Serious concern about the direction of the league

[Mitch-Dolphins]

I'm not pretending about anything. I just shared what is on Pro Football Reference for 2025.

Sure, I can think of special players that played longer than the average player. However, those are special players or players who just "hung on" beyond their prime. There isn't a large percentage of players that going into years 15+ at the same skill level as they were in year 8.

[Rich-League Officer]

James, if you are going to critique the changes to retirements, at least be accurate about those changes.

You wrote "Let's take Moss for example. Right now, the current league for Moss to play 17 seasons has 0.03%. That means in every 10,000 WR, 3 would make it to 17"

That is completely inaccurate. A 17 year player has a 5% chance or 1 in 20 chances to return. As opposed to a ridiculous 31% chance he had before.
And, coaches can transfer rolls to that player to increase those odds should they desire.

Chances of player passing physical
Years/Old %/New%
7---100%---100%
8---89%---85% (-4)
9---83%---75% (-8)
10--75%---70% (-5)
11--67%---60% (-7)
12--56%---50% (-6)
13--44%---40% (-4)
14--31%---30% (-1)
15--31%---20% (-11)
16--31%---10% (-21)
17--31%---5% (-26)
18--31%---3% (-28)
19--31%---1% (-30)
20--0%---0%

If I need to conduct a month long debate to reduce the chance of retiring a 12 year player from 56% to 50% and then take a league vote and secure 18 yes votes then this league would have folded 45 seasons ago.

All coaches should focus on the reality of the changes. Look at years 8 through 15. With a straight face, tell me how big a deal it is for a player 10 years old to be reduced from 75% to 70%. Tell me how this is ruining the league. Or is it the 13 year guy going from 44% to 40%?

I get it, this is personal for you because you have contributed to this league and we all thank you. But, don't lose sight of something, maybe you did say YouTube first, but who does it? maybe you did say Discord first, but who does it?
Again, I personally value your contributions, ideas and dedication to this league but many of us have put in stupid time into this league as well.
And long ago, Charlie and I realized that it is impossible to make all 18 coaches happy and "vote" the same way. Someone has to make a decision to lead. 19 voices are fine but 19 voices can't make decisions. Each rule change cannot be voted on. The large ones always are. These % changes are miniscule and coaches should not waste their energy on it.

[James-Eagles]

James, if you are going to critique the changes to retirements, at least be accurate about those changes.

You wrote "Let's take Moss for example. Right now, the current league for Moss to play 17 seasons has 0.03%. That means in every 10,000 WR, 3 would make it to 17"

That is completely inaccurate. A 17 year player has a 5% chance or 1 in 20 chances to return. As opposed to a ridiculous 31% chance he had before.

You prove you don't understand how the math works.

For WR tot hit 17 he needs to
year 9 pass physical 75%
year 10 pass physical 52.5%(75%*70%)
and so on so yes it is 3 in 10,000 WR will make it. May be don't adjust probilities unless we understand them. Heavy handed and miss informed that is what happens if we don'tt discuss things. I not giving you goes more tools to destroy to ruin the league.

[James-Eagles]

I'm not pretending about anything. I just shared what is on Pro Football Reference for 2025.

Sure, I can think of special players that played longer than the average player. However, those are special players or players who just "hung on" beyond their prime. There isn't a large percentage of players that going into years 15+ at the same skill level as they were in year 8.

We aren't talking about average players when we talk about players who will go through physicals. Not every player makes it to physicals Yes more then what normally should at this time but that is slowly changing. What are the percentage of players that retire after 9 vs so on? We aren't talking that many rare players yes the 20 season CB is rare 13+ years isn't as rare you want to make it.

[Mitch-Dolphins]

There are currently 70 players with 10, 11 or 12 yrs experience in the NFL. That's roughly 3% of the players in the league.

[Rich-League Officer]

Oy vey, you are talking cumulative. Got it.
You are correct, league ruined because we will have less 17 year players.

There you go coaches, lets flip over cars because there will now be less 16-17-18-19 year players.
James is right, the league is headed in a very scary direction.
We may even have to cancel 2048.

[James-Eagles]

You made your point. You can't have an intelligent discussion about a subject, so you just force it in. Just like the move from a 63-man roster to a 53 on the purge.

Let's be "NFL-like."
PNFL no 2-dl on running down but there is in the NFL
10 men retiring off one team. I have never seen it happen in the NFL
QBs all retiring at 15? Yep, that is NFL-like.
Rookies don't start NFL-like?

Yes, it is damaging to the league. What happens when you increase the frustration while decreasing the fun for a hobby? People quit. Also, as the designer of the system, I would be the one who would know if you broke it.

Yes, it is cumulative because that is all that matters because you can't get the roll for 17 if you didn't pass 16. This is exactly why you didn't have the discussion because you know it doesn't stand up to actual data.

Mitch, Yes, we have many old players, but oddly you avoid addressing that our rosters are the same age as, if not younger than, NFL rosters. You fix one NFL-like stat to break another, which seems like poor reasoning. Charlie is right; if we want fewer older players in the league, we should boost the drafts.

This isn't about older players or younger players; this is about Mitch and Rich wanting to nerf the player base or be NFL-like.

[Mitch-Dolphins]

If I only had the authority to do what you accuse me of doing. Ha!

[Rich-League Officer]

Of course James will not tell you that there are ZERO players in the NFL over the age of 10 who play at their maximum ability.
And in his world, all these players would be max for their 10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19 years.
Wow, how realistic is this.

So, how does the PNFL handle it, they get to play at their max till 10-11-12-13 and then they retire.
And that is the tradeoff since players in this league always improve, they never age.

Here is the truth, you built your team and want to keep all your players (improving) till they are 15 years old.
You are biased because you run a team. You don't care about the league the way I do. You care about your team.
And, who quit? we have had full leagues for many seasons until Tim left and I doubt it had anything with slightly tougher physical standards.
If we reach a point where coaches are exiting enmasse so be it.
It was a fun 27 years!

You want a nice easy solution, use the ages we use for auto-protect and then let the players age naturally as the game wants them to.
The players will then retire on their own and you will cut them.
But, if the coaches refuse to allow players to age, then they must be retired earlier than their NFL counterparts.
It's just stupid to have a 17-18 year old DE to play as the maxed out best player in the league.

And while you advocate for the old players, you ignore the younger players who never retire.
You also ignore that the PNFL has far less injuries to take these guys out.
There are no roadblocks whatsoever in the way of PNFL players reaching old age like there is in the NFL.
So, yes, I have created roadblocks so we get more retirements. So coaches are forced to use more and more younger players.
To make these drafts more meaningful where later round picks will be the depth.
It is not realistic that teams are 8 deep at WR & CB and every other position.
You brag about it!
If you or any coach has a shred of honesty left inside, you know that these roster are ridiculous.
Teams are identical and unrealistically deep.
That is the genesis of these changes.
The drafts alone will not fix this problem because as they "weaken", teams just rely more and more on the veteran rules that allow their survival.
And while you may not believe this, I know exactly what I am doing and have a vision for future seasons.
It's no different than the points allocation. While teams whine, I continue to do what is right for the league, not your team.

[James-Eagles]

My issue is you are using one data point to justify something that doesn't match the numbers. There are clear reasons why we have older players. It is because players don't play until year 3+ if lucky; this is because of that slight nerf to draft classes. We really right now are drafting college freshman and developing them on our bench.


17:1
16:1
15:3
14:5
13:37
12:36
11:68
10:62
9:71
8:64
7:96
6:117
5:82
4:109
3:115
2:105
1:124

This was on 63-man rosters at the end of last season. So yes, 10-13 is high, but that is because they are better than any of the players 7 and less. If you look besides years 7 and 6, all those numbers are dropping. The problem was being fixed without having to warp the system. If anything, the wrong section was addressed; it wasn't 15+ rolls that were the problem. It was in the 9-10 range. These would have been easily addressed inside the old system. But since I can't trust the commishners to not mess it up why bother.