This is good work, Hoop, and something I'm going to seriously consider implementing into my ECFA and EPFA play.
I've been doing a lot of thinking and calculating today with regard to passing accuracy and how it relates to electric football. Through the games I've played in the ECFA, the throws I actually make hit about 2/3rds of the time. The completion percentages for the QBs are lower than that, of course, due to throw aways and Box-induced incompletions and interceptions.
Based on the dice rolls, when you shake the box there is roughly a 3% chance of the pass being incomplete. I've added a rule where if this double 2s dice roll comes up, another dice roll is done and if they total 2 or 12, the pass is intercepted. However, in the grand scheme of things, this chance was very low.
I've also not had many penalties, so I might jack that possibility up, and I came up with this:
Double 1s: Fumble
Double 2s: Incomplete
Double 3s: Intercepted
Double 4s: Minor Penalty
Double 5s: Minor Penalty
Double 6s: Major Penalty
I've decided against using injuries for now, so I'm not accounting for them on the chart.
Now, here's another way to deal with passing. In research I've done today, NCAA Division I-A quarterbacks completed 59.7% of their passes (roughly 60%) during the 2010 season. The average team had 12 passes intercepted in 374 throws.
Put to two 10-sided dice, this would read:
01-60 COMPLETE
61-97 INCOMPLETE
98-00 INTERCEPTED
Sounds simple, right? But here's the problem. This assumes that every pass is the same - that your receiver who is open 55 yards down field has the same chance of catching the ball as the running back in the flat just 10 yards away from your quarterback. This shouldn't be. To me, the short passes should be easier and the longer passes should be harder, so you'd have something like this:
0-20 yards:
01-70 COMPLETE
71-99 INCOMPLETE
00 INTERCEPTED
21-40 yards:
01-50 COMPLETE
51-97 INCOMPLETE
98-00 INTERCEPTED
41-yards plus:
01-30 COMPLETE
31-95 INCOMPLETE
96-00 INTERCEPTED
Remember, the majority of the passes likely to be thrown are going to be in that first category, so the lower completion opportunities at longer distances shouldn't distort the overall completion percentage of a quarterback too greatly from that original 59.7% number.
I even went through, and based on 2010 stats, produced chart unique to each of my 14 teams:
COMP. INC. INT. TEAM
01-66 67-96 97-00 OHIO STATE
01-66 67-98 99-00 KENTUCKY
01-65 67-98 99-00 OKLAHOMA
01-63 64-97 98-00 FLORIDA STATE
01-63 64-96 97-00 MICHIGAN
01-61 62-97 98-00 FLORIDA
01-59 60-96 97-00 VIRGINIA
01-59 60-96 97-00 TEXAS
01-59 60-97 98-00 NEBRASKA
01-56 57-95 96-00 ILLINOIS
01-56 57-98 99-00 SYRACUSE
01-56 57-95 96-00 PURDUE
01-56 57-96 97-00 CLEMSON
01-55 56-97 98-00 BYU
The other part to consider is, and I haven't worked up charts or done the research on this yet ... but how did teams do defensively stopping the pass, to the point that it would affect the offensive team's ratings? If Oklahoma is 1-65 on completions, but face an Ohio State team that, for example, only allowed 45% completions by opposing passers during the season, does the number get adjusted to 1-55? Not sure how deep I'd want to get into that.
I don't know if I'm going to use these charts in my solitaire game play or not. I like using the TTQB to throw the football. But in the effort to speed up gameplay, I could probably play 40-minute quarters instead of 60-minute quarters by using some version of the passing charts above, along with the FG chart already included above in this thread.
Ed
