New rule suggestion...

Our 32 hour rule has SERVED US WELL - but like everything in life - IT CAN BE IMPROVED...

THe 32 hour rule allows a player to play the CPU if his opponent is away for a minimum 32 hoursd (and its the 2nd day of the playn period)...

its a great rule - BECAUSE WE ALL HAVE LIOVES OUTSIDE OF MADDEN -= and occassionally we may be away for 32+ hours (this doesnt make u UNCOMMITTED) - just busy with other things - that is why a player in this situation is TEMPORARILY DROPPED and invited back to the franchise (only when we see a patternm of this occuring is furthur sanction considered)...

There is a RANDOM nature to this rule - often in a heated playoiff race - a guy that gets a CPU game (and his opponent who has to fight tooth and nail) - may seem this is UNFAIR - especially if he lost to that opponent earliert in the year...

The suggestion i recieved (and cant remember who made the suggestion - but i will find out to recognize his thoughtfulness) is to have some1 in that DIVISION who is online and available play the game instead - choice of the player playing... (it may be more practical to have ANYONE in that franchise play the GAME)...

OF COURSE SUCH A RULE COULD ONLY BE IMPLEMENTED AT THE START OF A YEAR - it would be unfair to insert it MIDSEASON...

WHAT DI U GUYS THINK????

i don't think it's a good idea. people are going to choose guys who are the best in our leagues to replace them for there games (guys who might be better than them and purposely miss games to have someone else play theirs) i.e. i pick jmo to replace my games and end up going undefeated in those however many games he plays for me. also we have enough guys missing their own games already it's just gonna stir up more problems if we put even more responsibility on these guys.

I agree with EZ. It's gonna lead to tons of problems. Also, that does have an effect on the divisional race, but what about the wildcard. If a division is sown up, like mine in DW league. If I was still in contention for a wildcard spot, and I had to play a non-divisional game to keep me in contention, but was forced to play a divisional opponent who is standing in, that would suck.


I do agree that in situations where a playoff race is involved, it's a bit unfair that one player would get a cpu game and the others wouldn't. Yet it's also unfair that the game would be simmed instead.

Agree with these guys, it sounds ok in theory but I think it would lead to a ton of problems in practice.

It obviously sucks when 2 guys are battling for one playoff spot, and one gets a cpu game while the other has to play somebody good, but that's just something that we are going to have to live with. Over the entire 17 week season stuff like this should even out to where both people have had about the same number of simmed wins, loses, and cpu games.

Think of a late season cpu game as a team in the NFL getting to play the colts in week 16 when they are resting all their starters.

This kind of goes back to my post greenerrr about playing the computer, I don't like having a sub that is in no way fair but I do believe you should only get 1 crack at teh computer.

Absolutly no restarts no offense to anyone, but I really don't believe multiple restarts against computer are because of anything accept wanting to start the game over for whatever reason be it injury or they are losing whatever.

No if anything it should be somebody outside of the division that will not stand to gain or lose anything from it. But still its a pain in the ass. I am all for having a life and it sucks to forfeit a game but that is what a forfeit is. If for some reason you cant play a game online or in real life then its a forfeit, sucks but that's life.

YOU GUYS GOT THIS ALL WRONG - the guy who is PLAYING THE GAME - GETS TO DECIDE WHO HE PLAYS!!!!! he can pick the best player in the LG or the worse!!!! BUT AT LEAST THE GAME WILL GET PLAYED VS A HUMAN - AND HE WILL BE FORCED TO HAVE A CHANCE TO LOSE...

The other benefit is that it will ELLIMINATE HOW GUYS QUIT CPU GAMES WHEN THEY HAVE AN INJURY OR IF THEY ARE LOSING... I have only seen myself (lost Dumervil for 10 weeks) and Bigmullet lose QUALITY players to injury in a CPU gm (for significant amount of time) - If you are playn a HUMAN - no way that could happen... THIS BENEFIT CANT BE IGNORED!!!

btw - credit to MRRAJESH for this rule suggestion!!!!

I think the best solution would be to let people quit a cpu gm. I mean, really, what is the downside? I prefer to super-sim gms against cpu, because I hate playing the cpu. It is a waste of time. The reason I joined the lgs is to get gms against people.
If my opponent can't get his game in or if the franchise isn't full enough, I think people should be allowed to get a free win with no injuries or bs cpu play involved.
That way, EVERYONE would get a win, and it wouldn't be only the honest people who get punished.
I say let people restart as many cpu games as they want. Why punish those who can be available with a forced cpu gm?

I agree with blammers, I don't really see the downside of letting people restart cpu games. Everybody gets them eventually, so it's not like only one or 2 teams are going benefit and avoid injuries by doing this, everybody who is active in the league will. There is no reason to punish the people who are active and trying to get their games in by making them risk losing to an opponent who couldn't even be bother to show up for their game.

I think blammers and surf got it right.

In other business. I will be posting a proposed new QB sub rule in the governing council section and I'd appreciate if you guys would take a look at it