Some years ago I took over as commissioner of a FBPro league called ECCFL, it was a NFL-based league like PNFL. They created the league using a league file that had somewhat balanced ratings, but with each draft used modified draft pools that didn't quite fit the ratings of the veteran players in the league. At the time the VPNFL project had released some of their earlier league file versions. We liked the general idea they were working with but disagreed with some of their concepts. We tested our own variation, and ultimately by coaches vote adopted it and applied the new ratings system we came up with first on players in league at end of a season, then on all future draft pools so the ratings system would be maintained with draft and TC each season.

We based the ratings in part on these concepts:

WRs and CBs have same ratings ranges. So if AC was from 72 to 88 (just making up numbers as example) it was that way for both CBs and WRs. This we believe kept balance between passing and pass coverage.

TEs and Ss had very close ratings but not identical. HBs were similarly rated as well. Again, this made it more balanced between O and D.

FBs and LBs were fairly close in ratings. Again, balance.

OLs and DLs were similar except DLs had a few more points SP and maybe a little less ST. But overall they were close.

Our speed was a little higher than in PNFL and I think the bit lower overall speed in PNFL is probably a good thing. But I think if some of those concepts were tested with general ranges PNFL uses for ratings we'd see passing game reigned in a bit, the running game more effective, and perhaps a bit more passing to RBs and
TEs.

I think it would achieve more realism without legislating additional rules on how often coaches should run the ball, or pass to TEs, etc.

Dean -- Washington

---

Dean -- Washington Redskins

"If you don't know where you're going, you might end up somewhere else."
- Toby Keith