![]() |
|
View Poll Results: Maximum Overall Team Rating that we will allow for initial selection? | |||
80 |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
8 | 72.73% |
81 |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
0 | 0% |
82 |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
1 | 9.09% |
83 |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
0 | 0% |
84 |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
0 | 0% |
85 |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
1 | 9.09% |
86 |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
0 | 0% |
87 |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
0 | 0% |
88 |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
0 | 0% |
89 |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
0 | 0% |
Other (please specify) |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
1 | 9.09% |
Voters: 11. You may not vote on this poll |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools |
![]() |
#1 | ||
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: New Jersey
|
West Coast League: Team Selection Criteria
What is the maximum overall rating we should allow teams to have for the initial selection? I think 80 provides the best balance of challenge and a few teams to select from each conference, but a slight increase above that will allow more teams to be selected. I think if we go too much higher than that, we risk human teams becoming dominant.
__________________
Retired GM of the eNFL 2007 Super Bowl Champion Philadelphia Eagles (19-0 record.) GM of the WOOF 2006 Doggie Bowl Champion Atlantic City Gamblers. GM of the IHOF 2019 and 2022 IHOF Bowl Champion Asheville Axemen. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: In the thick of it.
|
Sub 80, no question at all. Just for the sake of nobody starting out 36-0 right off the bat, and nabbing half the 5 star prospects every year.
__________________
I'm still here. Don't touch my fucking bacon. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Resident Alien
Join Date: Jun 2001
|
Yeah, it'd be more fun to watch teams climb the ladder, rather than start of at the top and dominate forever.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Apr 2005
|
I went with 80...Does that mean we include teams that have a 80 rating, or all teams just under 80?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: New Jersey
|
There are no teams with an 80 overall rating, but for purposes of the other options, I meant for it to be equal or less than the option you select.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
College Prospect
Join Date: Jul 2001
|
It should definitely be under 80, but I didn't read the thread beforehand, so I voted other. So, add another one to 80.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Black Hole
|
The 80s were a good time. Much better than the 90s.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: In the thick of it.
|
![]() Last Christmas I gave you my heart. But the very next day you gave it away.
__________________
I'm still here. Don't touch my fucking bacon. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Black Hole
|
Ummm...maybe the music, not necessarily the clothes.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ohio
|
I said 80. But if someone had to use an 81-rated team in a conference that only has 4 choices (Big 10 & SEC I believe) then I would maybe/probably be okay with that. We'll see what conferences win in the selection first.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Apr 2005
|
Quote:
Well, we are going with 4 conferences with 3 teams. So that shouldn't be a problem. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|