ATTN COMMISH: Regarding "Subs" and "Cpu games"

Hey DK

I'm sure you've seen rumblings lately about the amount of games being played against subs and what not. I figured I would go ahead and make this a league wide topic for debate with more talks of it popping up last night and this morning.

I, and many others, feel that forcing active players whose opponents don't show up, to play a sub is acting as a punishment to the active player and the rest of the league as a whole. Lets take a look at some situations.

Three teams had pretty unstable ownership issues throughout the entire season. The Bengals started 4-0 with their original owner, then went on to be ownerless for about 3 to 4 games, before zikry took them over. Then zikry quit, leaving them ownerless for another 4 or 5 games before Kip finally took them over in week 16. Yet, thanks to all the games that were either subbed for or simmed, they're a playoff team?

The Cowboys also started hot with their original owner, but once he quit back in the first quarter of the season, they had a very unstable owner situation. Even their current owner has recently been not showing up to play his games often, yet they are also a playoff team?

The Cardinals, (no offense to jmic, i understand he had personal family problems and those are definitely a priority) went without their owner for at least a 5 to 6 games stretch on the season. Before that stretch of being ownerless, they had a losing record. Following the stretch of being ownerless, and leading to the return of jmic, they had a winning record and made the playoffs?

None of those situations seem fair. This subbing thing has gotten out of hand. Its basically punishing the guy who has to play against the sub. Sure, you can blame the player for not being able to beat the person that subs, but that is not at all the point. Its the moral of it. If a team is ownerless, or the owner doesn't show up to play his game by the deadline, why should that careless owner get an opportunity to get a win during his absence? It is not the fault of the active player that the league suffers from instability at times due to owners who prove to be careless or have to take leave of absences. We should not be punishing these active players, and rewarding the careless ones.

I know the argument will be against people playing games against cpu because of the possibility of running stats up, but thats when you as commish need to put your gavel down and keep people in check. Treat cpu games as if they are owner vs owner games. If you see stats at the end showing they were running up the score in the 4th quarter, and passing for touchdowns even though they are already up by three scores, suspend players, like we did back in the day.

For example; If you see my stats at the end of a cpu game, showing that i passed to andre johnson for a td at the 1:30 mark in the 4th qtr, already up by two scores or more...remove andre johnson from my team as a "suspension" for a game or two.

If a person quits against cpu, and doesnt immediately tell you why he had to restart the game, punish that person with some sort of player suspension as well...maybe their highest rated offensive and defensive player.

Cpu is no cake walk this year...people will struggle against cpu, so its not like its a guaranteed win every time either.

I really hope these solutions make sense and you will take them into consideration. If we wanna avoid this, we need to keep our waiting list going. As soon as someone quits the league, and confirms that they quit, we should immediately get in contact with the next person on the waiting list and get them a team to avoid these sorts of situations. But these also go for situations where a guy just goes MIA for a few days as well.



PS: They came out with a fix in the last patch that decreases the amount of weather games...so I believe we should turn weather back on. Especially now that we're in the playoffs, lets see some snow games in January!

I voted, yes and I have been in favor of this for a very long time. I understand that subs are important because we still play someone, but they are not the original owners of these teams. Why should those that make their games a priority be penalize for playing someone who isn't even the owner of the team and can help that team make the playoffs or win the playoffs when the original owner doesn't even care. We are a "SIM" league and for those concerned about running up the stats against the cpu. We'll closely monitor it. If there is stats raking during the cpu matches then that person will be suspended for the next game. Also, this will move the advancement periods much faster because instead of waiting to decide which games will be simmed all games will be played before the advancement period. I hate the whole idea of having to sim a game as well, thats why I think when we start season 2 with this problem resolved. For example, if a player cannot be reached for 2 out of the 3 days they are responsible to get their game in then that person whose been waiting for the other person to reply should be entitled to a cpu match and with that games will move much faster. You can hate the idea all you want and tell me to go play offline franchise, but this will make the games move much faster and make the players who make their matches a priority have a fair share when dealing with the slackers in this league.

I agree with everypoint lilgame made. I think it will speed up the process and also rewards the active person for being active. If someone misses their game im they should usually get a loss and not have someone that may be superior get to play for them and come back with wins. Ideal of course is to be full and active but i think this idea is a great solution when needed.

Gotta say....I agree 100%. I think if an owner has to miss a game...if they are proactive in finding a sub...it could work but i also think that the sub should have a similar record to the person he is subbing for.

sack u didnt vote!

I am against subs. You learn and research how a guy plays, then a sub comes in, I just personally am against it. But I'm new, so what do I know? Haha

agreed 100% with everything lilgame said.

I agree whole-heartedly...however - I'd still like Sims to be done with injuries OFF... i got mega super F'd on a sim loss I had due to my opponent not showing up, couldnt play a sub, no cpu game to be played by "ME" the key...and losing Cutler for the last 9 weeks of the season.

The Predator wrote:I agree whole-heartedly...however - I'd still like Sims to be done with injuries OFF... i got mega super F'd on a sim loss I had due to my opponent not showing up, couldnt play a sub, no cpu game to be played by "ME" the key...and losing Cutler for the last 9 weeks of the season.

The whole point of this idea is to get rid of SIM. If you've been on top of your game and sit there 2 days trying to plan the game out for your opponent and he still doesn't show up. You are entitled to a cpu match and as a result, there will be no sim and we'll advance even faster cause games will roll faster.

In the original XML seasons we did play the cpu. I felt it was a general feel that sub players were the better way to go after trying it out. Once this season unfolded however, I feel it's now gone back to CPU play. To which I have no issue with. As far as the player suspensions, I too agree that'd be a great idea if the necessary action needs made.

Lastly, we will turn on weather again and see if the patch does us any good. I will wait until a new week arrives.

TheDarkKnight50 wrote:In the original XML seasons we did play the cpu. I felt it was a general feel that sub players were the better way to go after trying it out. Once this season unfolded however, I feel it's now gone back to CPU play. To which I have no issue with. As far as the player suspensions, I too agree that'd be a great idea if the necessary action needs made.

Lastly, we will turn on weather again and see if the patch does us any good. I will wait until a new week arrives.

Yea, i believe player suspensions should come back into play in not only cpu games, but human vs human games as well where a person may be accused of running up the score or such. Though, i think we've done a good job this season at not having this issue with human vs human games

Although I greatly appreciate the subs who held down the Cardinals for
me in my absence, I too believe that there should not be subs allowed
for owners. I would also like to acknowledge that I wouldn't be in the playoffs without the help of subs... but, If an owner can't make a game, then the game should either
be simmed, or played against the CPU. However, I would hardly call my actions "careless". Also, in my defense, it wasn't as if my losing record was 1-5 when I had my leave of absence. I was 3-4 at the time. Anywho, to get back on subject, I AM NOT SAYING I DID NOT BENEFIT FROM SUBS... just saying subs should not be allowed. I feel like LilGame hit the nail on the head... mostly

Ridiculous turning off injuries. If you played the game you risk injuries, so why get off scott free because you don't play?