|
Post by The X-Factor on Jun 3, 2007 15:36:16 GMT -5
i like the idea jordan proposed and to all those not in favor whats the big difference of upgrading say jim mcllvaine at the age of 32...do you really think thats going to make or break the league? not to mention chances are whatever RC you do use on an older player chances are he loses it after the seasons end declining in the following TC. Thats the risk/reward you take um didn't see this before I made my post... but obviously agreed.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Jun 3, 2007 17:37:35 GMT -5
I dont really have a preference. RCs dont inflate top end ratings. They are a small nudge for players. As long as we dont have more then 3 RCs per player, and as long as they cant raise playes over 85, I dont think it matters how old the players are. having said that, Im not sure I want to change anything with RCs.
|
|
|
Post by ducky on Jun 3, 2007 20:22:34 GMT -5
meh
|
|
|
Post by KruPaxson on Jun 3, 2007 21:49:34 GMT -5
i voted no because it gives u a reason to keep ur young talent and not just build a dream team of veterans. also the whole reason bbs was shut down was because the players were too unrealistically good and i think that this would be a problem again The original BBS didn't shut down because of that... As for people saying this is going to reward the already good teams and hurt the already bad teams is ridiculous. Let me re-phrase what you meant to say. "This is going to reward the active teams even more and hurt the inactive ones." Also, how is this going to make it more "un-realistic?" If you choose to spend an RC on a player over 25 you're doing it with some risk as players tend to decline in BBS over the age of 25. If you want to spend an RC on a possible declining player you should be able to do so. There is no negative to modifying RCs. Only positives... stop worrying about it and make some posts and write some articles.- EXALT!
|
|
|
Post by KruPaxson on Jun 3, 2007 21:51:48 GMT -5
I dont really have a preference. RCs dont inflate top end ratings. They are a small nudge for players. As long as we dont have more then 3 RCs per player, and as long as they cant raise playes over 85, I dont think it matters how old the players are. having said that, Im not sure I want to change anything with RCs. so ummm yeaaa are you saying you don't mind if we use RC's on players over 25? or you don't want to change it and keep it at players under 25?
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Jun 4, 2007 1:13:45 GMT -5
I dont really have a preference. RCs dont inflate top end ratings. They are a small nudge for players. As long as we dont have more then 3 RCs per player, and as long as they cant raise playes over 85, I dont think it matters how old the players are. having said that, Im not sure I want to change anything with RCs. so ummm yeaaa are you saying you don't mind if we use RC's on players over 25? or you don't want to change it and keep it at players under 25? Im pretty confident that any conclusion that has been made would be good for the league, and therefore we should do it unless we decide not to.
|
|
|
Post by KruPaxson on Jun 4, 2007 1:15:30 GMT -5
very cool i think this will be very interesting this upcoming offseason and the choices teams make
|
|
|
Post by The X-Factor on Jun 4, 2007 9:36:14 GMT -5
agreed.
|
|
|
Post by James on Jun 18, 2007 5:35:14 GMT -5
Bump. No decision was really made, how about one?
|
|
|
Post by The X-Factor on Jun 18, 2007 9:29:06 GMT -5
Spence clearly said it's ok
|
|
|
Post by FeartheFro2122 on Jun 18, 2007 11:43:47 GMT -5
I like a compromise also. Maybe try moving it to age 26 or 27, then that will be good for all. The percentage of players in real life that improve after age 26 or 27 is slim to none.
|
|
|
Post by KruPaxson on Jun 18, 2007 11:48:16 GMT -5
I like a compromise also. Maybe try moving it to age 26 or 27, then that will be good for all. The percentage of players in real life that improve after age 26 or 27 is slim to none. Keon Clark Anthony Johnson Raja Bell Jim Jackson Mikki Moore Stackhouse(recently found a fountain of youth) This is just off the top of my head of players that have improved after the age of 26-27.
|
|
|
Post by KruPaxson on Jun 18, 2007 11:48:36 GMT -5
so ummm yeaaa are you saying you don't mind if we use RC's on players over 25? or you don't want to change it and keep it at players under 25? Im pretty confident that any conclusion that has been made would be good for the league, and therefore we should do it unless we decide not to.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Jun 18, 2007 12:02:14 GMT -5
Im pretty confident that any conclusion that has been made would be good for the league, and therefore we should do it unless we decide not to. UM, I clearly totally double speaked there. It was supposed to be a joke. Therefore we should do it unless we decide not to?
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Jun 18, 2007 12:02:41 GMT -5
Starting next year it will cost 2 RCs for players over 30 to be upgraded.
|
|
|
Post by KruPaxson on Jun 18, 2007 12:05:56 GMT -5
UM, I clearly totally double speaked there. It was supposed to be a joke. Therefore we should do it unless we decide not to? I thought you were serious. I thought good points were made and it was a good conclusion for the league that the whole league felt strongly about.
|
|
|
Post by KruPaxson on Jun 18, 2007 12:06:30 GMT -5
Starting next year it will cost 2 RCs for players over 30 to be upgraded. so what about player 26-29?
|
|
|
Post by The X-Factor on Jun 18, 2007 12:10:48 GMT -5
15 out of 29 people voted yes... thats more then half the league...
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Jun 18, 2007 12:12:40 GMT -5
Starting next year it will cost 2 RCs for players over 30 to be upgraded. so what about player 26-29? I wasnt it to be easier for me to monitor, so I like the 30 age limit. I also think its a good idea to allow players to develop through the game. If we wait till after 30, then you can kinda see where players need the attention.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Jun 18, 2007 12:13:03 GMT -5
15 out of 29 people voted yes... thats more then half the league... Yes, but there was no consensus with how the rule would be modified.
|
|
|
Post by KruPaxson on Jun 18, 2007 12:15:27 GMT -5
so what about player 26-29? I wasnt it to be easier for me to monitor, so I like the 30 age limit. I also think its a good idea to allow players to develop through the game. If we wait till after 30, then you can kinda see where players need the attention. So it should cost me more to upgrade a player over 30? Also these players can't be developed from 26-29 thats realistic? Why don't we just have it you can upgrade players up to the age of 30? Or after the age of 25 it will cost 2 RC's
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Jun 18, 2007 12:17:42 GMT -5
i really like that idea of making it cost two upgrades. good shit
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Jun 18, 2007 12:22:50 GMT -5
I wasnt it to be easier for me to monitor, so I like the 30 age limit. I also think its a good idea to allow players to develop through the game. If we wait till after 30, then you can kinda see where players need the attention. So it should cost me more to upgrade a player over 30? Also these players can't be developed from 26-29 thats realistic? Why don't we just have it you can upgrade players up to the age of 30? Or after the age of 25 it will cost 2 RC's Take it or leave it. I really dont see what the problem is. It should take more work, or effort to "train" or "develop" older players. This is the scenario Im okay with.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Jun 18, 2007 12:23:05 GMT -5
I was thinking it costs 2 upgrades to upgrade a person over 30 and anyone below that it is just one. Why not make it 3 upgrades over 30 and under that just 1. If people rarely develope past the age of 30 than making it harder to upgrade someone would be realistic.
|
|
|
Post by KruPaxson on Jun 18, 2007 12:30:56 GMT -5
Up to 25 1 RC....26+ 2 RC....3 per career....what say you, Spence
|
|