*Don't Kill Offensive Linemen You Twats

[Beaver]

We've recently seen a surge of interest in NSFL users wanting to play offensive line, a sharp and dramatic turn from the last several seasons in which I think before my draft class there just two user offensive lineman during my tenure on the side. It's a thankless position in which you torpedo your draft stock, career earnings, and marginal benefit to the team all for the honor of playing a position which doesn't really have statistics of its own, the best indication of how you're doing is how well your teammates are doing.

This is good news.

There has been recent talk of abolishing the offensive line as a position, taking that choice away from users that are too stupid to make decisions for themselves. A very smart NSFL GM recently remarked (lightly edited for clarity), "In my opinion, the problem with user offensive linemen is that because you have an unlimited supply of free agent bots you can define how much value they bring and it's almost never equivalent to a regular position." The solution to the low viability of offensive line shouldn't be an outright ban on the position, it should be an attempt to make it more viable.

Some attempts at doing this have been made and have had broad support, why would we turn around and scrap the position rather than build on those? It makes no sense so hopefully these whispers are not being taken seriously.

For example, ahead of the Season 13 Rules Summit someone (I forget who, SORRY. Maybe Bayley or PDX?) made a proposal on @PaytonM34 's behalf:

Provide users who create OLs a "TPE boost" so that being an OL is a viable career path for users who wish to pursue it. This TPE boost would be forfeit should the user position switch.

The positional TPE boost would scale appropriately to provide the real OL player a comparable fit for the team. A small committee would need to flesh out the details here, but a scaled system for OL would probably apply around 250 - 300 positional TPE. TPE boost would be applied at the beginning of the season.

You can read more on this proposal, and the surrounding discussion, here but it failed by a single vote in that rules summit. Essentially it boils down to giving user OL players an invisible TPE boost when they are called up to the NSFL that would allow them to compete with offensive line bots earlier in their career. User offensive lineman already have a weight advantage so I don't think the boost needs to be as drastic as 250-300 TPE but if we assume the extra weight on a user OL is worth 100 TPE (possibly an overestimation) then as it stands now a user would need 450 TPE before they could crack a roster and 650 before they'd surpass the bots. That's comparable with the quarterback position in terms of investment with a fraction of the payoff. That would mean a career arc that looks something like:
-DSFL season
-2 send down seasons
-called up for 3rd regression season around 600 TPE
-3 seasons of being considerably better than a purchasable bot before regression
-4 seasons of fighting regression before reaching the 50% tier that nukes you, possibly 1 more season if you can find a team that'll be fine with you finishing the season in the mid 500s

That's a pretty good career arc, in my opinion. Assuming 175 TPE per season you'd begin 6 seasons with more than 750 TPE and would end 7 higher than that mark, with an 8th being close. The problem, of course, is the impact you have. If you're going to earn 175 TPE per season you're much better off playing at a position like quarterback or cornerback, or anything really. The offensive line should be a haven for casuals and semi-actives who want to contribute to the team but don't necessarily tune in for streams or check the index every week - akin to how Defensive Line and Kicker are currently set up.

An invisible TPE boost is a great way to achieve this outcome and it could be coupled with the lowering of attribute caps if there's concern about offensive line becoming too good (????). Give offensive linemen 200 TPE to spend when they're called up (this would nip in the bud the possibility that at low TPE levels, such as 350 vs 150, they'd be ridiculously strong) and which disappears if they change positions. All of a sudden the position can have some value. Treating the invisible TPE boost the same way as you would raising attribute minimums, which is to say it's not subject to regression because it's not earned TPE, would make the most sense but even if this TPE counted for regression purposes it would go a long way to making the position viable. For all of the following I'm counting the 200 TPE in regression calculations. It doesn't make a huge difference either way, exempting it would make your final season easier but in the end a max earner only saves around 200 TPE after 6 regressions and a 100 TPE/season earner saves around 200 TPE after 3 regressions.

So, rather than looking at the career arc of a max active let's look at a semi-active, say 100 TPE per season:
-DSFL season
-3 send down seasons
-called up for 4th regression season around 500 TPE
-2 seasons of being in the ballpark of the best OL bots before regression
-1 season of fighting regression before the 25% sends you down to the mid 500s, possibly a second season but probably unlikely for a semi-active

Is a team that drafts that player getting any value out of the pick? If they have a big bank and can take minimum contracts you might be grateful for that extra $12m or so in cap savings over the course of 4 seasons but how many semi-actives are self-sustaining? They probably won't hit 100 TPE/season on minimum contracts and would need a contract a bit closer to OL bot costs to maintain a full season of training, minimizing what advantage there is.

With a 200 TPE invisible boost upon being called up that same 100 TPE/season semi-active would be looking at:
-DSFL season
-2 send down seasons (with 1 a reasonable possibility)
-called up for 3rd regression season around 600 TPE
-3 seasons of being better than any OL bot before regression
-2 seasons of fighting regression before reaching the 30% tier, a 3rd season would be possible but maybe a stretch for a semi-active as they'd be starting in the mid 500s

A team that drafts that player would absolutely be getting some value out of the pick. Getting 6 seasons of viable play (and possible cap savings) as well as 4-5 seasons of being noticeably better (and somewhat cheaper) than replacement level out of a semi-active is a solid contribution. Optimally, they're probably still better off going with a different position but it wouldn't put GMs in the predicament where they're asked to spend a draft pick on a player that won't provide them any value.

Now let's look at a 175 TPE/season player playing OL with that invisible boost:
-DSFL season
-1 send down season
-called up for 2nd regression season around 600 TPE
-4 seasons of being significantly better than any OL bot before regression
-4 seasons of fighting regression before reaching the 50% tier that nukes you, a 5th season would be possible

You'd start 8 seasons with at least 750 TPE (including the boost TPE) and another 2 in the 600s, meaning you'd finish 10 seasons with at least 750 TPE and at your peak you'd have around 1500 effective TPE. Is this overpowered? I doubt it. Since the last 350 or so TPE would be superfluous and you'd be about as useful as an 1150 TPE lineman in any given season the biggest benefit you'd have is longevity, which is definitely a concern what with all the important offensive line records we must protect. If this is a concern, put a hard TPE cap on all players at 1400 TPE or whatever and make them bank after that. But the way I see it, a max earner at offensive line is a waste (from an optimization point of view) no matter how big of a TPE boost they get so I'm not worried about it.

I am actually baffled that the reaction to a position being untenable to all but the highest of earners, and mediocre even then, would be to throw up your hands and give up when there's an obvious, proposed, and popular solution right in front of you - not to mention so many other workable solutions, ranging from nerfing OL bots' attributes or increasing their cost to only allowing recreates to make offensive linemen to giving first generation offensive linemen an addition free position switch.

Put up all the hurdles you want to dissuade new users from picking offensive line but taking away the choice is an even worse decision than just keeping a position so broken that it's considered a retention trap, which has been the decision of GMs and HO for the past 6+ months.

What am I missing?

What are the concerns about user offensive linemen that would lead someone to actively try to kill them? There's such a range of possible solutions, stretching from tepid baby step to radical overhaul, but apparently no combination of them address some massive issue here that's eluding me.

[BWIII]

For example, ahead of the Season 13 Rules Summit someone (I forget who, SORRY. Maybe Bayley or PDX?) made a proposal on PaytonM34 's behalf

It was PDX for S13 (failed) and then me in S14 (failed again)

[bovovovo]

I CAME BACK FROM THE DEAD to offer my +1 to this

[Ben]

I CAME BACK FROM THE DEAD to offer my +1 to this

lol my man

[ValorX77]

I vote to Abolish the O-line of Tijuana.

[manicmav36]

Fun fact, since the introduction of OL bots in S3, we have yet to have a user break 250 TPE at that position. While I suspect we may have a couple that may do so in the lastest NSFL rookie class, that's an awfully long time for such a small milestone to be broken. By giving them extra TPE or better base stats, the position doesn't become inherently more fun, and that seems to be what is holding people back. Not that they aren't cost effective for a few seasons. Most (actually, all) of these creates never made it out of the DSFL, where they're starting all 14 games.

[TomHanks]

Fun fact, since the introduction of OL bots in S3, we have yet to have a user break 250 TPE at that position. While I suspect we may have a couple that may do so in the lastest NSFL rookie class, that's an awfully long time for such a small milestone to be broken. By giving them extra TPE or better base stats, the position doesn't become inherently more fun, and that seems to be what is holding people back. Not that they aren't cost effective for a few seasons. Most (actually, all) of these creates never made it out of the DSFL, where they're starting all 14 games.

If we make the position a more viable option for a long term career, and people still don't choose to make offensive lineman, then we know it's because the position doesn't hold enough interest at a widespread level. But not changing the rules to make it more viable on the assumption that the reason no one has chosen to stick with it is because of a lack of interest rather than the lack of real career opportunities isn't really fair to people who might be interested in going o-line, even if some people think it's boring.

[manicmav36]

If we make the position a more viable option for a long term career, and people still don't choose to make offensive lineman, then we know it's because the position doesn't hold enough interest at a widespread level. But not changing the rules to make it more viable on the assumption that the reason no one has chosen to stick with it is because of a lack of interest rather than the lack of real career opportunities isn't really fair to people who might be interested in going o-line, even if some people think it's boring.

There is an abundance of career opportunities for anyone who wants them, 5 on each NSFL team, in fact, it's just a higher point of entry than some positions, similar to WR or QB. If they enjoyed the position, I imagine they would have no issue spending a couple seasons in the DSFL, as most rookies already do.

[MrStennett]

The recent suggestion promoting the abolishment of the o-line position was for one very simple reason: we need players. Now, this may seem like a strange step to take here, but hear me out. With expansion about to read it’s ugly head (which in my mind was a mistake altogether brought about as an overreaction to one overly large draft class, but I digress) the league in general is going to be in short supply of active users at many skill positions. While there is no inherently good way to dole out “bots” and whatnot to most of these positions, there is a current system in place to do so with the o-line. It seems like quite a waste of talent and activity to have users in a position where you have such a high entrance point that many users never make it out of the DSFL. These players could be making WRs or DBs or DLs that will eventually be much more useful to their teams than at OL. Most teams can field a fairly competitive OL, entirely without the use of active players. On the other hand, why would we boost a position? If you choose to play OL, that’s a decision that you make as a user. The league goes to pains to spell out why it is an “undesirable” position. Picking something you know is going to be hard and then expecting the league to make it easier on you is asinine.

[Beaver]

Fun fact, since the introduction of OL bots in S3, we have yet to have a user break 250 TPE at that position. While I suspect we may have a couple that may do so in the lastest NSFL rookie class, that's an awfully long time for such a small milestone to be broken. By giving them extra TPE or better base stats, the position doesn't become inherently more fun, and that seems to be what is holding people back. Not that they aren't cost effective for a few seasons. Most (actually, all) of these creates never made it out of the DSFL, where they're starting all 14 games.

This is a really good point.

We have a position that is so broken that nobody's passed 250 TPE in it yet not once have we taken action to make this position more viable. The time for action is now, thank you brother manic for your support.