One way or another, the USFL/WFL will get back to being about football and less about speed kills. My goal is to have all 32 rosters reflect a real football team by the start of 1995, if not sooner. What do I mean by that? A roster with RB's that must weigh 200 lbs, plus minimum weights for FB/TE, OL, DL and LB. For more details https://gm-football-league.myfootballnow.com/forums/1/2?page=1#182

Before we go any further, I want one thing perfectly clear, I am not singling anyone out, as several teams use non traditional rosters.

I also want to institute some discussion guidelines, so as not to have this devolve into a pissing match like so many previous discussions.

* NO discussion about what is or isn't an exploit We have beat this horse to death, and then some.
* No debate This is happening, the only question is when and how. I'm not holding a vote because we've had 2 brand new leagues use this roster approach, and they filled quickly. This tells me people want to play this style of football.
* No justification posts Frankly, we've already heard all the arguments for using a non traditional roster, no need to rehash.

* YES, let's discuss how to implement this I realize that this will be quite a huge task for some of you, which is why I threw out the by 1995. The when and how is not set in stone, so let's work together and figure out a reasonable solution.
* Yes, let's discuss if we want positional minimums as well CJ's league has roster minimums, like you must have 4 FB/TE. Do we want that too, or do we just want weight minimums?
______________________________________________________________________________

I realize some of you want to push back against this, and may even do so anyway, even though I asked you not to, and I am sorry if anyone feels that way. Please understand I have to look out for the league as a whole, and act in it's best interests. I feel very strongly that this is the best course of action going forward.

While the USFL has remained full through my "reign", I feel I have sent us down the wrong path. We have a lot of heavy hitters as team owners here, used to have more, and we became know as one of the toughest leagues in all of MFN. I'm guilty, I loved it and was proud of it, for awhile. Then greed took over as all the heavy hitters jockeyed for top dog, the exploits came flying out faster than a Bill Belichick "no comment".

I let all that go for way too long, partly because I had no idea how to stop it. The McKeon rule helped somewhat, but as evidenced by Seth's comment "I'm going to play to what the rule says", it is not enough. I only bring that up because reading that made me realize I'd have to do something drastic if I want to reign in what some people call exploits.

I have been in this league from the beginning and the original concept was a fun, competitive league that was newbie friendly. Fun first. We certainly are NOT newbie friendly anymore and I'm going to try and change that.
___________________________________________________________________________

I sincerely hope everyone can be on board with this course of action and work with me, but if not, I understand. No hard feelings.

https://usflwfl.myfootballnow.com/forums/1/1821?page=1#11519

This has been posted/stickied for awhile so this would be the only requirement for 1992.

If it proves to not be feasible to get the weight up by then, maybe we can push it until 1993. Seth would likely know how long it takes for weight to hold.

Given our limited free agency, might have to just set all the weight requirements now and give everyone 3 years to be fully compliant. I'm flexible on how we get there, so long as we get there.

There is some evidence from MFN-1 that going back to average weights will not hurt players at position in 4.6. TEs are no longer being held back by being too slow for instance. After I have done more analysis - which may be never (fair warning) - I'll have a better idea.

My interest in MFN has problem bottomed out but I still plan to keep my teams and be competitive. This new implementation in several leagues to require min roster spots is a good idea. I agree 100% with not having players out of position. That said, can we discuss the use of the FB? I’d like to see the RB/FB like the CB/S position. There are plenty of NFL teams that don’t use a FB and utilize two RB in their backfield. Food for thought. I don’t think its a game changer as in other positions.

I get how you feel which is why I am changing things. Some people may not like the restrictions but I'm betting most will. I wasn't planning on requiring a FB, but TE will need to be a minimum weight eventually.

Seth told me he needed time to get his LB on the DL up to weight, so I announced that early so everyone could be in compliance by next season.. Eventually WR will not be able to be a RB and DBs will not be able to play LB/DL.

I need to do a full roster review of the league to see what needs fixed, but I'm thinking we go ahead with DL must be 265 lbs for 1992. The other 2 main "fixes" are establishing minimum weights for WR and LB. I'm not sure of the order but one will be changed for 1993, the other by 1994.

It's a slow process because I want to give people plenty of time to comply since we aren't exactly a start up league. By announcing the changes so far in advance, it will give teams a chance to get their running WRs up to weight, or to find an actual RB. Or get their DBs up to weight for LB.

Most likely, since the use of WR as RB is so prevalent, that will be the one I wait the longest on.

I'm unsure if I will implement position distribution, but right now I don't think I will. I'm thinking instituting minimum weights for position groups should take care of it. Additionally, I will not be allowing any injury exceptions. Now if the AI subs in an illegal player, that's one thing, and I can tell by looking at the player card to see what positions he is listed in your depth chart.

Its a good idea!

What I have come up with so far is the previously discussed rule of having all DL weigh at least 266 lbs. starting with the upcoming season, 1992. As of now I have no plans to institute a minimum # of DT but if I see too many teams loading up on nothing but DE, that could change in the future.

For 1993: Ball carriers must weigh at least 200 lbs, which means like 98% of them will be RB or FB. If someone has the rare WR that maintains a body weight over 200, he can carry the ball but watch his weight. If it falls below 200, you'll need to switch his position.

Also in 1993: LB must weigh 237 lbs or more, or wherever the minimum is at that time in CJ's GM league. By that time he will have a seasons worth of data from that league and may or may not adjust weight requirements.

it is nearly impossible to cover the RB out of the backfield with anything else than a LB with the standard personnel. You have to go to the quarters against 1-1-3 and to Dime for any other Formation

However, RB wheel routes are some of the most difficult routes to defend. Why do I have to defend a 200 lbs RB with a 237 lbs LB.

Please allow SS or FS overrides at LB

The FZ covers the RB/FB with safeties. There are multiple Man-Blitz 2 plays that bring up a safety to the RB.

It's one of the reasons why those plays work so well against the 113 (Flare) and the 203 (Quick Out, Post), but are dangerous against the Hitch (backside slant).

Can I make one request to this rule? Can TEs play at the FB minimum weight of 243?

There is a big difference between the 243 FB weight and the 257 TE weight in terms of how TEs are covered by LBs. At 257, the LB has an obvious weight-speed advantage on the TE in 0.4.5, and as a result, it's really really hard to get a TE to catch above 60% of their targets.

At 243, the TE is the same weight as the MLB or SLB so the defender doesn't have the weight-speed advantage.

This will be less of a problem in the next version, hopefully, since speed should be more equal.