Jump to content

Éireannach Go Bragh

Notre Dame pulls off the first big upset of the season, defeating #14 Michigan by 10 points.

Luck of the Aggies

Former TCU QB Felix Luck is now a member of the UC Davis Aggies, thanks to the NCAA Transfer Portal.

Week 1 Kickoff: Seahawks @ Packers

The defending champion Green Bay Packers host the Seahawks to kick off the 2023 NFLHC season, the 10th in league history.

Place Your Bets!

The Betting Market is now open, place your bets for a selection of weekly games with some prop bets, such as Super Bowl odds.
alienufo

Pre-Season roster rules

Recommended Posts

Trying this for 2022. 

 

In the pre-season, each team must play their team's projected starters against the other team's projected starters in week 3.  You may exempt five veteran starters with at least five years of experience in the league (5 in the player line) from this game if you wish.  These players must be indicated in the inactive list on your depth chart for that game.  You may also substitute one of those 5 players with your starting QB if they are not yet a 5 year veteran. 

 

You may do whatever you want in the other 3 pre-season games, but we'd like to see less starters Vs. backups games because they are pretty pointless for evaluation.  If you are planning on playing starters in another game, try to coordinate with the other team's coach so they can do the same.

 

A team that does not comply with this rule will have their entire team lose a large amount of starting fitness, and likely lose practices as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any chance this could be week 1 instead? Rather have the extra couple weeks to get healthy should any of my starters become injured playing in the preseason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DStack11 said:

Any chance this could be week 1 instead? Rather have the extra couple weeks to get healthy should any of my starters become injured playing in the preseason.

not this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DStack11 said:

Any chance this could be week 1 instead? Rather have the extra couple weeks to get healthy should any of my starters become injured playing in the preseason.

Just here to second this, I'm fine with it this year but would absolutely prefer W1 for starters!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, alienufo said:

not this year.

 

I completely understand the point that simming four weeks of backups v backups or backups v starters adds little value to the game (though I do think it's extremely useful for evaluating depth and potential) and is probably a pain in the ass, in general.

 

But if I may, I'd like to suggest a possible alternative to encourage the type of preseason game play that's being sought out:

 

What if teams who choose to play starters received a slight boost in chemistry/fitness instead of punishing teams who choose to evaluate their depth and rest starters? Perhaps two teams that agree to play starters against one another receive an extra bonus on top (I imagine this would be capped, however).

 

This way young teams and/or coaches who are changing schemes benefit from playing starters while teams with established rosters/schemes don't have to unnecessarily risk veteran player health in a preseason game, but as a result, wouldn't reap any of the chemistry/fitness benefit.

 

I would think this would encourage the type of game play being looked for and may even have an ancillary benefit of added risk/reward strategy for coaches.

 

If this idea is well received I'm happy to post in the appropriate suggestions thread. Just throwing out two cents.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will the veterans who sit out Week 3 suffer fitness and chemistry penalties as well or will that only be if you sit more then 5?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HAFFnHAFF said:

Will the veterans who sit out Week 3 suffer fitness and chemistry penalties as well or will that only be if you sit more then 5?

No they won't have any penalties

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DStack11 said:

 

I completely understand the point that simming four weeks of backups v backups or backups v starters adds little value to the game (though I do think it's extremely useful for evaluating depth and potential) and is probably a pain in the ass, in general.

 

But if I may, I'd like to suggest a possible alternative to encourage the type of preseason game play that's being sought out:

 

What if teams who choose to play starters received a slight boost in chemistry/fitness instead of punishing teams who choose to evaluate their depth and rest starters? Perhaps two teams that agree to play starters against one another receive an extra bonus on top (I imagine this would be capped, however).

 

This way young teams and/or coaches who are changing schemes benefit from playing starters while teams with established rosters/schemes don't have to unnecessarily risk veteran player health in a preseason game, but as a result, wouldn't reap any of the chemistry/fitness benefit.

 

I would think this would encourage the type of game play being looked for and may even have an ancillary benefit of added risk/reward strategy for coaches.

 

If this idea is well received I'm happy to post in the appropriate suggestions thread. Just throwing out two cents.

 

Positive incentives for this would not be strong enough to overcome people's fear of injuries, unless they were so strong as to be somewhat game breaking.

 

It also would kind of defeats the purpose of having teams a more equal game, because few teams would take advantage. If one team wants to play starters  another doesn't, both teams get screwed out of being able to evaluate players against similarly skilled opponents.  That's why I allowed the sitting of 5 vets, so you can make a choice about who your most important players are and protect them.  

 

I think having everyone on the same standard is essential for this to work.  Tweaks to the system will probably happen next year but I want to see how this plays out, then gather feedback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, alienufo said:

Positive incentives for this would not be strong enough to overcome people's fear of injuries

 

This statement actually validates teams' concerns of dictating how their personnel is to be used in the preseason, but I digress.

 

Rules is rules so it appears to be moot. Can we quantify what a "large amount of fitness" and "likely" loss of practices would be ahead of the 3rd week of preseason?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DStack11 said:

 

This statement actually validates teams' concerns of dictating how their personnel is to be used in the preseason, but I digress.

 

Rules is rules so it appears to be moot. Can we quantify what a "large amount of fitness" and "likely" loss of practices would be ahead of the 3rd week of preseason? 

Can't quantify what a large amount is, that would be up to Soluna. I don't know how it works internally to know how much is a proper amount.

 

The "likely loss of practices" is basically an additional punishment for people who completely disregard this rule (playing no starters) versus appearing to try to comply but fucking up (like they sat 7 or 8 vets instead of 5).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is rare but we have one position, FS, who the guys are within one skill point and I'm not sure who will be the starter. I assume in cases like this either one would be considered the projected starter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, TheTodd15 said:

I know this is rare but we have one position, FS, who the guys are within one skill point and I'm not sure who will be the starter. I assume in cases like this either one would be considered the projected starter?

if theres a true roster battle like this, you can play either one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, alienufo said:

if theres a true roster battle like this, you can play either one.

 

Can we get a list of criteria that will be used to determine when a team is playing what the league office considers a "starter" or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Broletariat said:

 

Can we get a list of criteria that will be used to determine when a team is playing what the league office considers a "starter" or not? 

things that will be looked at:
did they start last year (for any team) for the majority of the season?

is there a significantly higher rated player at this position?

were they inactive for other pre-season games where backups played?

when week 1 rolls around, are they starting?

 

Obviously some of these have some amount of leeway and are not totally clear cut.  But it will be pretty obvious if people are attempting to game this system when you take these into account.

 

Also, players that are currently injured (even minor injuries) will not count for your 5 inactives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@alienufo

 

How should we designate the players? Is something like this acceptable?

 

INACTIVE

QB Rob LeCount 6-3 212 7 Michigan [Pocket] [0] 88 - Exempt

OT Grey Brown 6-6 308 5 Florida State [Pass Blocking] [0/C] 97 - Exempt

OG LaMont Sheriff 6-7 298 6 Virginia Tech [Pass Blocking] [-1] 97 - Exempt

DT Earl Jackson 6-3 293 7 Oklahoma State [2-Gap] [-2/C] 93 - Exempt

CB Keyshawn Thompson 6-2 181 7 Michigan State [Zone Coverage] [0] 94 - Exempt

WR Rex Walsh 5-11 165 4 Florida State [Target] [0] 84 - Starter but Injured

WR Tyrone Cunningham 6-0 222 3 Arizona [Target] [0] 81 - Starter but Injured

TE Anthony Fasani 6-6 222 6 Nebraska [Receiving] [0] 84 - Possible Starter but Injured

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, SlinkyJr said:

@alienufo

 

How should we designate the players? Is something like this acceptable?

 

INACTIVE

QB Rob LeCount 6-3 212 7 Michigan [Pocket] [0] 88 - Exempt

OT Grey Brown 6-6 308 5 Florida State [Pass Blocking] [0/C] 97 - Exempt

OG LaMont Sheriff 6-7 298 6 Virginia Tech [Pass Blocking] [-1] 97 - Exempt

DT Earl Jackson 6-3 293 7 Oklahoma State [2-Gap] [-2/C] 93 - Exempt 

CB Keyshawn Thompson 6-2 181 7 Michigan State [Zone Coverage] [0] 94 - Exempt

WR Rex Walsh 5-11 165 4 Florida State [Target] [0] 84 - Starter but Injured

WR Tyrone Cunningham 6-0 222 3 Arizona [Target] [0] 81 - Starter but Injured

TE Anthony Fasani 6-6 222 6 Nebraska [Receiving] [0] 84 - Possible Starter but Injured

my depth chart has the correct format

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...