The Players Leaving Conundrum

Discussion in 'Chompion's League' started by Spayer419, Aug 7, 2013.

  1. Spayer419

    Spayer419 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    2,213
    So I've done some testing, and the players leaving function is extremely flawed. As it currently stands, none of the top players attempt to declare for the draft. It's not unusual for top teams to have 0 players attempt to declare in this game, and the ones that do are generally high-80s who are projected in the 7th round (the projections only factor in overall rating) and those guys will come back 100 percent of the time if the user sways.

    I know everyone loves playing with their best players, but if we don't build in a fix then rosters are honestly going to get out of control. I personally think we should build a rule that if a non-senior is at an agreed upon rating (I was thinking somewhere between 93-95 as the baseline) prior to that offseason's progression, then that player would have to be cut (pretend they went to the draft).

    For example; Braxton Miller is currently a 96 overall. Marcus Mariota is a 90. I would have to cut Miller during the offseason, but Oregon would not have to cut Mariota, even though he will be 94+ once we get through progression. Implementing this rule will help us achieve the following;

    • Make rosters more dynamic, where teams will have strengths and weaknesses which change yearly
    • Reduce the separation between user and CPU teams as we move through many seasons
    • Further eliminate the "cash and stash" tactic where a user can cash in on top-rated prospects and then redshirt them to get the player through an extra progression cycle. This is extremely unrealistic
    Perhaps a way we can make this a less black-and-white rule is to implement a function where users can "convince" a player to stay and not cut them every other year. So once every two years, you don't have to cut a player that generally would need to be. This would also add some strategy.

    cmassey13 jandy CJTHA1 Jbek ssuwr86 Glen Cieske MrWitness36 cyhiphopp H22APWRD94 KNICKSFAN_84 Antonio T.

    Most of the time I only ask the two deputy commissioners for their opinions, but I think this is something that deserves to be talked about by everyone. Take advantage of this open forum to express your opinions and make suggestions. I simply ask that you consider the best interest of the league, and not your team's best interest in season 2.
     
  2. cyhiphopp

    cyhiphopp Walk On

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,904
    I honestly did not expect to have Manziel until he was a Sr, so I understand the rule.

    I think we should also factor in awards and finalists for awards. If you have a 90 overall WR but you shatter every single season receiving record and win the Biletnekoff award, there's probably a chance you could lose him in real life.

    Same with the Heisman of course.

    We could incorporate a random number generator into it if we want to get fancy. Put all possible candidates for jumping to the draft into a pool, run a random number generator you can find online, and a certain number of those guys will go pro.

    Example:

    This year Braxton Miller, Johnny Manziel, DeAnthony Thomas, Marquis Lee, C Fleming (Stanford OT), and D Yankey (Stanford OG), would all qualify by your 94 overall underclassman criteria. Of the 6, we could say that 4 will get drafted. They each get a number and the numbers are put into an RNG you can find online. Run the RNG 4 times, taking out whichever one comes up each time. Those are the 4 that are drafted.


    Or we could look at each player over 94 and compare them to other guys at their position. If they are in the top 5 of their position, they will leave. This year all 6 of them would be gone, because they are all tops or very close to the top players at their positions. We could incorporate a 1 save every 2or 3 years thing too. If you use it one year, you can't save a stud the next two years.
     
  3. Spayer419

    Spayer419 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    2,213
    I think the RNG is an interesting idea, but one that would be better suited for handling guys at the next tier. In my opinion, Miller, Manziel, DAT, Lee, Fleming and Yankey are tier 1 prospects, bonafide stars. The next tier would be the 90-93 range who are in "should I stay or should I go now" phase.

    Love the idea of looking at the top players at each position. That should definitely be a factor. Would be interested to hear others' opinions on how we implement this. But I think the fact that me and you want some sort of rule speaks volumes as our programs have a lot of these borderline players
     
  4. ssuwr86

    ssuwr86 Walk On

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2010
    Messages:
    606
    Hate to be negative nancy but I hate this idea... I don't like the idea of having to cut a guy because he's ranked too high. If I put all the time in to recruit these kids and they want to stay they deserve to stay... I think we're overreacting to the number of guys that declare early. Out of all the seniors last yr in ncaa fbs football only 70 went pro early... I think building your team up to be stacked is the whole point... You still have to play and win the games...
     
  5. cyhiphopp

    cyhiphopp Walk On

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,904
    I would agree with you if it wasn't basically proven that the logic is broken for this years game. Manziel and Miller always stays through their Sr year even when they are 99 ovr. In years past they would be gone as at least 99 ovr Jrs.

    Maybe they will fix this with a patch, but I dont know when thats coming.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. cyhiphopp

    cyhiphopp Walk On

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,904
    This year there are only 6 underclassmen on our teams that are 94+. I don't think it's crazy to lose 4 of them. In real life, Marquise Lee would be nucking futs to stay his Sr year.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Jbek

    Jbek Walk On

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Messages:
    266
    I'd be all for creating a work around if EA doesn't patch this issue.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Spayer419

    Spayer419 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    2,213
    I understand that mechanically we would be cutting these players, but there's such a negative connotation with that...think of it more as we're letting them go pro. Building your team up to be stacked is still the goal, but to a point. It's extremely unrealistic for these players to stay all 4/5 years, and a few years down the road all of our teams will have no flaws. Even a team like Alabama this year, who is 99 across the board and should be considered as an all-time great team, is starting guys in the 80s. If we don't do something about the players leaving flaws, that Bama team wouldn't be anything special compared to all of the teams with 90s at every position and backup position. It just gets ridiculous
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Spayer419

    Spayer419 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    2,213
    Even if they do patch it, players leaving left a lot to be desired last year. Non-seniors were never projected higher than a third round pick and were far to easy to be convinced to stay
     
  10. Jbek

    Jbek Walk On

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Messages:
    266
    If we do create rules, they would have to vary position to position. Highly athletic quarterbacks with weaker arms would stay that extra year, wheres a underclassman quarterback with a great arm who just put up great stats would go. Also, lets say there is a down year nationally for left tackles, and the highest rated was a 91 overall junior. Even though he isn't that highly rated, he would still go to the draft because of the weak field. Variables and things like that.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  11. Spayer419

    Spayer419 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    2,213
    I think play style is very subjective, especially with the influx of speedy quarterbacks in the NFL: RG3, Wilson, Kaepernick. You and @cyhiphopp both made a great point, that overall talent at a position should not be ignored.
     
  12. Antonio T.

    Antonio T. Walk On

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2012
    Messages:
    215
    Of course, this would really hurt my plan for next season. But yeah i don't like the idea of saying they all have to leave. A RNG "draft" would really suffice along with the recogniton for player awards. I don't see why should lose two starting lineman who are nowhere near receiving accolades to the draft. Besides, my schools academic institution is a true selling point. How many Stanford players actually leave for NFL besides Andrew Luck? Heck he even stayed around long enough the get a Stanford degree when he could of left as a RS Soph. and still been the #1 pick.
     
  13. Spayer419

    Spayer419 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    2,213
    I think it's pretty fair to say both will be looking at the draft in real life, they are top of their position group. And you could use your 1/2 sway on one. You also have a BEVY of talented, young linemen behind them
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Jbek

    Jbek Walk On

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Messages:
    266
    Just a rough idea here..


    Going Pro Conditionals per Position:

    Quarterback:
    TD:INT ratio of 2:1 or 20 Tds
    THP/THA of 88/88
    Top 10 position overall

    Halfback:
    Top 10 position overall
    leads team in rushing

    Wide Reciever:
    Top 10 position overall
    top 3 team receiving

    Tightend:
    Top 5 position overall
    top 4 team receiving

    Left Tackle:
    Top 10 position overall
    atleast 85 overall
    Team starter

    Leftgaurd/rightgaurd:
    Top 10 position overall
    Team starter

    Center:
    Top 5 position overall
    Team starter

    Right Tackle:
    Top 5 position overall
    Team starter

    DE/DT:
    Top 10 position overall
    Team starter

    OLB/MLB:
    Top 10 position overall
    Team starter

    Conerback:
    Top 10 position overall
    Team starter

    FS/SS:
    Top 5 position overall
    Team Starter


    All Players will be exempt from these rules if they are injured for atleast 50% of the season.

    All users will have one override every three years.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Spayer419

    Spayer419 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    2,213
  16. Glen Cieske

    Glen Cieske Walk On

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,285

    I like the guidlines Jbek posted but I would add a minimum overall for each position.

    Say my QB is going into his rSO year and he is over 85. With 88 THP/THA

    He throws the 'minimum' 20 TDs and 10 INTs

    Hes the tenth ranked QB.

    That just does not scream NFL player to me, I think the minimum over should look something like

    QB: 93
    HB: 93
    WR: 93
    TE: 93
    OL: 90
    DE: 93
    DT: 95
    OLB: 93
    MLB: 93
    CB: 93
    S: 93

    So basically for QBs it would be this:

    If your QB is Ovr 93 at the beginning of his rSO, JR, or rJR year and throws at least 20 TDs, has an TD/INT ratio of 2/1, and is in the top 10 in his position then he should be going pro.

    As far as Awards go I think the following should work:

    If your player is a rJR or a JR, and within 3 overall of the 'Minimum' and wins the Heisman he should be going pro. IF he is a rSO he should be returning for another year if he wins the Heisman.

    Heisman being the only award that has some rule attached to it.
     
  17. jandy

    jandy Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,230
    Do we want to consider any draft eligible player, i.e. rsSO vs true Junior, or do we only want it on JRs and SRs? Either way, I like the idea of looking at the top players at each position. Jbek has a rough outline for that, but I think we could tinker with what he has and make a solid format for players leaving.

    I agree with Glen, Heisman should be the only award to dictate whether a player must leave.

    Players like DAT, Manziel, and Miller just shouldn't stay. As much as I would LOVE another year with Thomas, it would just be ridiculous. He and Manziel, and most likely Miller, would be 99+ overall players and would carry their teams to wins even moreso that they did this season. It would be one thing if we recruited these guys, but we chose the teams with these great players.

    Do we want to adapt the rules for players that we have recruited ourselves? We obviously still want guidelines that shy away from easily stockpiling, but I think we should make the requirements a little less strict. I mean, for example, what if I recruit a guy that I really want to play with, but he gets very limited playing time his first couple of years because there was a better player in front of him. Then, once said player is the starter, he has one great season, but because of the limits we set, is required to go pro. It happens in real life, yes, but I still think the requirements should be a little less than they would be now. I'm willing to let others have better players if I myself can as well.

    Hopefully this all makes sense, I've been drinking.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  18. Spayer419

    Spayer419 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    2,213
    With the recruiting restriction @cyhiphopp and I laid out tonight (almost identical to the ones we used this year) and the players leaving restriction based on @Jbek's outline, there would be very few recruited players that would leave early. These rules would basically ensure a lack of 99 ovrs except for truly unique talents like Clowney, much like the box rosters
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. cyhiphopp

    cyhiphopp Walk On

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,904

    Yeah, if we limit the redshirting of really highly rated players it will limit the number of players that will be super high rated underclassmen.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. jandy

    jandy Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,230
    What were the redshirt rules that we talked about @Spayer419? I forget how many we said we could redshirt...was it 1/3 of 77+ freshmen?
     
  21. cyhiphopp

    cyhiphopp Walk On

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,904

    Correct me if I'm wrong here Brutus Buckeye, but I believe were going to go with:

    You can redshirt 1/3 of incoming Freshmen 76 or higher, excluding Offensive Linemen (who often redshirt no matter what in real life to get stronger)

    Everyone under 76 you can redshirt.


    In real life, kids who are that good usually want to play right away. Allowing you to redshirt a third of them would let you redshirt a guy that is low enough on the depth chart their freshman year that they wouldn't play.

    For example, you have a great stable of running backs, with three upperclassmen 90+. You have a 78 Ovr running back coming in who likely wont get much PT in that stable, so you can redshirt him.


    This will prevent people from stockpiling talent every year and redshirting almost every player.

    It's when you redshirt 80+ overall Fr that you end up with a lot of super highly rated RS Soph and Jrs.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  22. cyhiphopp

    cyhiphopp Walk On

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,904
    I would also like to strongly suggest that people NOT redshirt freshmen if they will be one of the top 2 rated players on your team. In real life, a kid who knows he's good enough to be top two will usually not be too happy about having to redshirt.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  23. guitarDADDY1208

    guitarDADDY1208 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2013
    Messages:
    894
    My honest opinion is that redshirts should be given to all incoming freshmen IRL but that has nothing to do with this conversation but I like the ideas being thrown around after the year Lee has had for me there is no reason he wouldn't be a first round pick in the draft.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  24. ssuwr86

    ssuwr86 Walk On

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2010
    Messages:
    606
    These rules would put me at a real disadvantage because my players don't usually have astronomical stats. So therefore, it doesn't really apply to me when you use the term stockpilin
    talent.
     
  25. Spayer419

    Spayer419 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    2,213
    I don't see how this would put you at a disadvantage at all. The people that will be most affected by this, especially early on, are myself, Cy and Jandy
     
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page