Discussion in 'The Experience' started by jello1717, Jan 28, 2012.
Im going for no sways AT ALL. This will prevent stat whoring as well if you want to keep your players all 4 years
Then make your vote!
Yeah yeah I thought that would work.
I wanted to say stick with our old rule but i see the reasoning for the no swaying. But i think we should go to that stage anyway cause i wanna know who the fucking is ditching the Zona Zoo
The one exception I might put in there would be players who try to transfer to another user. We should be able to fight amongst ourselves.
Since there is that sporadic error that randomly prevents users from being able to sway players I'd say no swaying period.
I agree with you here, but Suge's counter point is better. It's not really fair that some get to talk back transfers while others don't. We should strive for competitive balance here and that's one way to achieve it with the product we're playing with.
My vote was the swing vote to push us to 7. The 99% have spoken.
Also, like I posted in the other thread. Hopefully this will have a two-fold effect by helping take care of the redshirt issue as well.
I think next year we need to start and be ultra-aggressive with the rules. No talk backs, limit redshirting, limit 5 stars etc. Then, if the CPU is out pacing us, we can soften the rules. Same with gameplay. I'm tired of seeing the CPU become completely irrelevant by season 6.
Should we consider allowing teams to make an additional cut if they are bombarded with guys leaving and have to end up taking a walk-on or shit player because of need?
For example, right now I only have 65 guys on my roster because 4 guys left without being able to be swayed (would have been 5 under new rule). I didn't sign any crap players after that because we can only cut 1 guy and I don't want people taking roster spots if I can sign better players the next year.
Also, for players transferring to other user teams. If the receiving team does not want the player, I think we should allow the team who currently has him to try and sway him back if he is just going to be cut by his new team.
I agree with that. Any walk-on should be cut.
I guess I'm not understanding what you're saying. Currently we are required to cut all players that are added to our team that we didn't recruit (CPU added scholarship guys and walk-ons). The only time we would be required to keep walk ons is if we needed one of them to meet a position requirement.
I think bill means that if your SS goes pro, and you are forced to sign a 1 star shitty SS to fill a "need", then the following year you should be able to cut him.
Should we be allowed to try to keep underclassmen from transferring?
I'd agree with this.
Separate names with a comma.