Opinion Poll re:Game Shedule

[James-Eagles]

@Rich - is it possible to post the games on a Twitch channel as well?

I think you have to become an affiliate.

What are the requirements to join the Affiliate Program?
The requirements to join the Affiliate Program are:
Reach 50 Followers. (only 32)
Stream for 8 hours.
Stream on 7 different days.
Have an average of 3 viewers.
To qualify for the Affiliate Program, you must simultaneously meet all four requirements over a 30-day period.

Seems like Twitch demands you jump through a bunch of hoops.

50 follows might be hard. I mean the league can get you to 19 if we all follow. If atleast 4 people watch the playoff games we can get the viewers/

[Mitch-Oilers]

@Dean - 3 to 5 seasons is too long for a good GM/coach to be competitive.

If we built the teams from just the FA pool and the draft, a good coach would be competitive day 1. It may take 3 to 5 seasons to become a championship contender though.

Not even close. If we immediately in this off-season built 10 teams from what is currently in the FA pool. those teams would be severely handicapped and uncompetitive at DE, LB, CB, and probably S and even Rich couldn't win 10 games with one of those rosters on today's PNFL.

The teams would DEFINTELY rank 19-28 in roster talent, and well behind 17 and 18.

Who said anything about winning 10 games? If that's the case, there are only 4 competitive teams in any given season in the PNFL.

[James-Eagles]

@Dean - 3 to 5 seasons is too long for a good GM/coach to be competitive.

If we built the teams from just the FA pool and the draft, a good coach would be competitive day 1. It may take 3 to 5 seasons to become a championship contender though.

I think it usually takes about 3 season to even get truly competitive as a coach even with a perfect roster.

[Dean-Atlanta]

@Dean - 3 to 5 seasons is too long for a good GM/coach to be competitive.

If we built the teams from just the FA pool and the draft, a good coach would be competitive day 1. It may take 3 to 5 seasons to become a championship contender though.

I think it usually takes about 3 season to even get truly competitive as a coach even with a perfect roster.

In terms of PPPs, probably true. But a roster similar to a 18th ranked overall roster takes 3+ seasons to upgrade it to be sufficient for a decent coach to be competitive. This will be several seasons longer than that if we add 10 expansion teams built ONLY witht he riff raff that currently resides in the FA pool. The reason is, a 53 man roster that is built as one of TEN teams built from those players will have about 45-47 place holders on the roster to be replaced by rookies in the next 6-7 drafts by that new GM.

[Dean-Atlanta]

My pointy is this, if we expand we need to do it in a way that will succeed. I am not suggesting we create 10 new rosters that are as good as the Jets and Cardinals. But if we create 10 rosters of mostly FA scrubs, few new coaches/GMs will have the patients to wait SIX PNFL seasons to get those teams rebuilt from scratch via the draft. Most of those new coaches will quit and we will have several trash teams no one wants, and expansion will be a failure and the league shrink backs down to 18 teams. We should ONLY do the expansion if the new teams have viable rosters, not rosters full of scrubs,. and that good GMs can build them up in a few seasons and have a shot at success. This will give the expansion itself a shot as succeeding.

[Mitch-Oilers]

@Dean - Of course the rosters for the expansion teams would likely rank in the bottom half of the league based on our current ratings. However, also based on our current ratings, our FAs are not far behind the players on our rosters.

Example

Based on weighted ACT ratings:

- CBs on team rosters have overall ratings that average 98.72% (POTs 99.12%) of overall MAX. The avg EXP is 5 years.
- Our Top 60 FA CBs (6 x 10 to mimic 6 per team) have overall ratings that average 97.63% (POTs 98.63%) of overall MAX. The avg EXP is 4 years.

That's barely a 1% difference in talent between the FAs and the players on the rosters. That is also with many of those FAs missing TCs. Hardly riff raff...

Avg ACT ratings for CB on current rosters:
SP 82 AC 82 AG 85 ST 59 HA 95 EN 86 IN 89 DI 94

Avg ACT ratings for Top 60 FA CBs:

SP 80 AC 82 AG 84 ST 59 HA 94 EN 85 IN 89 DI 93

[Rich-League Officer]

All this talk of expansion is fun but not realistic.
Charlie and I worry when we lose 1 coach.
Do the guys on Charlie's list really want to play 6 months or a year after they said they were interested?
Imagine needing 10-12 new coaches!

As I said, we need some ideas on how to get more eyes on our weekly games.
Once the people see the exciting action with a broadcast now and then, they'll be begging to join

[Mitch-Oilers]

@Rich - I know you are right. However, I have a vision of the Oilers, Browns, Bengals and Steelers battling it out in the AFC Central again. The Cowboys and Eagles beating up on the Giants 4 times a year. The Bills and Dolphins trying knock off the Jets in the AFC East. Bringing back the Creamsicle Bucs to play the Packers in the Bay of Pigs game.

We definitely need to re-work our TV rights deals to get more exposure.

[Dean-Atlanta]

This repeated and nauseum "one percent" argument about player talent is rubbish because it doesn't reflect what actually happens in our games

Using your numbers, lets say there are 2 CBs that reflect those on teams:

CB1 82 82 85 59 95 86 89 94

CB2 80 82 84 59 94 85 89 93

CB1 is on Washington. CB2 is on one of the ten expansion teams. Washington plays against Tampa Bay, one of the expansion teams built from FA poll riff raff.

Because of lower EN, TB's CB is 2-3 points lower in actual in game ratings in the first 5 skill attributes due to lower EN, and they give up more pass completions and longer passes to Wash WRs. QB Kyler Murray completes 70 percent of his passes and Wash. scores at least 50.

On TB, QB Logan Woodside only sustain 45-50 percent completions against Wash CBs.

Extrapolate that to all positions, and sim 100 games, and Wash likely wins 90 percent of those games. That "one percent" makes that much difference. In XFBS, we have 4-5 percent difference between the regular players and the "blue chips" and we have 105-7 type scores all too often.

The league balance is much closer than "one percent" and those inferior teams would upset that balance.

No one really believes this one percent canard anyway, this is spin. EVERYONE takes trading and drafting VERY seriously to the point of getting players with one more point of getting one more point of SP or AC or AG or HA etc.

Let's not pretend otherwise. If we are serious about expansion (which won't happen until we have more DEMAND fore teams as Rich pointed out) we need to so it roight and no ham handed by creating 10 loser teams that no one wants to coach and manage.

[Mitch-Oilers]

@Dean - you put way to much weight on the 1%