Reinstate FBPro Computer Aging

[Donovon-Steelers]

What is it? Year 7 where vets start to erode? That's too early and I assume is the reason you guys implemented this system originally?

But I like (a) the aspect of some younger players retiring unexpectedly due to injury because that's realistic - not everyone should have 10 yr careers, and (b) degrading of physical attributes after age 30 (so starting year 9?) that the game does is also realistic, makes GMing more challenging, and helps solve the problem of vets overstaying their welcome. This is especially true of DBs and QBs. Very few 10+ year DBs have the skills to keep up with young bucks except the PNFL where they're commonly still studs in year 12.

QBs stick around so long in this league that there's only 1 good one in every draft because there's such an overabundance quality guys. How about letting their value decrease & retire earlier to increase the value of building young backups? The way it is now, you get a good one and he's here for 15 years in perfect health - so boring.

Going to Steve's point, I like the idea of the franchise tag protecting a guy from retirement, but only if you can't use it on the same guy in consecutive years. We don't want too many Charlie Joiners playing until 39.

I'm all for something being done, its just a matter of what.

[Dean-Atlanta]

But the early retirements FPRo98 does are ridiculous. Sometimes a 1-2 year player, a former top round draft pick, retires. That is far more real in real life. We should NOT go back to using that feature. Those players should continue to be aut-unretired below the years where aging starts or at least the same R-5 ages used for the purpose of the FA pool.

[Dean-Atlanta]

Far more RARE I meant to say, not real. It's actually quite unreal.

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

Basically I’m saying we should keep the current system with a slight change that provides only two ways to protect a player from aging:

- players who receive transfer rolls
- players who receive the franchise tag

This forces far more retirements faster. And even better, there is a chance the players receiving the roll don’t survive the rolls.

Example: If you have three players at physical age, you’ll only be able to protect one with the dice unless you use a franchise tag to protect another. But one of them will retire for sure at end of the next season.

Any thoughts on this? It's a small change that forces more retirements faster along with providing a way to protect a veteran without dice roils. You have to have at least two players getting physicals to be able to give one of them a chance with dice rolls. If you have three players getting physicals, you can protect one but he gets even more dice rolls. If you have four players getting physicals, you can protect one or two of them with dice rolls. Rich said it will be harder to survive the dice rolls and this still works with that.

Most importantly, we keep the dice rolls and the physicals making sure we don't really change much.

[Dean-Atlanta]

Here are the current dice rolls. Dropping the lower number increases the odds of failing physical and retiring. If the change doesn't bring about enough retirements, the next lowest number can be dropped from each dice roll. Dropping numbers also can lower the retirement age. The top age has only 2 dice rolls. Dropping two there means those player will all retire at that age. These changes can be made within the current system just like points can be lowered each season.

[Justin-Chicago]

Let’s not conflate aging with retirement.

Many of the comments are doing so, simply because leaving the aging to the game means the onset of aging makes a player instantly irrelevant. But we don’t have to do this.

We can make our own system for aging that is more realistic, and allows an older player to lose a step without turning into a complete dud overnight. That’s the main part of the entire aging equation this league has yet to get right.

[Rich-League Officer]

For over 40 seasons, aging and retirement have been connected whether we like it or not.
Since nobody likes the idea of the game aging the players, the system we have in place allows you to retain their abilities longer than they should. The idea every veteran 7-8-9-10yrs+ retains their maxed out abilities is ridiculous.
The only way to handle this is, the players must retire slightly earlier.
I do not want 2 separate charts for aging and retiring.
The chart Dean posted is what we use for physicals and with a slight tweak, the players will fail physicals a very small % more.

Along with eliminating free agents over a certain age, it's mission accomplished.
There will no longer be veterans sitting in free agency for years waiting for a call. That is not reality.
Teams will be forced to use younger, less developed players as depth moving forward.
We cannot wait a decade+ for our drafts to make this reality happen.
That will begin after the SB. The tweak to that chart will begin in 2048.

[Mitch-Oilers]

Alternative for those who want to keep AA in place while at the same time reduce the number of 10+ year starters in the league:

- Keep the current system

- Eliminate roll transfers

- Max the number of times a player can "pass a physical" at 2

[Rich-League Officer]

Just wanted to throw some numbers out so coaches do not think I am targeting any group of teams.
It really is a league wide issue.
At the end of the 2024 season in the NFL, there were a total of 167 players across 32 teams who had 10+ years in the league.
That was about 5.22 per team. Highest was Cleveland with 11, lowest was 2 (3 teams)

In the PNFL as we sit here today, we have a total number of 221 players across 18 teams.
That is an average of 12.28 and we range from 23 down to 0.

James and others will point out that the salary cap plays a role in this. TRUE.
But, the PNFL coaches refuse a salary cap. If thrusted upon you, many would probably quit.

Of the 167 vets in the NFL, it would be impossible for me to say how many or what % are top flight players at their peak skills.
I would bet its far less than 50%. I am guessing, but I would say a typical NFL star is peaking in his mid to late 20s before he hits 30 years old.
In the PNFL, of the 221 players, I can say that 100% of those players are playing at their highest level of their career in their 30s.
Yes, there always exceptions to the above comments.

This is why we have to take steps to be in more in line with the NFL.
If teams can continue to hold on to veteran stars then any good work Charlie does with the drafts is a waste of time.
It's true, the game does a lousy job of aging but PNFL coaches for decades have had it both ways.
We have been using an extremely generous aging system plus, you never have a surprise retirement of younger players.
It needs to slowly change. The goal is not have 1998 PNFL roster diversity but we need much more than we have.
Older players retiring, more utilization of younger players from the drafts will accomplish this.

[Rich-League Officer]

Since it seems to always come up, the Transfers...

This idea that the transfer is responsible for a lot of the vets being saved is nonsense.
14 players in the 2046 Physicals were saved because of the transfer.
44 players automatically retired thanks to the transfer.
This is not unusual since this began.
It allows coaches a way to keep their superstars, at a price.
The transfer will stay.