10-30-2010, 02:44 PM
Ok, I'm not gonna lie... I didn't read the previous posts... but I have somethign to air out here.
Your stuck in the 90's if your still basing compensation off ratings... Compensation should be given to those players who have performed the best in the free agent class, over a given time period. Whether it be one year, two years or three, you need to compile the stats of each player, find the average, and rank the players that way. Only the top %'s will receive compensation, but its the only "fair" way to do it.
By being stuck on ratings, your getting extremely overrated players who aren't as good as their ratings suggest receiving compensation. Likewise, you'll have players who are performing like superstars, who may be underrated and have low overall ratings, receiving no compensation at all..
I don't mean to sound rude, but the way your doing compensation right now is primitive and is completely unfair. This is basically just a sypnosis, if you want more on the topic, feel free to ask...
Your stuck in the 90's if your still basing compensation off ratings... Compensation should be given to those players who have performed the best in the free agent class, over a given time period. Whether it be one year, two years or three, you need to compile the stats of each player, find the average, and rank the players that way. Only the top %'s will receive compensation, but its the only "fair" way to do it.
By being stuck on ratings, your getting extremely overrated players who aren't as good as their ratings suggest receiving compensation. Likewise, you'll have players who are performing like superstars, who may be underrated and have low overall ratings, receiving no compensation at all..
I don't mean to sound rude, but the way your doing compensation right now is primitive and is completely unfair. This is basically just a sypnosis, if you want more on the topic, feel free to ask...