I'm speaking solely in terms of skill level and competitiveness... What do you guys think? I think it's unlikely that any league will have 12 guys who could all win a championship at any time. I just don't see leagues like that. That is the ideal, but inevitably, it just doesn't happen. What is the ideal league makeup? Do you want a few stick control guys, or ideally would you want a league full of guys who just call plays and let the computer make the catch? Do you want guys who could compete with anybody on the site in every league, or should leagues (ideally) be organized by skill level? Give me any and all thoughts on this issue, I'd love to hear it. I like having guys in my league who practice, who work at it. Who even if they don't have a great record against a guy, are still asking around what to do against him, and are game planning.... And can occasionally surprise and get the win. I absolutely HATE IT when I hear people say things like "well I just don't even recruit against so and so anymore." Honestly, in that case, figure out why the guy is kicking your head in and do something about it. Or tell the guy to stop cheating. Or get more even teams to start with I suppose... Don't just roll over! Or resigning oneself to a loss. Hate that. What's the point of a league then? Maybe I'm overcompetitive, I just hate to see the same people not trying hard, or certain guys going to the conference championships, and the same people winning the title, every year. I'm not saying my league is perfect in this regard... Far from it. I'm trying to figure out what's the right balance... How should I organize the league if we have (random example) 4 highly skilled guys (multiple BCS title guys), 4 medium level guys (could rise up and win one), and 4 guys who probably won't win a title. Is that o.k. if the bottom level guys are good sports and want to be in the league, or should leagues be trying to organize more in terms of skill than we currently do?