GroupThink - House Rules Discussion

QuikSand · 02-04-2003, 04:35 PM

One topic that we need to start for this project-in-waiting is a set of house rules. I think we'd all want to play the game in a challenging fashion, and that's going to require some serious rules.

So, post in this thread your thoughts... and feel free, even if you aren't anticipating taking a specific role in the effort. All thoughts are welcome.

Easy Mac · 02-04-2003, 04:57 PM

I think there should be specific roster limits:

i.e. can't have 5 C's and then convert excess ones to G or T.

Basically player position switching to a bare minimum, unless its to switch sides (and I have noticed it having an impact)

Only use IR for players out the entire year. If he is out until week 16, too bad, he doesn't go on IR (unless at QB, where there are normally only 3 deep, and have to have 3 at all times).

cthomer5000 · 02-04-2003, 07:37 PM

I think we should be able to use IR in a normal fashion. If I guy is going to be out 15 weeks (but back for the last game or two) it should be our choice.

QuikSand · 02-05-2003, 07:01 AM

bump... maybe we shoudl start with a good set of rules that someone else has already adopted, and tinker from there...

Bee · 02-05-2003, 07:05 AM

Why don't we start with your house rules Quiksand from one of your dynasties and then we can make modifications?

cthomer5000 · 02-05-2003, 09:06 AM

no initiating trades?

Bee · 02-05-2003, 09:18 AM

I really enjoy trades, I'd hate to see us not be allowed to initiate them.

Something I played around with at one point was limiting trades by a series of simple rules.

I don't remember the exact details, but it was something like this:

1. Only can make trades involving one of my players (I couldn't trade draft pick for draft pick or draft picks for other teams players).

2. I could only make the offer to the number 1 team interested in my player when I shopped them around. (This was to avoid my looking for weak teams and going after their draft picks).

3. After I shop a player, I either have to trade him or I have to cut him. (I did this to keep myself from shopping a bunch of guys and try to take advantage of trades in general).

I think that was it. I might have limited myself to 1 trade attempt per trade (to limit myself from trying to negotiate the very best possible deal). That way if I had a guy I wanted to trade, if I wanted a 2nd round pick, but didn't think I'd get it I'd play it safe and ask for a 3rd rounder. If they turned me down, I ended up having to cut the player.

We could think about limiting trades in a similar manner, or a different manner all together. I just hate not being able to initiate trades.

cthomer5000 · 02-05-2003, 09:26 AM

I definitle like the idea that shopping a guy is something you can't turn back on. Either he's traded or cut.

DolaBump · 02-05-2003, 11:12 PM

Alright we need to get going on this, so here are some house rules to work with, using Skydog and other's already developed rules.

1. Must take between 53 and 60 players to training camp each season.
2. Must keep at least 53 players on the roster all season long.

Trading
1. We can initiate trades, but they must be either player(s) and draft pick(s)-for-player(s) or draft-pick-for-draft-pick.
2. Draft-pick-for-draft-pick deals can only be initiated during the draft. (plus potentially more restrictions)
3. We can accept any AI-initiated trade, if it fits the exception in rule four.
4. ONLY PLAYERS WHO STARTED AT LEAST SIX GAMES LAST YEAR CAN BE TRADED AWAY. THIS RULE SUPERCEDES ALL OTHER TRADE RULES.
5. We can only make the offer to the number 1 team interested in player when shopped around.
6. After we shop a player, we either have to trade him or cut him.

Free Agents
1. All offers to free agents who are new to the team must come prior to week 1.
2. We may tender an offer to re-sign any of our free agents at any time.
3a. Franchise tag can be used as often as we like, but the Franchise Player must be signed at the very beginning of the 20-step process.

OR

3b. Franchise tag must be used as in NFL -- either as a one year tender offer or the tag must apply to the player for the length of the signed contract.
4. FA's signed outside of the 20-Step Process having 4 years or more of experience can only be signed to a one-year deal.

Renegotiation
1. Renegotiation allowed only in last year of contract EXCEPT in the case of "Classy Veterans," who we can renegotiate with at any time.

"Skydog's definition of "classy veterans":
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. In the 10th year or later of his career.
2. Has played 5 full seasons on my team.
3. Has a Loyalty rating >75.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is my opinion that such a player should be free to renegotiate to relieve cap pressure. He has made his $$$ and loves to play for my team. He'll make personal sacrifices to help the franchise win."

2. No player whose Play For Winner Rating is 60 or above can be renegotiated with following a season when the team didn't make the playoffs. He can only be re-signed via the 20-Step Process.

This gives us something to start with

Tarkus · 02-05-2003, 11:22 PM

What the hell is this FOF topic doing here?

Tarkus

Bee · 02-06-2003, 07:10 AM

Well, here's my take on the house rules. I try to avoid much "checking" of ratings to decide if I can do something or not. I prefer across the board rules that are simple and straight forward, but that's just my preference.

1. Must take between 53 and 60 players to training camp each season.
I would vote that we have to take 60 players to training camp and have a cut down. Makes it a little more challenging IMO.

2. Must keep at least 53 players on the roster all season long.

I think this is a must.

1. We can initiate trades, but they must be either player(s) and draft pick(s)-for-player(s) or draft-pick-for-draft-pick.
2. Draft-pick-for-draft-pick deals can only be initiated during the draft. (plus potentially more restrictions)

I agree that if we allow draft picks for draft picks we limit it to draft day only.

3. We can accept any AI-initiated trade, if it fits the exception in rule four.

I think we should be able to accept AI-initiated trades if they meet a fairness test (I think QS has done this in the past?).

4. ONLY PLAYERS WHO STARTED AT LEAST SIX GAMES LAST YEAR CAN BE TRADED AWAY. THIS RULE SUPERCEDES ALL OTHER TRADE RULES.

This rule tends to be a little too easy to forget at times from my experience and requires checking information which I hate

. Is it really necessary with the two rules below?

5. We can only make the offer to the number 1 team interested in player when shopped around.
6. After we shop a player, we either have to trade him or cut him.

We can consider adding that we can only make 1 trade offer (forcing us to make a legitimate trade offer or have to cut the player). Although that might be too restrictive?

1. All offers to free agents who are new to the team must come prior to week 1.

fine with me.

2. We may tender an offer to re-sign any of our free agents at any time.

fine with me.

3a. Franchise tag can be used as often as we like, but the Franchise Player must be signed at the very beginning of the 20-step process.

OR

3b. Franchise tag must be used as in NFL -- either as a one year tender offer or the tag must apply to the player for the length of the signed contract.

I have no feelings on the franchise tags. I never use them anymore in my careers.

4. FA's signed outside of the 20-Step Process having 4 years or more of experience can only be signed to a one-year deal.

fine with me. I'd probably just make it any FA signed outside the 20-step process can only be assigned to 1 year deals. That gets rid of having to check if the player has 4 years of experience or more.

1. Renegotiation allowed only in last year of contract EXCEPT in the case of "Classy Veterans," who we can renegotiate with at any time.

"Skydog's definition of "classy veterans":
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. In the 10th year or later of his career.
2. Has played 5 full seasons on my team.
3. Has a Loyalty rating >75.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is my opinion that such a player should be free to renegotiate to relieve cap pressure. He has made his $$$ and loves to play for my team. He'll make personal sacrifices to help the franchise win."

I'd rather drop this. It requires too much checking IMO and seems like something that we could make a mistake on. I'd rather just limit renegotiations to the last year of a contract for everyone.

2. No player whose Play For Winner Rating is 60 or above can be renegotiated with following a season when the team didn't make the playoffs. He can only be re-signed via the 20-Step Process.

While a good rule, again I would be concerned with having to check ratings and possibly making mistakes. I'd suggest just using the only renegotiate in last year of contract.

I'd add the rule about not starting players out of position.

wade moore · 02-06-2003, 07:39 AM

Bee,

I see your points about so much checking.. however..

There is someone who's job is going to be signing players.. correct? If so, if that is their key job, then I don't see where checking these things is as big of a task?

Just a thought..

Bee · 02-06-2003, 08:45 AM

I didn't know we would have someone just to sign players (I had taken it that Quik would handle that along with other GM type duties). I think he's the one who should make the final call on the house rules. Even if we have someone handling signing players, I think it would still be nice to have a rather simple set of rules so the rest of us can follow along without referring to a list of "conditions" to understand the moves. But like I said, that's just my opinion, if it's decided to go the other way I have no problems with it (since I'm not the one having to do all the checking

).

wade moore · 02-06-2003, 09:08 AM

After reading back through some things, you're right, QS does this. So, it should probably be up to him finally -- but either way, QS really only controls the offseason options, during the season he should be relatively hands off -- perhaps making these options a bearable constraint.

QuikSand · 02-06-2003, 09:14 AM

I don't mind having more things to "check" that I ordinarily would i my own careers (I usually side with Bee on this). Since this will move at a fairly slow pace, and there will be multiple people sharing duties... it's no trouble to me (as GM) to keep track of various things that determine who may or may not be re-signed, traded, etc.

I'm generally in favor of restrictive rules, but I'm pretty open to doing whatever pleases the people here.

wade moore · 02-06-2003, 09:27 AM

I like the purpose behind SkyDog's rules if nothing else.. maybe they need to be tweaked, but I like the purpose...

Thoughts:

The rule that you can only trade people who have played 6 games seems a bit extrenuous.. I see the point, but if they didn't play 6 games they're probably not worth much in a trade anyways..

I like the veteran rules... a dedicated player shoudl be willing to save cap room, but if he wants to play for a winner a lot he should not resign to a loser.. sounds like a good rule to me..

Bee · 02-06-2003, 09:44 AM

Yep, I don't see the need for the trading rule about players who played in 6 games or more considering other restrictions we've added to trading.

I'm with you wade on liking the purpose behind the rules (specifically the last two - the "classy" veteran and the guy who wants to play for a winner).

Along the same lines we could have a rule that if a player has a conflict with another player or are unhappy in any way (disgruntled, unhappy, etc.), perhaps we treat them the same as a guy with greater than 60 "play for winner" rating? Just a thought.

wade moore · 02-06-2003, 10:02 AM

I like that... just as much as being on a winner, being angry with your teammate should qualify as not being able to renegotiate early...

stkelly52 · 02-06-2003, 10:13 AM

I know that I am not taking part in this game, but I figured I would pipe in with one of my favorite house rules. If a player makes the All-Pro list he must be the starter the following season (assuming you don't lose him to free agency). I feel like this is somewhat realistic. If a real player has a stellar season, he is unlikly to lose his job the following year

DolaBump · 02-06-2003, 01:32 PM

I actually agree that the less detail checking the better, but I wanted to include the possibility of resigning veterans to help the team's cap situation.

We should drop the 6 game trading rule, since its probably irrelevant.

I really like the concept behind the "classy veterans", "disgruntled losers" and "troublemakers" -- if theres a more streamlined way to do this that would be great, but I thought that they add a sense of realism to the game (even if it's manufactured realism)

Bee · 02-06-2003, 01:46 PM

Do we want to make any rules concerning ticket prices or hiring the coach and scout?

Some suggestions if we want to deal with it:

Tickets:
lose more than 10 games reduce by 10%
don't make the playoffs - stay the same
make the playoffs 5% increase
win it all 10% increase

Coach and Scout:
Can only change after losing season or at end of contract.
Both can't be in top 10 salary when offers made.
Perhaps something dependent on Herb's end of season rating?

Any other areas that we might need house rules?

henry296 · 02-06-2003, 02:34 PM

The big thing about the 6 game rule is that you can't stockpile backup QBs and then trade them for 1st or 2nd round picks.

Todd

Bee · 02-06-2003, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by henry296
The big thing about the 6 game rule is that you can't stockpile backup QBs and then trade them for 1st or 2nd round picks.

Todd

I think that's less of an issue in FOF4 using game generated drafts. Quarterbacks develop much slower and the young quarterbacks coming in are not as good as the ones from the TCY drafts, so it's harder to stockpile them. I also think if we go with only making one offer in a trade, it will generally discourage us from taking a chance of losing a solid backup QB to obtain a draft pick if we have to cut him if they reject our first offer. But that is something we need to think about.

wade moore · 02-06-2003, 02:51 PM

Seems like an extronuous rule to me with all of the other trading rules we have... we will use some common sense here too, and not make absurd trades like this... i think we are all going for a level of balance here, so common sense will often come before these rules anyways..

Masked · 02-06-2003, 03:59 PM

Has anyone ever tried playing with a reduced salary cap? Say only 90% (or less) of what is available to other teams. You could just sign your K or P to a 1yr, $20million contract to make the accounting easy. Combined with the basic not taking advantage of the AI rules (no signing vets outside of 20 step process, etc.) this might provide enough of a challenge. It would at least force more of QuikSand's long sought after "tough decisions".

Bee · 02-07-2003, 06:42 AM

The reduced salary cap is an interesting idea. I don't know if we want to try that in this career, but it might be something I'll try on my own during my next career and see how it works out.

Bee · 02-07-2003, 08:27 AM

Suggested House Rules:

1. Must take 60 players to training camp each season.

2. Must keep at least 53 players on the roster all season long.

3. Players can not start out of position at the beginning of the season.

4. At the start of the career, all players under contract on the team must be offered a new contract or released.

5. No one can sim games except for the specified simmer for that week. That person can only sim once, the official results will be obtained from that sim.

Trading:
1. Draft-pick-for-draft-pick deals can only be initiated during the draft. (plus potentially more restrictions)

2. We can accept any AI-initiated trade, if it meets a fairness test (perhaps adding 7th round picks from both teams?).

3. We can only make the offer to the number 1 team interested in player when shopped around.

4. After we shop a player, we either have to trade him or cut him.

5. We can only make 1 trade offer per trade. If that is rejected, we must cut the player.

Free Agents:

1. All offers to free agents who are new to the team must come prior to week 1.

2. "Fan Favorites" or "Idolized" players from our team must be offered (at the minimum) their requested contract in week 1 of the 20-step process.

3. We may tender an offer to re-sign any of our free agents at any time.

4a. Franchise tag can be used as often as we like, but the Franchise Player must be signed at the very beginning of the 20-step process.

OR

4b. Franchise tag must be used as in NFL -- either as a one year tender offer or the tag must apply to the player for the length of the signed contract.

4. FA's signed outside of the 20-Step Process can only be signed to a one-year deal.

Renegotiations:
1. Renegotiation allowed only in last year of contract in the case of "Classy Veterans"

"Skydog's definition of "classy veterans":
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. In the 10th year or later of his career.
2. Has played 5 full seasons on my team.
3. Has a Loyalty rating >75.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. No "classy veteran" whose Play For Winner Rating is 60 or above can be renegotiated with following a season when the team didn't make the playoffs. He can only be re-signed via the 20-Step Process.

3. No "classy veteran" who is unhappy or has a conflict with a teammate can be renegotiated. He can only be re-signed via the 20-step process.

wade moore · 02-07-2003, 09:04 AM

Looks good to me..

Can we add..

"No one can sim games except for the specified simmer for that week. That person can only sim once, the official results will be obtained from that sim"

Or some such wording? I know it seems unnecessary, but I'd like to see that in the rules with so many people having their grubby little hands on the file

Bee · 02-07-2003, 09:05 AM

ok, I added the sim ahead rule.

DolaBump · 02-07-2003, 09:20 AM

I would say that we give it the rest of the day to see if anyone has any other proposed changes, and then go with these.

QuikSand · 02-07-2003, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bee
Suggested House Rules:

. . .

Renegotiations:
1. Renegotiation allowed only in last year of contract EXCEPT in the case of "Classy Veterans," who we can renegotiate with at any time.

"Skydog's definition of "classy veterans":
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. In the 10th year or later of his career.
2. Has played 5 full seasons on my team.
3. Has a Loyalty rating >75.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is my opinion that such a player should be free to renegotiate to relieve cap pressure. He has made his $$$ and loves to play for my team. He'll make personal sacrifices to help the franchise win."

You (probably) know my opinions about renegotiations. I think they are serpent's apple.

I would amend item #1 above to read as follows:

- - -

1. Renegotiation allowed only in the case of "Classy Veterans," who we can renegotiate with during the last year of their contract.

- - -

This would obviate the need for items #2 and #2 from the same section. Again - this is the way I would play, but if the participants wish otherwise, I'll go with whatever you prefer.

wade moore · 02-07-2003, 10:05 AM

Honestly, I really like this idea by QS, beyond developing a level playing field it seems pretty realistic... Most young players wnat to try the market, you see renegotiating with guys that have been established on the team... maybe we should adjust the 10 years though, perhaps that is too long? maybe 7 years in the league... that would pretty much figure the guy has had 2 or 3 different contracts...?

Bee · 02-07-2003, 10:13 AM

Ok, I revised item 1 under renegotiation as per QS. I then applied rules #2 and #3 to "classy veterans" (I think the reasoning behind both rules would still apply, even with "classy veterans"). I can change it if the you guys want.

Let me know if I should revise SkyDog's definition of a "classy veteran". Instead of redefining what is shown, I think I would lean towards adding a "classy veteran" also as being an 8 year veteran who has been with our team their entire career with the 75 or higher loyalty.

wade moore · 02-07-2003, 10:21 AM

I've been having a weird thought..

It would be nice to make some useful value of "fan favorite"... any thoughts on that? We could maybe say that we have to offer a "reasonable" (Read: what they ask for) contract to fan favorites? We don't necessarily have to beat other teams out, but we need to make the initial offer?

Maybe getting too bogged down with rules, but i figured with so many heads we could make more use of the items available in the game..

Bee · 02-07-2003, 10:25 AM

I was actually thinking something similar yesterday.

My thought was that idolized and/or fan favorites had to be offered at a minimum their requested contracts in week 1 of the 20-step process.

I have no experience doing this (that checking thing I hate), but since you mentioned something similar I thought I'd throw it out there.

wade moore · 02-07-2003, 10:29 AM

Yeah, that's basically what I was going for.. again, not that we have to SIGN him, but that we have to make a reasonable effort to sign him... That is, in general, what real teams would do.... Seems like a reasonable job, especially if we really have someone who's job is just to watch relationships, etc -- this could be included in that task.. .Mike47?

.. or maybe roll this into TredWel's job?

Bee · 02-07-2003, 10:39 AM

I'm not sure how QS would feel about the required offer for fan favorites since in a way it ties you into making that offer, but it does hold a bit of realism (teams generally try to keep players who are really popular). Since this seems to fall under his jurisdiction, I'll add it if he gives the go ahead. Also, does anyone remember if idolized is better than fan favorite? I never really pay much attention to that and don't remember which was better in FOF4 (I also think there were a few additional "descriptions" added in FOF4?).

I'm still unsure about adding an additional definition to the "classy veteran". The more I think about it, the more I feel like just leaving it like we have it. Any comments concerning that?

QuikSand · 02-07-2003, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bee
My thought was that idolized and/or fan favorites had to be offered at a minimum their requested contracts in week 1 of the 20-step process.

I think this would make for an interesting twist... it's something I've never tried, either. Let's give it a shot.

Bee · 02-07-2003, 01:37 PM

Ok, I've added that as well to the free agency rules. I think it's starting to shape up nicely.

primelord · 02-07-2003, 01:45 PM

Just to note I hve never been good at coming up with house rules which is why I haven't chipped in on any of the discussion so far, but I just wanted to say I like all the ideas you guys have come up with and in case your looking for some sort of consensus I'll support whatever you guys decide on.

wade moore · 02-07-2003, 01:49 PM

Bee,

I agree... They would be overwhelming probably on an individual dynasty, but in this dynasty it should take shape just the way we envision... Should give us a nice challenge and manufacture some "reality".

I'm beginning to think we really do need someone just to keep up with our house rules/relationships/etc ... you all agree? Should that fit into an existing roll or be added as a new one? I guess it could fall under QS's umbrella, but I don't want to put too much on him... Perhaps the OC/DC are responsible come off-season time for coming up with a list of who can be renegotiated and who has to be resigned?

Doug5984 · 02-07-2003, 02:04 PM

I have an idea about keeping some realism in the game, while making it a tad-bit harder....Only go after players with adequite size, as in the NFL...I have noticed in FOF there are quite a few QBs who are under 6'0, and some even as short as 5'7...To keep some realism we can restric ourselves to trying to only go after players that teams would go after in real life...?....or not...

wade moore · 02-07-2003, 02:11 PM

Hrmm.. my initial impression is as much realism as that would add, it may bog things down too much... then we have to define what is a realistic size for each position, etc, etc...

I don't want to be piddling over a 1/2", 5 lbs, etc... it seems to get us in too merky of waters...

Again.. I appreciate the concept behind it, but it seems like the waters are too muddy for a definition of that house rule..

Doug5984 · 02-07-2003, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wade moore
Hrmm.. my initial impression is as much realism as that would add, it may bog things down too much... then we have to define what is a realistic size for each position, etc, etc...

I don't want to be piddling over a 1/2", 5 lbs, etc... it seems to get us in too merky of waters...

Again.. I appreciate the concept behind it, but it seems like the waters are too muddy for a definition of that house rule..

Yeah, it is no problem...it is a house rule I use in all my dynasties...but i never really enforce it alot...its just if there is a 6'4 210 WR, and a 5'7 150 lb WR I will choose the bigger guy...but again it will probably be to much to add.

Bee · 02-07-2003, 02:25 PM

Even if size isn't used in a house rule, it's not something we will be able to completely dismiss. It is a consideration when switching positions and with the house rule that we can't start a player out of position, I suspect size will have some importance in specific cases.

Bee · 02-07-2003, 02:29 PM

Dola:

I wouldn't mind making an addition to the "no starters out of position" rule.

I think once we chose a defense 4-3 or 3-4, all defensive tackles and inside linebackers need to be switched to the proper position.

It's one thing to have LT playing RT as a backup, but if we are running a 4-3 defense we shouldn't have a RILB, LILB or NT on the roster IMO since there is no such positions in our defense.

I won't change it unless others agree, but I think this case is a little different than other backups.

wade moore · 02-07-2003, 02:32 PM

On Size:

I think we should look at it and consider it, but I don't think it should be a house rule

On Positions: That's fine with me...

primelord · 02-07-2003, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bee
I think once we chose a defense 4-3 or 3-4, all defensive tackles and inside linebackers need to be switched to the proper position.

It's one thing to have LT playing RT as a backup, but if we are running a 4-3 defense we shouldn't have a RILB, LILB or NT on the roster IMO since there is no such positions in our defense.

I won't change it unless others agree, but I think this case is a little different than other backups.

Hmm I don't know about that. We are going to run a 4-3 btw.

I am not sure I agree with the no NT, or other ILB's though. But maybe I am misunderstanding. Are you saying we can't ever draft or sign a LILB? Or are you saying if we do we just have to convert him to a MLB or OLB etc?

If it's the latter then that should be fine I think since they don't lose much if any ability in those type of switches, but if we can't take them at all I am not sure I like that.

Bee · 02-07-2003, 02:53 PM

I meant we'd have to switch them after we signed them.

But I think this kind of goes hand in hand with the size issue. For example, I've seen RILB's that were pretty small and switching them to MLB wasn't an option. There's a bigger hit for switching a player like that to OLB or SS and that would have to be a consideration when scouting them. I think it gives a little more challenge to the scouts.

02-06-2003, 10:13 AM	#19
stkelly52 College Benchwarmer Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Seattle WA	I know that I am not taking part in this game, but I figured I would pipe in with one of my favorite house rules. If a player makes the All-Pro list he must be the starter the following season (assuming you don't lose him to free agency). I feel like this is somewhat realistic. If a real player has a stellar season, he is unlikly to lose his job the following year __________________ Check out an undrafted free agent's attempt to make the Hall of Fame: Running to the Hall Now nominated for a Golden Scribe!

02-06-2003, 02:34 PM	#22
henry296 College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Pittsburgh, PA	The big thing about the 6 game rule is that you can't stockpile backup QBs and then trade them for 1st or 2nd round picks. Todd __________________ "It's a great day for hockey" - "Badger" Bob Johnson

02-07-2003, 08:27 AM	#27
Bee Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fairfax, VA	Suggested House Rules: 1. Must take 60 players to training camp each season. 2. Must keep at least 53 players on the roster all season long. 3. Players can not start out of position at the beginning of the season. 4. At the start of the career, all players under contract on the team must be offered a new contract or released. 5. No one can sim games except for the specified simmer for that week. That person can only sim once, the official results will be obtained from that sim. Trading: 1. Draft-pick-for-draft-pick deals can only be initiated during the draft. (plus potentially more restrictions) 2. We can accept any AI-initiated trade, if it meets a fairness test (perhaps adding 7th round picks from both teams?). 3. We can only make the offer to the number 1 team interested in player when shopped around. 4. After we shop a player, we either have to trade him or cut him. 5. We can only make 1 trade offer per trade. If that is rejected, we must cut the player. Free Agents: 1. All offers to free agents who are new to the team must come prior to week 1. 2. "Fan Favorites" or "Idolized" players from our team must be offered (at the minimum) their requested contract in week 1 of the 20-step process. 3. We may tender an offer to re-sign any of our free agents at any time. 4a. Franchise tag can be used as often as we like, but the Franchise Player must be signed at the very beginning of the 20-step process. OR 4b. Franchise tag must be used as in NFL -- either as a one year tender offer or the tag must apply to the player for the length of the signed contract. 4. FA's signed outside of the 20-Step Process can only be signed to a one-year deal. Renegotiations: 1. Renegotiation allowed only in last year of contract in the case of "Classy Veterans" "Skydog's definition of "classy veterans": -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. In the 10th year or later of his career. 2. Has played 5 full seasons on my team. 3. Has a Loyalty rating >75. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. No "classy veteran" whose Play For Winner Rating is 60 or above can be renegotiated with following a season when the team didn't make the playoffs. He can only be re-signed via the 20-Step Process. 3. No "classy veteran" who is unhappy or has a conflict with a teammate can be renegotiated. He can only be re-signed via the 20-step process. Last edited by Bee : 02-07-2003 at 01:36 PM.

02-07-2003, 10:13 AM	#33
Bee Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fairfax, VA	Ok, I revised item 1 under renegotiation as per QS. I then applied rules #2 and #3 to "classy veterans" (I think the reasoning behind both rules would still apply, even with "classy veterans"). I can change it if the you guys want. Let me know if I should revise SkyDog's definition of a "classy veteran". Instead of redefining what is shown, I think I would lean towards adding a "classy veteran" also as being an 8 year veteran who has been with our team their entire career with the 75 or higher loyalty. Last edited by Bee : 02-07-2003 at 10:19 AM.

02-07-2003, 01:45 PM	#40
primelord Pro Rookie Join Date: Oct 2000	Just to note I hve never been good at coming up with house rules which is why I haven't chipped in on any of the discussion so far, but I just wanted to say I like all the ideas you guys have come up with and in case your looking for some sort of consensus I'll support whatever you guys decide on. __________________ .

02-04-2003, 04:57 PM	#2
Easy Mac Registered User Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Here	I think there should be specific roster limits: i.e. can't have 5 C's and then convert excess ones to G or T. Basically player position switching to a bare minimum, unless its to switch sides (and I have noticed it having an impact) Only use IR for players out the entire year. If he is out until week 16, too bad, he doesn't go on IR (unless at QB, where there are normally only 3 deep, and have to have 3 at all times).

02-05-2003, 07:01 AM	#4
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	bump... maybe we shoudl start with a good set of rules that someone else has already adopted, and tinker from there...

02-05-2003, 07:05 AM	#5
Bee Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fairfax, VA	Why don't we start with your house rules Quiksand from one of your dynasties and then we can make modifications?

02-05-2003, 09:18 AM	#7
Bee Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fairfax, VA	I really enjoy trades, I'd hate to see us not be allowed to initiate them. Something I played around with at one point was limiting trades by a series of simple rules. I don't remember the exact details, but it was something like this: 1. Only can make trades involving one of my players (I couldn't trade draft pick for draft pick or draft picks for other teams players). 2. I could only make the offer to the number 1 team interested in my player when I shopped them around. (This was to avoid my looking for weak teams and going after their draft picks). 3. After I shop a player, I either have to trade him or I have to cut him. (I did this to keep myself from shopping a bunch of guys and try to take advantage of trades in general). I think that was it. I might have limited myself to 1 trade attempt per trade (to limit myself from trying to negotiate the very best possible deal). That way if I had a guy I wanted to trade, if I wanted a 2nd round pick, but didn't think I'd get it I'd play it safe and ask for a 3rd rounder. If they turned me down, I ended up having to cut the player. We could think about limiting trades in a similar manner, or a different manner all together. I just hate not being able to initiate trades.

02-05-2003, 11:12 PM	#9
DolaBump Mascot Join Date: Oct 2002	Alright we need to get going on this, so here are some house rules to work with, using Skydog and other's already developed rules. 1. Must take between 53 and 60 players to training camp each season. 2. Must keep at least 53 players on the roster all season long. Trading 1. We can initiate trades, but they must be either player(s) and draft pick(s)-for-player(s) or draft-pick-for-draft-pick. 2. Draft-pick-for-draft-pick deals can only be initiated during the draft. (plus potentially more restrictions) 3. We can accept any AI-initiated trade, if it fits the exception in rule four. 4. ONLY PLAYERS WHO STARTED AT LEAST SIX GAMES LAST YEAR CAN BE TRADED AWAY. THIS RULE SUPERCEDES ALL OTHER TRADE RULES. 5. We can only make the offer to the number 1 team interested in player when shopped around. 6. After we shop a player, we either have to trade him or cut him. Free Agents 1. All offers to free agents who are new to the team must come prior to week 1. 2. We may tender an offer to re-sign any of our free agents at any time. 3a. Franchise tag can be used as often as we like, but the Franchise Player must be signed at the very beginning of the 20-step process. OR 3b. Franchise tag must be used as in NFL -- either as a one year tender offer or the tag must apply to the player for the length of the signed contract. 4. FA's signed outside of the 20-Step Process having 4 years or more of experience can only be signed to a one-year deal. Renegotiation 1. Renegotiation allowed only in last year of contract EXCEPT in the case of "Classy Veterans," who we can renegotiate with at any time. "Skydog's definition of "classy veterans": -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. In the 10th year or later of his career. 2. Has played 5 full seasons on my team. 3. Has a Loyalty rating >75. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is my opinion that such a player should be free to renegotiate to relieve cap pressure. He has made his $$$ and loves to play for my team. He'll make personal sacrifices to help the franchise win." 2. No player whose Play For Winner Rating is 60 or above can be renegotiated with following a season when the team didn't make the playoffs. He can only be re-signed via the 20-Step Process. This gives us something to start with

02-05-2003, 11:22 PM	#10
Tarkus High School Varsity Join Date: Jun 2001	What the hell is this FOF topic doing here? Tarkus

02-06-2003, 07:10 AM	#11
Bee Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fairfax, VA	Well, here's my take on the house rules. I try to avoid much "checking" of ratings to decide if I can do something or not. I prefer across the board rules that are simple and straight forward, but that's just my preference. 1. Must take between 53 and 60 players to training camp each season. I would vote that we have to take 60 players to training camp and have a cut down. Makes it a little more challenging IMO. 2. Must keep at least 53 players on the roster all season long. I think this is a must. 1. We can initiate trades, but they must be either player(s) and draft pick(s)-for-player(s) or draft-pick-for-draft-pick. 2. Draft-pick-for-draft-pick deals can only be initiated during the draft. (plus potentially more restrictions) I agree that if we allow draft picks for draft picks we limit it to draft day only. 3. We can accept any AI-initiated trade, if it fits the exception in rule four. I think we should be able to accept AI-initiated trades if they meet a fairness test (I think QS has done this in the past?). 4. ONLY PLAYERS WHO STARTED AT LEAST SIX GAMES LAST YEAR CAN BE TRADED AWAY. THIS RULE SUPERCEDES ALL OTHER TRADE RULES. This rule tends to be a little too easy to forget at times from my experience and requires checking information which I hate . Is it really necessary with the two rules below? 5. We can only make the offer to the number 1 team interested in player when shopped around. 6. After we shop a player, we either have to trade him or cut him. We can consider adding that we can only make 1 trade offer (forcing us to make a legitimate trade offer or have to cut the player). Although that might be too restrictive? 1. All offers to free agents who are new to the team must come prior to week 1. fine with me. 2. We may tender an offer to re-sign any of our free agents at any time. fine with me. 3a. Franchise tag can be used as often as we like, but the Franchise Player must be signed at the very beginning of the 20-step process. OR 3b. Franchise tag must be used as in NFL -- either as a one year tender offer or the tag must apply to the player for the length of the signed contract. I have no feelings on the franchise tags. I never use them anymore in my careers. 4. FA's signed outside of the 20-Step Process having 4 years or more of experience can only be signed to a one-year deal. fine with me. I'd probably just make it any FA signed outside the 20-step process can only be assigned to 1 year deals. That gets rid of having to check if the player has 4 years of experience or more. 1. Renegotiation allowed only in last year of contract EXCEPT in the case of "Classy Veterans," who we can renegotiate with at any time. "Skydog's definition of "classy veterans": -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. In the 10th year or later of his career. 2. Has played 5 full seasons on my team. 3. Has a Loyalty rating >75. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is my opinion that such a player should be free to renegotiate to relieve cap pressure. He has made his $$$ and loves to play for my team. He'll make personal sacrifices to help the franchise win." I'd rather drop this. It requires too much checking IMO and seems like something that we could make a mistake on. I'd rather just limit renegotiations to the last year of a contract for everyone. 2. No player whose Play For Winner Rating is 60 or above can be renegotiated with following a season when the team didn't make the playoffs. He can only be re-signed via the 20-Step Process. While a good rule, again I would be concerned with having to check ratings and possibly making mistakes. I'd suggest just using the only renegotiate in last year of contract. I'd add the rule about not starting players out of position.

02-06-2003, 08:45 AM	#13
Bee Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fairfax, VA	I didn't know we would have someone just to sign players (I had taken it that Quik would handle that along with other GM type duties). I think he's the one who should make the final call on the house rules. Even if we have someone handling signing players, I think it would still be nice to have a rather simple set of rules so the rest of us can follow along without referring to a list of "conditions" to understand the moves. But like I said, that's just my opinion, if it's decided to go the other way I have no problems with it (since I'm not the one having to do all the checking ).

02-06-2003, 09:14 AM	#15
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	I don't mind having more things to "check" that I ordinarily would i my own careers (I usually side with Bee on this). Since this will move at a fairly slow pace, and there will be multiple people sharing duties... it's no trouble to me (as GM) to keep track of various things that determine who may or may not be re-signed, traded, etc. I'm generally in favor of restrictive rules, but I'm pretty open to doing whatever pleases the people here.

02-06-2003, 09:44 AM	#17
Bee Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fairfax, VA	Yep, I don't see the need for the trading rule about players who played in 6 games or more considering other restrictions we've added to trading. I'm with you wade on liking the purpose behind the rules (specifically the last two - the "classy" veteran and the guy who wants to play for a winner). Along the same lines we could have a rule that if a player has a conflict with another player or are unhappy in any way (disgruntled, unhappy, etc.), perhaps we treat them the same as a guy with greater than 60 "play for winner" rating? Just a thought.

02-06-2003, 01:32 PM	#20
DolaBump Mascot Join Date: Oct 2002	I actually agree that the less detail checking the better, but I wanted to include the possibility of resigning veterans to help the team's cap situation. We should drop the 6 game trading rule, since its probably irrelevant. I really like the concept behind the "classy veterans", "disgruntled losers" and "troublemakers" -- if theres a more streamlined way to do this that would be great, but I thought that they add a sense of realism to the game (even if it's manufactured realism)

02-06-2003, 01:46 PM	#21
Bee Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fairfax, VA	Do we want to make any rules concerning ticket prices or hiring the coach and scout? Some suggestions if we want to deal with it: Tickets: lose more than 10 games reduce by 10% don't make the playoffs - stay the same make the playoffs 5% increase win it all 10% increase Coach and Scout: Can only change after losing season or at end of contract. Both can't be in top 10 salary when offers made. Perhaps something dependent on Herb's end of season rating? Any other areas that we might need house rules?

02-06-2003, 03:59 PM	#25
Masked College Starter Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Bay Area	Has anyone ever tried playing with a reduced salary cap? Say only 90% (or less) of what is available to other teams. You could just sign your K or P to a 1yr, $20million contract to make the accounting easy. Combined with the basic not taking advantage of the AI rules (no signing vets outside of 20 step process, etc.) this might provide enough of a challenge. It would at least force more of QuikSand's long sought after "tough decisions".

02-07-2003, 06:42 AM	#26
Bee Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fairfax, VA	The reduced salary cap is an interesting idea. I don't know if we want to try that in this career, but it might be something I'll try on my own during my next career and see how it works out.

02-07-2003, 09:05 AM	#29
Bee Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fairfax, VA	ok, I added the sim ahead rule.

02-07-2003, 09:20 AM	#30
DolaBump Mascot Join Date: Oct 2002	I would say that we give it the rest of the day to see if anyone has any other proposed changes, and then go with these.

02-07-2003, 10:25 AM	#35
Bee Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fairfax, VA	I was actually thinking something similar yesterday. My thought was that idolized and/or fan favorites had to be offered at a minimum their requested contracts in week 1 of the 20-step process. I have no experience doing this (that checking thing I hate), but since you mentioned something similar I thought I'd throw it out there.

02-07-2003, 10:39 AM	#37
Bee Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fairfax, VA	I'm not sure how QS would feel about the required offer for fan favorites since in a way it ties you into making that offer, but it does hold a bit of realism (teams generally try to keep players who are really popular). Since this seems to fall under his jurisdiction, I'll add it if he gives the go ahead. Also, does anyone remember if idolized is better than fan favorite? I never really pay much attention to that and don't remember which was better in FOF4 (I also think there were a few additional "descriptions" added in FOF4?). I'm still unsure about adding an additional definition to the "classy veteran". The more I think about it, the more I feel like just leaving it like we have it. Any comments concerning that?

02-07-2003, 01:37 PM	#39
Bee Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fairfax, VA	Ok, I've added that as well to the free agency rules. I think it's starting to shape up nicely.

02-07-2003, 02:04 PM	#42
Doug5984 College Benchwarmer Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Louisiana	I have an idea about keeping some realism in the game, while making it a tad-bit harder....Only go after players with adequite size, as in the NFL...I have noticed in FOF there are quite a few QBs who are under 6'0, and some even as short as 5'7...To keep some realism we can restric ourselves to trying to only go after players that teams would go after in real life...?....or not...

02-07-2003, 02:25 PM	#45
Bee Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fairfax, VA	Even if size isn't used in a house rule, it's not something we will be able to completely dismiss. It is a consideration when switching positions and with the house rule that we can't start a player out of position, I suspect size will have some importance in specific cases.

02-07-2003, 02:29 PM	#46
Bee Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fairfax, VA	Dola: I wouldn't mind making an addition to the "no starters out of position" rule. I think once we chose a defense 4-3 or 3-4, all defensive tackles and inside linebackers need to be switched to the proper position. It's one thing to have LT playing RT as a backup, but if we are running a 4-3 defense we shouldn't have a RILB, LILB or NT on the roster IMO since there is no such positions in our defense. I won't change it unless others agree, but I think this case is a little different than other backups. Last edited by Bee : 02-07-2003 at 02:30 PM.

02-07-2003, 02:53 PM	#49
Bee Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fairfax, VA	I meant we'd have to switch them after we signed them. But I think this kind of goes hand in hand with the size issue. For example, I've seen RILB's that were pretty small and switching them to MLB wasn't an option. There's a bigger hit for switching a player like that to OLB or SS and that would have to be a consideration when scouting them. I think it gives a little more challenge to the scouts.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)