CPU Player Substitutes

Issue: CPU games are not fair for anyone. We want to encourage people to play their games each week.


Solution: We use last season's final rankings list, and
predetermine TWO (2) teams that are designated subs for each team, only
used in the event that subs are needed.




Rationale: The owner dropping for the week doesn't get the
choice in who their replacement is, and will suffer the consequences of a
game they didn't play. It is a perfectly suitable "punishment" for a
non-crime; we expect players to play every
week in this league. On the other end, the opposing team then gets a
fair game, and not an easy CPU win. We avoid easy wins with this
method, which severely affects stats and team/division rankings, and
ultimately determines playoff spots. Additionally,
this is the best method available to give teams a replacement at a
similar skill level as them.




How it pans out: Every team gets TWO (2) substitutes: the
two teams with the same record or immediately below them in the final
rankings of last season, from the opposite conference. The only teams
which this does not apply to are the lowest ranked
teams. They will substitute with the next lowest ranked.






Examples: The Titans (7-9) sub teams are the Seahawks (7-9)
and the 49ers (5-11). The 49ers (5-11) sub teams are the Raiders (4-12)
and the Bills (3-13). This would all be fine, however, the 49ers is a
new owner, so they automatically go to the
bottom of the list!






Lingering issues: We have new owners, and their skill levels
are not reflected 100% accurately in this format. Simply put, this is
the best we can do. For the time being, the new owners sub-teams will be
the 2-lowest ranked teams from the opposite
division. We will update this after a number of weeks (10ish?) have been played
to clearly reflect their skill level, but being new owners, they should
be playing EVERY league game, because a new leaguer that doesn't play
their games, isn't really a new leaguer. This isn't punishment to the new owners, it is just insurance so that they play all their games. Simple!

Remember: This is only in place
if you can not play your game for whatever reason, or you are on
holiday, or your internet/power is out for weeks (it happens, I know!) .
We don't want to have to use this, it is simply to
make things mroe fair so that if you can't play a game, you at least have a
shot of maintaining your win/loss record, rather than an automatic
loss.




Teams & Their Subs:




AFC

Colts - Cowboys & Eagles

Bengals - Cowboys & Eagles

Browns - Eagles & Saints

Chargers - Eagles & Saints

Broncos - Lions & Redskins

Dolphins - Lions & Redskins

Patriots - Panthers & Seahawks

Steelers - Panthers & Seahawks

Ravens - Seahawks & Vikings

Titans - Seahawks & Vikings

Texans - Seahawks & Vikings

Raiders - Vikings & Buccs

Bills - Cardinals & Giants

Jags - Cardinals & Giants

Jets - Cardinals & Giants




NFC

Bears - Colts & Bengals

Cowboys - Browns & Chargrs

Eagles - Broncos & Dolphins

Saints - Broncos & Dolphins

Lions - Patriots & Steelers

Redskins - Patriots & Steelers

Panthers - Ravens & Titans

Seahawks - Texans & Titans

Vikings - Raiders & Bills

Buccs - Raiders & Bills

Packers - Jets & Jags

Giants - Jets & Jags

Cardinals - Jets & Jags



NEW OWNERS:

Falcons - Jets & Jags

Rams - Jets & Jags

49ers - Jets & Jags

Chiefs - Cardinals & Giants

I think this proposal has merit. Biggest problem will be for me is that John F or Kevin won't want to give back the stacked ravens team in the event I require my 'champion' to play on my behalf.

I'm a little confused. If it's about equivalent record, shouldn't the 11-5 Chargers or 11-5 Bengals be representing the 11-5 Katskins rather than the 9-7 Steelers/Pats? (With all respect to Adam and Greg of course)

EDIT: So I guess it's actually about conference ranking?

Katbot wrote:I'm a little confused. If it's about equivalent record, shouldn't the 11-5 Chargers or 11-5 Bengals be representing the 11-5 Katskins rather than the 9-7 Steelers/Pats? (With all respect to Adam and Greg of course)

EDIT: So I guess it's actually about conference ranking?

No, it's about having replacements that were not at your level. Obviously, if you got to choose, you'd want someone like the Colts or Browns representing your team in your absence. But we want to give people a reason to avoid having subs to begin with. To be a leaguer, you have to do your best to play your games. Like I said, in a sense it's the perfect punishment for a "non-crime."

The other team doesn't benefit from a CPU win. The dropping team doesn't benefit from a better player taking over. This is all incentive for people to play their games, and we avoid any more CPU shenanigans. Ideally, you'll never have a better or "at your level" player representing you in your absence. That's the point.

When does this come into effect? I have yet to receive a reply from the Rams owner..

mikesuszek wrote:Ideally, you'll never have a better or "at your level" player representing you in your absence. That's the point.

Uh, look, we do our best to get our games in, but sometimes it's impossible. Looking ahead, I'm almost certain that I won't be able to play my game during the week of E3, which will probably be in the heat of a playoff race.

Real life intervenes. I know that you don't want to encourage people to just default to a sub, but I really do want someone of equal ability representing the Katskins if I physically cannot be there to take on the Saints in Week 12.

The alternative is a CPU and a loss. This is the fairest way to nominate champions.

This seems way too convoluted. Its hard enough to schedule and play your own team's two games a week. Sometimes games are changed to CPU games at the last minute to speed things along, among other reasons. I think this would be an interesting idea for certain situations, but not every situation. This is going to just slow the league down even more and cause hard feelings when people don't win. When you aren't playing for your own team, it can be a very different game.

Another thing is this will mess up both team's depth charts completely, which takes forever to reset because Madden's default depth charts never make any sense at all. Lets not make the league take more time out of the week than it already does, its already like a (fun) part-time job as it is.

That said...I must reiterate that I do think this is a good idea for certain scenarios. There was obviously a lot of thought put into this, and I believe it is a very useful idea.

Also, another suggestion: I think that you should be able to choose from people below you (in the opposite conference) to play for you. For example: I talk to Zack almost every day, and I know I can get in contact with him at almost any time, so it would probably make more sense for me have him replace me. All I have to say is, I feel bad for whoever's sub is the "I'm too good for Emails" Giants.

Katbot wrote:

mikesuszek wrote:Ideally, you'll never have a better or "at your level" player representing you in your absence. That's the point.

Uh, look, we do our best to get our games in, but sometimes it's impossible. Looking ahead, I'm almost certain that I won't be able to play my game during the week of E3, which will probably be in the heat of a playoff race.

Real life intervenes. I know that you don't want to encourage people to just default to a sub, but I really do want someone of equal ability representing the Katskins if I physically cannot be there to take on the Saints in Week 12.

You'd be mistaken if you think this only affects you. And I know you, and everyone else, wants a player of "equal value" representing your team. But that goes against the idea entirely.

Frankly, I think an easier solution is that we all relax on the league scheduling as a whole. We need to all work together to keep games going and get games in, but EXTEND THE DEADLINE in some respects as well. I think E3 and final exams weeks are some of those situations where we should have an extended week to be fair to everyone.

Like John said, this should be circumstantial, and it is. The circumstances are that we are no longer allowing CPU games. Strike one, shame on you. Strike two, shame on us. Does it suck? Yes, but I dig through my depth chart prior to every game. I paused a scrim against Steely Adam the other day and overhauled my depth chart in a matter of two minutes.

We should not be nixing this rule because of the pains of depth charting. It's not that bad.

Point is, NO MORE CPU GAMES! And this is all done to try to get people to play their games and make it work.

I'm no one's substitute? How did that happen?

DarthObvious wrote:I'm no one's substitute? How did that happen?

This is outdated now, Scott. We go by the power rankings on LM now.

mikesuszek wrote:

DarthObvious wrote:I'm no one's substitute? How did that happen?

This is outdated now, Scott. We go by the power rankings on LM now.

But, if we are in the beginning of a season, don't we go by draft order until we pass week 6?