|
Post by boom on Aug 3, 2009 9:44:04 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by quackattack on Aug 3, 2009 10:36:59 GMT -8
its my new league, only join if you can be active - and remain active in C4Q. mops has worked hard keeping activity up in here, so don't join another league if you don't have the time to remain committed to your current leagues.
|
|
|
Post by mops on Aug 3, 2009 10:45:28 GMT -8
Board looks good. I just think theres a lot of under-rated players.
|
|
|
Post by pudgejeff on Aug 3, 2009 11:04:39 GMT -8
I feel kinda slow...I couldn't even find the rosters
|
|
JTBRLZ
Full Member
Raptors GM
Posts: 183
|
Post by JTBRLZ on Aug 3, 2009 11:21:02 GMT -8
Signed up
|
|
|
Post by quackattack on Aug 3, 2009 11:29:40 GMT -8
I feel kinda slow...I couldn't even find the rosters Theres an Index link right above the Commissioner's Office thread
|
|
|
Post by pudgejeff on Aug 3, 2009 11:40:02 GMT -8
Outlaw's a better scorer than Roy? and Dwight only has A rebounding?
|
|
|
Post by donatello2424 on Aug 3, 2009 12:24:15 GMT -8
Horford is the only Hawks with scouted potential better than C? No Smith, no Teague?
|
|
|
Post by quackattack on Aug 3, 2009 14:34:27 GMT -8
Outlaw's a better scorer than Roy? and Dwight only has A rebounding? yea, thats why i'm allowing teams to gripe. i spent so much time putting the rosters together than there were bound to be some things i overlooked
|
|
|
Post by quackattack on Aug 3, 2009 14:38:14 GMT -8
Horford is the only Hawks with scouted potential better than C? No Smith, no Teague? keyword = scouted. fbb generates the scouted potential ratings
|
|
|
Post by pudgejeff on Aug 3, 2009 15:19:54 GMT -8
Horford is the only Hawks with scouted potential better than C? No Smith, no Teague? keyword = scouted. fbb generates the scouted potential ratings Didn't know that...that's a cool thing to know...thank you
|
|
|
Post by lukeyrid13 on Aug 3, 2009 20:50:55 GMT -8
really getting active there now. I joined and a bit confusing compared to this IMO but I like it overall for sure
|
|
JTBRLZ
Full Member
Raptors GM
Posts: 183
|
Post by JTBRLZ on Aug 8, 2009 9:43:29 GMT -8
Yea in general I just like proboards more than pretty much every over forum type. They're a lot easier to organize.
|
|
cwizz
Full Member
Washington Bullets GM
Posts: 174
|
Post by cwizz on Aug 8, 2009 16:00:20 GMT -8
I like Jcink the most...
|
|
|
Post by brophdogg88 on Aug 8, 2009 16:28:15 GMT -8
The ratings are excellent for the most part...however, I hate the GM cash aspect...so far the most succesful leagues I have been in have not had GM cash, as not everybody has the time to go and do the claims, and teams can end up with inflated ratings. I could see giving out team based successes, but when you start getting into player based success, issues arise, as A. GM's get rewarded for looking at boxes etc... but in reality that doesn't necessarily increase activity, as I know I would much rather spend an hour looking at the league overall then spending that time just looking at my team. When you get into more than one league its tough to devote a significant amount of time to pouring through box scores, and making sure I get every dollar when I could spend the same time looking through the other leagues, posting in the league writing articles, etc. Depth Chart based rewards are nice, but when you get into the boxes etc it takes too much time....the Idea of a GM salary isn't bad though, especially when tied to previous performance... Like say a team wins a title, that team gets a higher salary for the next year than the team that finishes in the lotto, then say that salary can be spent on a "new practice facility which improves your players overall on potential -2 to 5 (some guys may of loved their locker in the old facility ), or a medical facility which cuts injury time in half, or maybe eliminates certain small injuries, etc....a rebounding coach which provides post players with a small rebounding upgrade, like +2 to each's defense or offense at random.... man with Coleman that Medical facility upgrade would be real nice
|
|