Custom Play Policy Discussion

[James-Eagles]

After tonight I went from indifferent to completely against this. We talk about how great the league is doing and how competitive it is. I think doing things to give some teams a cometitive advanaged because they feel entitled to it is just wrong. This isn't a play creation league. While it is something that helps this isn't what this league is design to be.

Like it or not this is a Profile and Plan league and those are what make the difference. Trying to make it in to a Play creation league will create a divide and will only hurt the league. To say it is a coin flip because players and plays are the same is completely false. Profiles and Plan are what matter. They are the reason the same teams are at the top and at the bottom every season.

The way I evaluate rules are simple it is what is good for the league. Explain to me how this is good for the league as a whole. This seems like rule only being made create an advantage to some while trying to hurt the others. May be instead of looking at how this helps me coaches need to look at how it helps the league. Do you really thing people who enjoy making plays will make more or less if this rule comes into play. I would agrue no it wouldn't .

For the record this isn't the NFL and it isn't even close. Position matter different, what plays work are different, style of play is different this really is nothing like the real NFL.

People need to stop looking for competitive advantage in the rules.

If this isn't going to chamge the plays in the pool or the number of plays being made. How does this make the league better? I would say it doesn't. Even if it encourages people to make more plays. I would say that is bad for the league. It creates a divide.

This is a hobby and for some of us it isn't even our number 1 hobby. Anything that adds more work for other owners I would say is 100% a bad things. If this is my full time job and my life. Yes I would agree with we should all have our own plays etc. and this is a good rule. No this is a hobby that I have a few hours to spend on a week and a bulk of it is watching the games.

I would say for me this rule serves no purpose and creates a divide. Where one group of coaches seems to feel they are better than another group of coaches. Creating a divide will only do damage to the league not help it. It could actually damage the league.


I repeat how does this make the league better giving some coaches a competitve advantage help the league? How does creating a divide where some coaches feel they are better than other coaches help the league? I mean the league not you as a coach.

[Rich-League Officer]

THis proposal isn't realistic. NFL team have people who are paid to break down tape. NFL is a very much a copy cat league and it generally takes a week or two max for another team to copy. I get the desire I just don't think it is realistic

That's kinda funny because knowing the rookies potentials is even more unrealistic
We all pick and choose our own realism.
I am pretty sure that boob OC Paul Hackett is not copying Andy Reid

[James-Eagles]

THis proposal isn't realistic. NFL team have people who are paid to break down tape. NFL is a very much a copy cat league and it generally takes a week or two max for another team to copy. I get the desire I just don't think it is realistic

That's kinda funny because knowing the rookies potentials is even more unrealistic
We all pick and choose our own realism.
I am pretty sure that boob OC Paul Hackett is not copying Andy Reid

It also doesn't do anything to improve the league as a whole. It is people wanting a competitive advantage by changing the rules. Even without realism I see this as bad for the league. It is entitlement and looking down on others for not enjoying the same thing or having the same time to put into a hobby

I would say rookie potential is more clear than what people think. I just think coaches sometimes think they are better than what they are. They down play players work effort. Situation matters if you put Montana on todays Carolina or expansion Houston Texan he might be a bust. Also the telent difference bettween late third round and undraft isn't as big as people seem to think.

People always pull up the stat 50% of 1st round QB are bust well yea for ever Trevor Lawrence possible bust there are many Teabow, Johnny Football. Bust we all knew were goign to be bust. Or Character issues like Ryan leaf. Things with research and good scouting would be known before the draft.

[Barney - Vikings]

Sorry, I am going to have to disagree vehemently with you James. You don’t draw plays so you don’t understand the issues.

This isn’t about gaining competitive advantage it is about keeping the league from stagnating.
Almost all new plays are clones now and as a result Game Plans are starting to look more and more similar. Without fresh new plays that tendency will likely get worse. Good new plays keep things fresh and benefit the league.

However, It has become harder to come up with new plays. The play pool is mature and it’s going to take more work to come up with new ideas. Even if you come up with a brilliant idea, it’s still takes a lot of tweaking and simming to see if the play works and many times they don’t. That is time taken away from preparing for next week’s opponent.

So what’s my motivation to come up with a new play then? To put in lots of time and just get one week of reward? I love drawing plays, but it just isn’t worth the time now.

I think we need to incentivize people to come up with new plays. Letting coaches have a copyright on plays for maybe 4 weeks makes sense to me. Yes it could create some small competitive advantage but if it keeps the league fresh and fun it is well worth it. Let’s at least experiment, we can always go back to where we are now.

[James-Eagles]

Sorry, I am going to have to disagree vehemently with you James.

I get that but I still think it hurts the league as a whole. The reason I disagree with this and the hiding potentials is simple. It increase the learning curve.It increases the complexity and the time needed to invest in this. Lets be honest most people who create plays do it because they enjoy it. It is why I do the trades I do and do so much on the draft. The thing is we do this for our enjoyment and yes it hurts us competitively. If you increase the complexity and time this league requires it will cost you owners and make it harder to get new owners. This proposal is going completely in the wrong direction for the league.

Also I think this will lead to only bloating the play pool and creating close clones which is the exact opposite of what this league needs. The shared play pool is needed because we have limits. I think there are better ways to address this.

1. Move more play design to offseason. I agree doing it during the season hurts coaches. In part by extend the offseason by make it so the full college league can play out during the offseason. Have a few weeks More to make plays.

2. Remove clones in the same category from the play pool

3. Allow plays to be submit in the offseason for schedule release. That way you can get your free week when you need it not when you have time to make the play.

4. Position change clones are allow but can not be in the same plan as the original or any clone( Name should be same as original followed my a C)

5. Allow non college coaches submit plays to the college league(Deans approval of course.

6. Work out a system for college plays to be reviewed and submited to the PNFL under the creaters wishes.

I think we should focus on ways to help play creators improve their ability to create plays. I don't think the answer is restricting access though. The learning curve is already nuts. We are talking years before most new players are up to speed. If you make it longer you have almsot no hope of keeping new owners.

[Barney - Vikings]

Thoughts

We will agree to disagree. Letting play designers keep their plays for a few weeks is fair compensation for coming up with good new stuff. If all you draw is clones it’s not going to create a competitive disadvantage.

1. Move more play design to offseason. I agree doing it during the season hurts coaches. In part by extend the offseason by make it so the full college league can play out during the offseason. Have a few weeks More to make plays.
No. Almost the only reason to draw now is to come up with something to beat this week’s opponent.

2. Remove clones in the same category from the play pool
I actually don’t have a problem with a large play pool or clones. I’d just like to see some new ideas.

3. Allow plays to be submit in the offseason for schedule release. That way you can get your free week when you need it not when you have time to make the play.
I wouldn’t do that but if Rich and Charlie are Ok with it that’s fine.

4. Position change clones are allow but can not be in the same plan as the original or any clone( Name should be same as original followed my a C)
What I would like to see is restrictions on how close plays can resemble one another going forward but I don’t wanna make more work for Charlie either.

5. Allow non college coaches submit plays to the college league(Deans approval of course.
Good idea they could get tested there.

6. Work out a system for college plays to be reviewed and submited to the PNFL under the creaters wishes.
If Charlie is up for it

I think we should focus on ways to help play creators improve their ability to create plays.
We agree

I don't think the answer is restricting access though. The learning curve is already nuts. We are talking years before most new players are up to speed. If you make it longer you have almsot no hope of keeping new owners.
There is a steep learning curve in some areas but you could literally use the plays the Jets or the Cardinals called this week and make it your game plan so you could be reasonably competitive right away. You would still have to come up with a good profile. I’m not suggesting anyone should do that, but it is legal although it may be borderline unethical.

[Dean-Atlanta]

An interesting idea has come up in the discussion between James and Barney. The idea of extending the off-season a few weeks and allocating that time to new play design. IN the last 5-6 seasons, our off-season process has gotten shorter as we have completed the draft and other tasks more quickly.

Having 2-3 weeks for creating new plays is a great idea.Maybe this will help convince more coaches to try creating plays. We can do some editions of the show and talk about ideas on how to more effectively create and test new plays. While some may enjoy the process more than others, I urge EVERYONE to give creating plays a try and take advantage of one of the strongest features of FBPro98.

To the issue Barney raised, we definitely have to have more incentive for new play creation. If extending the exclusive use of new plays is not the best way to do that, I ask those opposed to that idea, what ideas do they have to incentivize play creators to submit more and better new plays to keep therplay more refreshed for the benefit of all teams?

[Mitch-Oilers]

An interesting idea has come up in the discussion between James and Barney. The idea of extending the off-season a few weeks and allocating that time to new play design. IN the last 5-6 seasons, our off-season process has gotten shorter as we have completed the draft and other tasks more quickly.

Having 2-3 weeks for creating new plays is a great idea.Maybe this will help convince more coaches to try creating plays. We can do some editions of the show and talk about ideas on how to more effectively create and test new plays. While some may enjoy the process more than others, I urge EVERYONE to give creating plays a try and take advantage of one of the strongest features of FBPro98.

To the issue Barney raised, we definitely have to have more incentive for new play creation. If extending the exclusive use of new plays is not the best way to do that, I ask those opposed to that idea, what ideas do they have to incentivize play creators to submit more and better new plays to keep therplay more refreshed for the benefit of all teams?

Is having exclusive rights to plays for a season going to suddenly make people more creative in using a 27 year old program? Is giving people 3 open weeks to create new plays in off-season suddenly going to create unthought of ideas for creating plays? Personally, I don't think it will. If play creators have new, innovative ideas, I believe they would use them now. I think the exclusive use of plays is seen as more for a perceived advantage the play creating coach. Then again, what do I know?

Right now, my team is not playing as well as I believe it should. Spending time on creating new plays won't help me out and would just distract me from what will help my team play better, adjusting my profiles and practicing the existing 3000+ plays to enhance the execution of the previously mentioned 3000+ plays.

At the end of the day, we have 3 types of coaches:

- Play creators
- Game planners
- Spaghetti tossers

In our current league setup, every type of coach is able to enjoy the part of the game they like the most. If Charlie decides to increase the number of weeks new plays are held from the general population, that's cool. However, there isn't a need for drastic change. Otherwise, we may go by the way of all those other leagues that are now extinct.

[Dean-Atlanta]

I think we have to properly understand in reality and not mythology why those other league went extinct and why this one survived. In 1998-1999 there were so many coaching teams in leagues that it was easy for so many leagues to survive and thrive. The decision by Sierra to dump the Football Pro series itself single handedly lead to the demise of most leagues when coaches lost interesting a dead league.

The old leagues had many challenges and problems. A group of coaches created the VPNFL as a way to run better leagues and solve many of those problems. The VPNFL gave rise to ONE league, the PNFL. It started with a core of coaches that were very dedicated supporters of the VPNFL system.

AS the PNFL succeeded and the others disappeared, the PNFL gained a monopoly over FBPro98 leagues that are more than GM-only league by default, it was the only one left. But the PNFL survived and thrived beyond the early seasons by changing its ratings, allowing more custom plays rather than just using the original VPNFL plays and playbooks, and the PNFL evolved into being something that is a hybrid of the old leagues and the VPNFL system. That balance, and it's status as the ONLY one left, has allowed the PNFL to survive and thrive.

Regardless of what Charlie decides on this custom play question, I thin few or no coaches will leave PNFL or retire from the game as a result of this decision.

[Dean-Atlanta]

At the end of the day, we have 3 types of coaches:

- Play creators
- Game planners
- Spaghetti tossers

In our current league setup, every type of coach is able to enjoy the part of the game they like the most. If Charlie decides to increase the number of weeks new plays are held from the general population, that's cool. However, there isn't a need for drastic change. Otherwise, we may go by the way of all those other leagues that are now extinct.

I think if we write rules that benefit the Play creators, and also rules that give advantage to the Spaghetti tossers, we can put together a coalition to get a majority of the votes of coaches and truly Make the PNFL Great Again!

I'll have my Spaghetti with Alfredo sauce.