I say 5 should be the max. Then, you can have a lineman and a skill player on offense, a front seven guy and a secondary guy on defense and a kicker or punter. Anything else, you're just buying players to fill in needs because you're not a good enough owner to do it the old-fashioned way by recruiting. Personally, I only have one player on my own team and feel very hesitant about adding another when his contract runs out since it feels like it's going against the spirit of the game.
Anyway, looking at some of the top teams in Eastern Europe, I can see they're getting a sizable advantage from using their own players. Here are a list of the undefeated teams and how many owner-controlled players they employ:
Washington Chairmen- 11 players controlled by team owner
Sheboygan Chaos Theory - 14 players controlled by team owner
Prague Punishers- 7 players controlled by team owner
Chernobyl Mutants- 8 players controlled by team owner
Cincinnatti Tigers- 7 players controlled by team owner
Rome Gladiators- 12 players controlled by team owner
I think it's pretty clear that this amounts to a sizable competitive advantage. It's not just that "everyone is doing it" either. In addition to my team (the Georgia Tec-9s), I quickly looked over 4 other teams in the Alpha conference with varying records and none had more than 5 of their own players. The fact is that the teams at the top of the league have all gotten there by relying on paying for more flex points rather than tactics, recruiting, and skill. I think it's rather distressing that this has become such a large factor. I'm not trying to be a sore loser or anything and I'm not saying it's cheating, but I do think it's a clear flaw in the making of the game and it will only make me that much more determined to knock off some of these unworthy opponents.
Also, if I hear anyone saying that I must be a bad owner because I still have a few CPU starters, I might be a little more inclined to flip the fuck out.
Anyway, looking at some of the top teams in Eastern Europe, I can see they're getting a sizable advantage from using their own players. Here are a list of the undefeated teams and how many owner-controlled players they employ:
Washington Chairmen- 11 players controlled by team owner
Sheboygan Chaos Theory - 14 players controlled by team owner
Prague Punishers- 7 players controlled by team owner
Chernobyl Mutants- 8 players controlled by team owner
Cincinnatti Tigers- 7 players controlled by team owner
Rome Gladiators- 12 players controlled by team owner
I think it's pretty clear that this amounts to a sizable competitive advantage. It's not just that "everyone is doing it" either. In addition to my team (the Georgia Tec-9s), I quickly looked over 4 other teams in the Alpha conference with varying records and none had more than 5 of their own players. The fact is that the teams at the top of the league have all gotten there by relying on paying for more flex points rather than tactics, recruiting, and skill. I think it's rather distressing that this has become such a large factor. I'm not trying to be a sore loser or anything and I'm not saying it's cheating, but I do think it's a clear flaw in the making of the game and it will only make me that much more determined to knock off some of these unworthy opponents.
Also, if I hear anyone saying that I must be a bad owner because I still have a few CPU starters, I might be a little more inclined to flip the fuck out.
Last edited May 3, 2008 01:17:45






























