within current draft
1 – Any other trade within current draft
3 – Any trade involving future 1st round pick from another team
2 – Any other trade involving draft picks in future years
3 – Use all 60 rookie interviews
2 – Use up to 40 rookie interviews
1 – Use up to 20 rookie interviews
2 – Select a rookie player with more than one red combine
2 – Select a rookie player with more than three red/blue combines
1 - Select a rookie player with one red combine
1 – Select a rookie player who skipped the combine
2 – Select a rookie player not on the top page of position board
1 – Select a rookie player not on the top page of overall board


I don't really like the "top page" stuff at all... but I do think there should be some sort of "cost" involved with making a too-clever pick.

[QuikSand]

3 – Any trade involving future 1st round pick from another team

This is an illustration of my current thinking with all this, I'll elaborate.

I think it's far too easy to hoodwink an AI team into sending you their future 1st rounder in this game, and when I play I generally rule out such a trade with a rule that simply forbids it. Conceptually, I'd like to be able to make such a trade... but I'd want it to come at a considerable costs to whatever other things I might want to do with my team -- thus the fairly high cost. Maybe 3 isn't high enough, maybe it needs to be 5 or 8 or something - but conceptually, I'd like to have pretty much *anything* on the table, just at a cost that makes things a real trade-off.

[JAG]

Funny, that was the very first one that came to mind when I saw it where I thought 'that cost is way too low'.

[QuikSand]

Okay... I'm still fiddling around with this, but here is my working draft of a full menu. I'm very interested in comments.

- - - - -

Point Values for FOF Actions

I am building this around my starting presumption that an annual budget of 40 points should prove to be pretty challenging.

[u]Staff Hiring[u]
3 – Hiring scout or head coach with no contract restrictions
2 – Hiring scout or head coach on requested contract before stage 3
0 – Hiring scout or head coach on requested contract in stage 3
1 – Replacing scout or head coach currently under contract
2 – Hiring coordinator with no contract restrictions
1 – Hiring coordinator on requested contract before stage 3
0 – Hiring coordinator on requested contract in stage 3
0 – Hiring coordinator at half of HC request in stage 3
1 – Replacing coordinator currently under contract
(costs are cumulative, and in effect for duration of contract)

Internal Contract Moves
3 – Use franchise tag on player unwilling to sign otherwise
2 – Use franchise tag on any other player
3 – Offer unrestricted renegotiation to current player
1 – Offer current player full or partial capout
1 – Offer current player his requested renegotiation
2 – Offer RFA player an unrestricted renegotiation
1 – Offer RFA player his requested renegotiation
(costs apply when offer is accepted by player, not for failed attempts)

Early Free Agency
4 – Offer wide-open contract to FA player
2 – Offer flat contract with at least 25% bonus to FA player
2 – Offer three-year minsal contract to FA player
1 – Offer the requested contract to FA player
(Submitting an altered contract to a player already on offer list re-incurs same cost as original offer would have above)

Trading
2 – Initiating trade of player(s) for player from another team
4 – Initiating trade of player(s) for a 1st round pick or more
2 – Initiating trade of player(s) for 2nd round pick or more
1 – Initiating trade of player(s) for less than 2nd round pick
2 – Accepting AI-initiated trade that fails “fairness test”
1 – Accepting AI-initiated trade that passes “fairness test”
2 – Trading down from Top 10 pick within current draft
1 – Any other trade within current draft
5 – Any trade involving future 1st round pick from another team
2 – Any other trade involving draft picks in future years

Rookie Draft
3 – Use up to 60 rookie interviews
2 – Use up to 40 rookie interviews
1 – Use up to 20 rookie interviews
2 – Select a rookie player with more than one red combine
2 – Select a rookie player with more than three red/blue combines
1 - Select a rookie player with one red combine
1 – Select a rookie player who skipped the combine
1 – Select a rookie player not on the top page of position board
1 – Select a rookie player not on the top page of overall board
(Costs are cumulative above, so a two-red player off the top page of the big board would cost a total of 2 points)

Late Free Agency

5 – Sign a FA player released during late free agency
3 – Sign a FA player in 2nd through 4th year in league
2 – Sign a FA rookie player
1 – Offer any other FA player his requested contract
1 – Sign any other FA player to a one year contract

Training Camp

1 – Use custom training camp settings
0 – Use default training camp settings
4 – Carry up to 70 player into training camp
2 – Carry up to 60 players into training camp
1 – Carry up to 56 players into training camp

In-Season

10 – Implement custom gameplans at start of season
2 – Allow changes to offensive gameplan during season
2 – Allow changes to defensive gameplan during season
0 – Implement staff-controlled gameplans for season
3 – Sign veteran free agent to replace player placed onto IR
1 – Sign rookie free agent to replace player placed onto IR
0 – Sign lowest-rated rookie free agent to maintain legal roster

Salary Cap
10 – Use entire salary cap
8 – Leave 5% of cap unused as of start of season
6 – Leave 10% of cap unused as of start of season
4 – Leave 15% of cap unused as of start of season
2 – Leave 20% of cap unused as of start of season
0 – Leave 25% of cap unused as of start of season

[QuikSand]

So, trying to think through a fairly typical season… here’s how I’m thinking a season might look for a team that is basically making a fairly standard number of moves during an offseason. Nothing perfect about these numbers by any stretch – but just as an example:

3 – Hiring scout or head coach with no contract restrictions
2 – Use franchise tag on any other player
3 – Offer unrestricted renegotiation to current player
1 – Offer current player full or partial capout
1 – Offer current player his requested renegotiation
1 – Offer current player his requested renegotiation
1 – Offer current player his requested renegotiation
2 – Offer RFA player an unrestricted renegotiation
2 – Offer RFA player an unrestricted renegotiation
1 – Offer RFA player his requested renegotiation
1 – Offer RFA player his requested renegotiation
4 – Offer wide-open contract to FA player
2 – Offer flat contract with at least 25% bonus to FA player
2 – Offer flat contract with at least 25% bonus to FA player
2 – Offer flat contract with at least 25% bonus to FA player
2 – Offer three-year minsal contract to FA player
2 – Offer three-year minsal contract to FA player
1 – Offer the requested contract to FA player
1 – Offer the requested contract to FA player
2 – Initiating trade of player(s) for 2nd round pick or more
1 – Any other trade within current draft
3 – Use up to 60 rookie interviews
2 – Select a rookie player with more than one red combine
2 – Select a rookie player with more than three red/blue combines
2 – Select a rookie player with more than three red/blue combines
1 - Select a rookie player with one red combine
1 – Select a rookie player who skipped the combine
1 – Select a rookie player not on the top page of overall board
3 – Sign a FA player in 2nd through 4th year in league
2 – Sign a FA rookie player
2 – Sign a FA rookie player
2 – Sign a FA rookie player
2 – Sign a FA rookie player
1 – Use custom training camp settings
2 – Carry up to 60 players into training camp
10 – Implement custom gameplans at start of season
1 – Sign rookie free agent to replace player placed onto IR
8 – Leave 5% of cap unused as of start of season
--
81 action points

[QuikSand]

As I look at that list, I'm inclined to think that 50 may be a realistic number of "action points" to use for a full season under this menu. That list above, totaling 81 points, probably has a handful of things that could go (more FA signings than are really necessary, etc) but if I'm going to use a custom gameplan, that knocks the total of 50 down to 40 right away, and from there I don't see a whole lot of places that offer a ton of give. Cutting from ~80 to ~50 looks like it would be really tough, which is what I'm after.

[claystone]

QS, your idea is close to a Fantasy football league I played in where you were assigned around $200 or 200 points and you had to fill out your roster with the assigned money or points.

ex: P. Manning was worth $80
L.T. was also worth $80

It was so hard to make a quality team because of the little money or points you had. This is just like your idea. Can you use your idea to only be used on FA and Rookie draft.

ex: Assign the 1st top 10 rookies (X), then assign the next 10 (X), and so on and so forth. Allowing people to have a budget to get really 1 real good quality player out of the 7 draft picks. Maybe enough to add a FA.

Just my 2 cents. This worked well in Fantasy Football.

[OldGiants]

A way to add APs would be to accept trade offers that we all ignore. If they offer you a first rounder, you get 1 point. A seventh rounder, you get 7 APs. Basically you are giving away a starter at a bargain price, so you can do something else you'd like to.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I wonder if the game would be any more challenging if you tried to hide bars. Edit the "165" bitmap so the red, green, blue, and peach bars are all gray. You'd still get overall player ratings, but you wouldn't know where a player's strengths were or where masks might be. Not sure there would be a particular joy in doing it that way, but it might make it more challenging.

A possibility here is to hide the green ratings. You see current, and you see overall ratings, but don't have any ability to see where the potential is.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I think it's far too easy to hoodwink an AI team into sending you their future 1st rounder in this game.

What about only being able to use first rounders, without the other draft restrictions?

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Celeval

What about only being able to use first rounders, without the other draft restrictions?

Not quite sure what you're asking here, but my goal with this pricing scheme:

5 – Any trade involving future 1st round pick from another team
2 – Any other trade involving draft picks in future years

...was essentially to make trading for a future 1st round pick fairly prohibitive (maybe not enough, actually) but dealing for later picks in a future years more reasonable.

[RedHawk00]

perhaps purchasing draft points with your AP would be an effective way to make drafting more challenging? use the overall ratings the AI gives the player, so a player with an adjusted rating of 6.0 would cost 6 points, this would make trading down for more picks more difficult. to add to that, if you trade a pick, penalize the number of points for the average player at that position (ie trade a 5th round pick for a player during the season, take 4.5 points off what you are able to purchase because the ~140th player in the draft is rated 4.5). perhaps the scale is exponential, so the higher up the draft board the more expensive the player gets in your draft points. i would have to look at a few drafts to work out the details...

[MalcPow]

It may be moving away from the thrust of the action points concept a bit, but what about a penalty for drafting players below a certain level of potential? I'll throw 50 out as a number that might be effective. For each draftee that hits your roster with a future potential below 50, you face a 2 point reduction in the following season's budget. (Maybe limit it to the first four rounds.) I feel like the 'too clever' picks are often guys who hit your roster with a potential in the 40s and then creep into being very good starters.

I like this because there's some uncertainty to it (you have to really look at guys and make that judgment about which side of the line they'll come down on), and I think it will hamper your ability to target the kinds of players that make it so easy for you to continuously reload. Thoughts?

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by RedHawk00

perhaps purchasing draft points with your AP would be an effective way to make drafting more challenging? use the overall ratings the AI gives the player, so a player with an adjusted rating of 6.0 would cost 6 points,

I think we are in pretty different places on how to deal with draft picks. What I'm worried about being "too easy" is not the ability to get a highly-rated player, but rather one who is *going to turn out* very good. That's why I have, for the moment, some extra costs involved with picking guys who are not toward the top of the overall lists. Adding costs for guys based on how highly rated they are would just send me/us more and more toward the lower-rated guys where I think more of the draft day steals are to be found.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by MalcPow

It may be moving away from the thrust of the action points concept a bit, but what about a penalty for drafting players below a certain level of potential? I'll throw 50 out as a number that might be effective. For each draftee that hits your roster with a future potential below 50, you face a 2 point reduction in the following season's budget. (Maybe limit it to the first four rounds.) I feel like the 'too clever' picks are often guys who hit your roster with a potential in the 40s and then creep into being very good starters.

I like this because there's some uncertainty to it (you have to really look at guys and make that judgment about which side of the line they'll come down on), and I think it will hamper your ability to target the kinds of players that make it so easy for you to continuously reload. Thoughts?

I guess I see the value in something like this, but I'm not sure I like any of the potential implementations - including what I am using in my draft above. Right now, I tend to *know* when I'm getting away with something in the middle to late parts of the draft, but that feeling is not necessarily connected to any one factor that I can pinpoint for a simple menu like I'm trying to do here. Yes -- sometimes it's taking that WR who is only rated 28/38 but whose combines tell me he's going to be special. But a future rating below 50 doesn't necessarily mean you've got a super creeper on your hands, either.

At the moment, I'm at a partial loss on how to best do this. Above, I'm trying to make it more costly to grab combine standouts, and to reach for players who aren't near the top of the game-generated listings, as those are both (in my view) pretty good tipoffs that I'm making a wiseguy pick. But I am not at all settled that this is the ideal way to place those costs into a more balanced system of cost offsets.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by MalcPow

For each draftee that hits your roster with a future potential below 50, you face a 2 point reduction in the following season's budget.

One more personal thought -- I think there's an inherent bent toward too much complexity with a system like this anyway. Anything that requires note-keeping for future years seems to add another layer to that, which I'd prefer to avoid if possible. I see the point (you don't see the player's ratings until you select him) but if it's possible, I'd like to leave this as something that one could just cut-and-paste in one location and keep track of fairly easily.

[QuikSand]

Minor tweak needed above... hiring a coordinator at his asking price isn't usually feasible for the many unemployed staffers (who are all seeking a HC position and price themselves accordingly). I'm inserting a 'free" option to hire a coordinator, in stage 3, at half his asking price as a HC, which seems to work okay.

[QuikSand]

10:08:32 am [QuikSand]: i am fiddling with an empty cupboard team - clearly an anomaly, I understand - but I think my rules need something
10:08:49 am [QuikSand]: I think there needs to be a "free" way to add a player, without using any of your "action points"
10:08:56 am [QuikSand]: just to be able to get one more guy onto the roster
10:09:15 am [QuikSand]: i dont want it to be free to add an undrafted rookie -- too much room for abuse there
10:09:57 am [QuikSand]: so i'm thinking maybe it ought to be "offer a veteran player (5+) his requested one year, bonus free contract" -- and that would cost you zero points
10:10:25 am [QuikSand]: by limiting it to older guys who arent even asking for a penny in bonus, i think that would wipe out much of any ability to really get a player who's worth a damn... seem reasonable?

[RedHawk00]

i dont know how many guys listen to sports radio out there, but this morning on ESPN radio Colin Cowherd was going on about how men like to build and hate to maintain in life... (basically drafting for fantasy football/baseball is the best part of the season)

probably why we all are looking for the right set of rules to follow to keep the building process going.

wonder if he reads this board?

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by RedHawk00

wonder if he reads this board?

Fine with me... as long as I don't have to return the favor.

[RedHawk00]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Fine with me... as long as I don't have to return the favor.

lol, not a cowherd fan i guess.

had an idea, not sure if it is up your alley, but how about a Big Tuna Dynasty, start with a down team, give your self 3 to 5 year deal, see how well you can build them up, then leave for a different team at the end of your term, watch them over the next 2-3 seasons. you would then constantly be in the building mode, maybe 1 or 2 seasons of maintaining/bolstering up.

You can then change the AP's as you go from team to team in order to change how easy/hard the process is. maybe the number of AP is based on the team location, how nice the stadium is, fan support and such?

i dont know how many people would like this, some cant bear to run any team but their favorite.

[Julio Riddols]

An idea I have thought about, while not in the same vein as AP's, is if the CPU could just be blessed with fortune telling abilities. If you could make draft and player evaluation perfect for the cpu, it would force us to be perfect to keep up.

Couldn't there be an option for "Nostradamus CPU" or something like that?

Another idea is maybe setting an automatic 25-50% salary expectation boost for players signed by a human or simply cut the human salary cap by 25-50%. That would make it much harder to keep a team together and could be weighted based on player rating, etc. Maybe limit human contracts other than rookie contracts to 4 years maximum.. this way you would still be able to enjoy the draft, and chances are, you would need to draft well every year to try and keep the team competitive and under the cap.

Just some random thoughts that might be easier to implement successfully than AP.