no content
AdBlocker active?
It seems you are using software to block advertisements. You could help us if you could switch it off when visiting redzoneaction.org.
The reason is very simple: Advertisements help us running the site, to offer you the game in a good quality for free. So if you like the game, please support us by purchasing a Supporter Account or disabling the AdBlocker on this site.
Thank you very much!
| Main / Discussions / Season #24 CofC Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 7 8 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
| posted: 2017-03-10 18:34:03 (ID: 100099729) Report Abuse | |
|
In the NFL you get on many positions starter or almost starters from the draft.
Here you get prospects which you need to develop. Sure, if there would be only 63 spots, teams would need to adjust and move on, but there are 70 spots, and every manager can maximize their development power by using those 70 spots. That's all behind it. You are welcome to just use 53, 55 or 63 spots, but I think that will just limit your team. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
hollyhh2000
|
posted: 2017-03-10 19:12:39 (ID: 100099730) Report Abuse |
|
Rock777 wrote:
hollyhh2000 wrote:
Rock777 wrote:
 In my version of the game I can only have 55 players on the depth chart for a bowl game, and I can only promote 6 players... Where can I get the version that allows me to use all 70 players in a bowl game?Feel free to cut your middle aged players who should take over once your retirees are gone. smart move Feel free to run without your roster at maximum capacity all year long. That is called good management. In my opinion, waste of resources, so the opposite of good management |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2017-03-10 19:12:44 (ID: 100099731) Report Abuse | |
|
Congratulation bobcor. The better team did win.
 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
bobcor
|
posted: 2017-03-10 19:22:23 (ID: 100099732) Report Abuse |
|
jack6 wrote:
Congratulation bobcor. The better team did win. Thanks ... your team had me worried with all those successful runs in the second half. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2017-03-10 19:47:27 (ID: 100099735) Report Abuse | |
|
jack6 wrote:
Meitheisman wrote:
pete wrote:And no, this problem with the COC Bowl is not the trigger for it. I found it quite "slavery-like" to send off your veterans in their final season. This chance of changing it...I say "welcome" to it. So, 5 to 6 days after the season rollover should be enough to think about such a veterans future.
This might create other problems. For example, a team has a 29 year old kicker, on season rollover he turns 30 and announces he'll retire at the end of the new season. The manager has a whole season to find a replacement. Let's say mid-season the manager buys a 27 year old kicker who's better than the now 30 year old retiring kicker. If the fire button is gone this team would be forced to use 2 roster spots for kickers and to pay a retiring kicker who probably wouldn't even play. This doesn't seem right to me. I see that as a management stuff. The team manager did already decide to gamble a bit on a lone kicker at season rollover and he gets the information for the retirement right after it. He then can draft one, buy one and/or keep his old one. If he decides to keep his old one, that's his decision. Of cause in that case the quick substitution will not have starter stats, but that's the gamble not having a replacement or at least a backup on the roster already. My 2 Cents. I am quite sure...if we just look for it long enough, we will find enough reasons to carry 100 men rosters as well. And yes, challenges are created by having limits. So here we go. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2017-03-10 20:53:36 (ID: 100099739) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse |
|
Congrats Bobcor
I just thought of another potential issue with the "no fire" button. Just to be clear I personally will have no problem paying all of my retirees until the end of the season each season but it seems to be something that will penalize weaker or newer teams more. I already often pay and play my retiring players until the end of the season (or almost) because I go deep in the playoffs and often have friendly cups in the offseason. A weaker or newer team not making the playoff currently fires its retirees 6 or 7 updates before I do so that team would suffer a greater penalty than a rich team like mine would. This would make going to the playoffs even more valuable and reinforce the rich getting richer. I know this isn't the intention but this would be one of the consequences I believe. Last edited on 2017-03-10 20:54:02 by Meitheisman |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2017-03-10 21:01:36 (ID: 100099740) Report Abuse | |
|
The teams have one week to complete their plans for these retiring players. Should be OK.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2017-03-10 21:11:28 (ID: 100099742) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse |
|
I understand that Pete but let's say two teams both decide to keep their retiring players for the season in order to be more competitive.
Team A was correct and goes deep in the playoffs getting a lot of extra money and experience. Team B was wrong and misses the playoffs. Currently team B can save a little bit of cash by firing its retiring players early while team A still has to pay its retirees during the playoff games. Without a "fire" button it changes almost nothing for team A put penalizes team B more by forcing it to pay its retirees for an extra 5/6 updates. Last edited on 2017-03-10 21:11:42 by Meitheisman |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2017-03-10 21:15:06 (ID: 100099743) Report Abuse | |
|
I never heard teams firing their players who plan to retire - midseason.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2017-03-10 21:16:43 (ID: 100099744) Report Abuse |
|
Who's talking about mid-season? I'm talking about after week 16 once all official games have been played.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 7 8 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / Season #24 CofC | |
