Idea for discussion - softening the reign of the "star receiver" in MP FOF

[QuikSand]

Okay, for those who have been following along closely, we've seen the presence of the stud WR or even the pretty-good WR taking over multiplayer drafts. In one of my leagues, IHOF, we are sitting at pick 1.6, with all 5 of the top selections targeting wideouts.

One avenue to go after this problem is an aggressive restructuring of the game, like we see over at another MP league, the BFL - where the league player pool and drafts are all drawn from specially created files to neuter the top tier of QB and WR, trying to balance out the presence of a top tier passing game to overwhelm other football factors. But, that approach may indeed be too much for some people.

So.. for some enterprising league out there looking for a hook, here's an idea. New rule:

No team may renegotiate the contract of, apply the franchise tag to, or re-sign as a RFA during the early FA stages, any wide receiver.

See a tasty-looking wideout in the draft? Great. Draft him, fine, but you don't get to keep him forever... just as long as his first contract runs, then he becomes a free agent. That defensive end or the offensive tackle are guys you can probably keep around under-market forever, but with the currently overvalued WR position, you'll need to count on your own cap space and his loyalty to make that happen.


Discuss.

[Ben E Lou]

Thought 1: it would help a LOT with the issue, especially in cap-reduced leagues.
Thought 2: I'm not sure you could keep 32 owners in a league if you did it.

[Prinzar]

I think the big thing is people know the WR trick, so there's always gonna be people wanting to exploit it.
Saying that, its a good idea because I like having to gameplan for a whole offense instead of one stud receiver

[Subby]

I like it - seems like less work than what Ben does in the BFL. The WR thing is pretty ridiculous. In GEFL two stud WR have turned my low 40s QB into the top signal caller in the league.

[Ben E Lou]

Well, actually what I do in the BFL is no work at all now other than pushing a button to create a class. This idea, though, is completely different. What I particularly like is the notion that these guys would start getting paid closer to what they're actually worth in FOF, because the market would decide that. As it stands now, FOF has no clue how important WRs are to success, so as a result, they end up being grossly underpaid when people are able to sign them to their requested renegotiation amounts. My twin studs at IHOF are costing me a grand total of $8.24M combined this year against a $219.1M cap. That's absurd. Had I not been able to sign them to the long-term deals I have, they'd probably be at least $25M each.

[Subby]

We should totally do this in WOOF.

[Pyser]

i like it. while i hate how important wr's are, if teams are gonna load up on them, there's no reason not to make them pay.

[Dutch]

The problem I'm discovering in the BFL is that I no longer can get good WR's or QB's to help me beat the superstar players...and now I've got this feeling of being doomed forever while the ignoramus's I'm drafting in the top 10 are doing me absolutely no good.

At least with stud QB's and WR's in the pool, the 2nd class owners have hope (and a chance). The key is to figure out how to get newbies to NOT TRADE THEM to enterprising vets for peanuts (or for free in some cases we've seen).

I'd rather see WR's and QB's get put into a supplemental draft where the draft order is based on a team's winning % over the course of the last 5 seasons to ensure that those that are really struggling not only get the help they need, but can't trade or pass up good quality talent.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Dutch

At least with stud QB's and WR's in the pool, the 2nd class owners have hope (and a chance). The key is to figure out how to get newbies to NOT TRADE THEM to enterprising vets for peanuts (or for free in some cases we've seen).

That's a legitimate point, and a major demerit to this whole idea, I'd agree.

[Dutch]

The idea (and all ideas/hints/tips/tricks/league-alterning-rules/what-have-you revolving around solving the FOF MP owner talent deltas) are all noble ones and much appreciated. You get a demerit for one pesky detail but yet another gold star for trying to help. That puts you at 4,201 gold stars and 1 demerit. Not bad, overall.

[RedKingGold]

Two add-on's to this idea:

#1: Allow teams to re-sign their stud WR's if, and only if, that owner offers a max sal/max bonus contract for seven years and that owner is not allowed to cap-out or renegotiate that deal throughout the length of the contract.

#2: Just outlaw trading of all receivers with a rating of 60 or higher.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

That's a legitimate point, and a major demerit to this whole idea, I'd agree.

I'm not sure I agree that it's a major problem. Put these guys in FA, and they'll get so expensive that they'll be distributed by force. Say that VIC stud WR in IHOF hits FA and I decide that he's worth everything to me, and I'm #1 in finances so I can outbid everyone. I go maxbonus/maxsal on him. That's a cap hit of over $90M per year--which is more than half of the effective salary cap ($175.3M). That puts me completely out of the running to afford a second VG WR.

[Julio Riddols]

What would be ideal is a quick patch from Jim to increase the amount these stud WR ask for or decrease the effectiveness of BPR. We saw big (but still realistic) numbers in the passing game before this became a big thing, but now the numbers are just preposterous. When something gets to a point where it becomes so imbalanced that focusing solely on it makes you this dominant, it seems like a balance issue that needs addressing. It's nearly impossible to see the difference between a megastud QB and an average QB once the right receivers are in the mix..

We shouldn't be jumping through hoops to make the game play better when it seems one well placed algorithm tweak would fix the whole problem.

[Jughead Spock]

Yes, but which is more likely to happen...?

[scorp]

I think letting stud WR's hit FA at the end of the deal is a great idea, leagues with solid FA classes are much better than ones with leftover half eaten hot pockets as the best available.

Only downsides are

if you draft well and get a stud you kind of lose out after developing him.

If you get a VSOL wr late you lose him.

What if in the last year of his deal that WR must be traded or he hits FA2 the next offseason. Either way you don't get to keep him.

[aston217]

Originally Posted by Dutch

At least with stud QB's and WR's in the pool, the 2nd class owners have hope (and a chance).

If this is the issue, why not leave things the way they are?

The 2nd class owners - or rather the ones whose teams are struggling - are going to be in position to draft the stud receivers. The teams that have success year-in, year-out, are going to be picking at scraps in comparison.

While this would let receivers be paid at market value, I feel like ultimately this benefits the savviest teams in the end. The ones that have managed their cap space expertly enough to land the right guys, while the struggling owners either can't access the WRs, or get caught in crazy bidding wars for a few pieces and screwing their team overall, maybe for many years.

I agree with Jughead that a game update fix isn't likely to happen too soon, but I also think what Julio said is the only real solution. Creating new hoops to jump through is sort of like the endeavor to create a House Rules system. It'll never be perfect, and especially tough for it to be a satisfying solution to everybody. The BFL does seem like as close as we've gotten, however. Creative adjustment to the in-game talent level, from which point it's the same as any other league.

(edit: in brief, what Chubby just said).

[Nemesis]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I'm not sure I agree that it's a major problem. Put these guys in FA, and they'll get so expensive that they'll be distributed by force. Say that VIC stud WR in IHOF hits FA and I decide that he's worth everything to me, and I'm #1 in finances so I can outbid everyone. I go maxbonus/maxsal on him. That's a cap hit of over $90M per year--which is more than half of the effective salary cap ($175.3M). That puts me completely out of the running to afford a second VG WR.

I'm assuming that you can trade that stud WR to another team in the last year of his contract with you, so rather than hitting FA, he'll just go to another team, and not face the bidding war of the FA market. Unless I missed something above that says trading isn't allowed, then ignore what I just said.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Nemesis

I'm assuming that you can trade that stud WR to another team in the last year of his contract with you, so rather than hitting FA, he'll just go to another team, and not face the bidding war of the FA market. Unless I missed something above that says trading isn't allowed, then ignore what I just said.

Well, the other team won't be able to renegotiate him either, so if you trade him, he's just a rent-a-player for a year before he hits FA.

As far as "level playing field" talk, that wasn't the intention of this idea, as far as I can tell. The title of the thread is "softening the reign of the star receiver" not "making sure dummies can do better in competitive leagues."

All kidding aside, a couple of thoughts on that topic:

1. In every league I'm in, at least some of the top WRs always end up in the hands of the better players already, and at (relatively to their worth) bargain-basement prices. If in WOOF or IHOF or CCFL I had to pay market prices for the gazelles I've had consistently, I'd have significantly less overall talent, and I suspect that the teams that paid enough to get the top receivers would be so hamstrung financially that they might not be able to do well as consistently as happens now.
2. At some point, you end up just accepting the fact that some people either don't have what it takes in terms of strategic thinking, or don't have the time/willingness to do what it takes to consistently perform at a high level in this game, or they're too stubborn/prideful to follow the advice who are doing better than them.

For example, the blueprint to special teams success has been laid out step-by-step here, and in some leagues. There's no deep strategy involved, no finding creepers, and it isn't even necessary to outbid others for the guys to have a solid ST unit. Just get 9-12 guys with high ST ratings, mark them encouraged, mark everyone else discouraged, and you are guaranteed to do well. In every league I am in, there is at least one entire solid (average ST rating 55ish-65ish) ST unit available in FA during the season after everyone has been picked over. In one in particular, I started a thread about it, and said "you need to do this or you will be left behind." And then in each of the next two offseasons, I went out and signed--uncontested--multiple guys with a ST rating above 90 for minsal. And sure enough, my team is averaging around 20 yards field position differential as a result. It's gotten to the point that I've just given up trying to help in that arena. I'll just keep starting on the 40 while my opponents start on the 20, I guess. *shurg*

[scorp]

Ben do you see much difference between 70ish ST vs 90. I tend to try and get better backups with decent ST when I can. at least for WOOF & IHOF due to injuries being higher. Many of my backups tend to get significant playing time due to injuries.

[QuikSand]

Before letting this go completely... let's imagine a league where star impact players were hitting the open market. (In this case it would be receivers, due to a fault in the game deign, but most of what follows would apply anywhere in concept)

-The importance of cap management would be greater, especially for those teams angling to make a big FA addition in a certain offseason (a whole new element here, I think - I don't see anything like this in any of my MP leagues, really)

-Along similar lines, it seems like it would make league finances more important as well - if the league really ended up with multiple maxsal/maxbonus type of guys hitting free agency, then you'd see some differentiation in the maxbonus amount based on team finances. Again -- I don't see anything much to this in current leagues, where it's only staff hiring where this plays any role at all, it seems.

-Some new strategy in free aegncy would emerge, as well. Maybe not with the very top tier of the WRs, but with the quality guys rated 50/50-60/60 or so, it seems like I might have a quandary between signing a guy shorter term or longer term -- I'd rather have that guy locked up for 6 years than for 3, but if I have to stretch out a maxbonus over that many years, I'm vulnerable to being outbid by some other aggressive bidder who's going shorter. I don't face this much of anywhere in leagues where I know that any contract for more than one year becomes me-against-the-AI in the renegotiation wars, which I control on my own.

-The ability for a bad team to really remake itself via free agency would seem to be greater -- add one 80/80 receiver with a max bid, and suddenly your offense becomes serious in this game, pretty much no matter what you put around him. Probably not a complete offset to getting the same guy as a gift at the top of the draft, but not bad.

[scorp]

2 things that come to mind.
Any AI team will scoop up these WR's for less than max if they don't have WR's correct??

2nd since I am not 100% sure on how max bonus/Sal works doesn't it vary by your teams available $, so for one team it can be much more than for another?

lastly if nobody has the cap space or signs a WR for some reason in FA1, what happens FA2 can be be signed for 1 year at some league min based on his ratings? ( not league min but some can't be less than $ amount based on the rating of the WR )

[Ben E Lou]

WOOF is doing this, and we have openings. Come join us if interested. Details here:

WOOF Redefining Itself As The First Ever Free Market FOF MP League, Some Openings - Front Office Football Central

[Pyser]

if it was a brand new league i think id be in...but definitely interested to see how this whole thing plays out

[Groo]

I've found that actually trying to gameplan and play defense seems to work.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Groo

I've found that actually trying to gameplan and play defense seems to work.

Woah, woah, pump the brakes. What is this "defense" you speak of?

[Firefly]

Originally Posted by Groo

I've found that actually trying to gameplan and play defense seems to work.

Yeah, maybe it's a league thing, but everywhere I play defense and running are pretty important. Which is pretty great, if you ask me, no complaints whatsoever.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Groo

I've found that actually trying to gameplan and play defense seems to work.

Not sure exactly where this jab was aimed, but I'll take the bait anyway...

If your core argument is that the rest of us are dummies because we don't even bother "trying to gameplan and play defense" - I think that's not well founded.

I think most of us would agree:
-serious FOF owners are *trying* to succeed
-that means acquiring talent as best they can, at all positions
-and it means gameplanning, as best they can

Now, my underlying argument is that the power of the WR-WR-QB position group is, in the game's current incarnation, just too heavily weighted. Many people, including quite a number of very successful FOF veterans, seem to agree with this assessment (if not necessarily any particular proposed solution). Setting aside teams/owners that are just not making a strong effort with gameplans or rosters, among the teams/owners playing seriously it seems that high quality players at the WR-WR-QB positions is powerful enough to overwhelm the effects of having, say, a very good secondary, pass rush, offensive line, running game, or the other roster components that can really help make actual football teams perform at an elite level. I happen to think that lessens the current game overall, thus the thread and the underlying ideas and thinking.

If you're really that far ahead of the rest of the FOF universe in your masterful gameplanning and defense, and thus your stance above is warranted, then my cap is off to you, and I wish you well in your continued dominance against your insect opponents.

For now, I will continue to build the most effective roster I can on defense and everywhere, use gameplans that I think help to make my teams productive, and despite that effort gripe that it still boils down, more than I'd prefer, to what team has the best hosses in the passing game.

Cheers.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Now, my underlying argument is that the power of the WR-WR-QB position group is, in the game's current incarnation, just too heavily weighted. Many people, including quite a number of very successful FOF veterans, seem to agree with this assessment (if not necessarily any particular proposed solution).

Without making a statement about my future plans, I have spent a lot of time in the last few months testing and straining the game engine (with the source code, I have the ability to create a test environment that even Ben would envy).

I'm almost embarrassed to admit the level of truth of the statement above. I'm deciding whether I should put out a patch this fall (not in the immediate future) just to address it. Because it would take a month or so of significant work just in itself. Please don't take anything in this response as a promise or even an indicator of anything.

[Julio Riddols]

Well if we can sway your interest in doing a patch, let the following flood of responses in the affirmative be an indication that we'll love you no matter what, but we think a patch that fixes this would be incredible.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

Well if we can sway your interest in doing a patch, let the following flood of responses in the affirmative be an indication that we'll love you no matter what, but we think a patch that fixes this would be incredible.

I appreciate that attitude. I understand that many feel this is "broken", though it isn't in the sense that I've looked at the source code and it is doing what it's supposed to do. The problem is that the engine as a whole unrealistically favors an offense with good players in the WR1/2/QB positions. My goal is always to provide as realistic an engine as possible, and I don't think what I'm seeing in my testing is entirely realistic. It *could* be a realistic translation of these skills, but that's in disconnect with hard research into the NFL salary structure.

This is different from the issue a few years back, when many of us recognized that endurance in running backs was hard to figure out. Turned out, on code review, it was a bug. So endurance was "broken" for running backs and a patch was more urgent. Fixing this was much easier, because it was just a matter of changing one line of code, and tweaking down overall yards-per-carry since more running backs have mediocre endurance than top-notch endurance.

As an aside, finding that bug was the moment I realized I could not realistically participate in multi-player leagues, as I simply know too much. When I played just to run a team and paid no attention to the draft, I wasn't being a responsible owner. And when I started putting together charts like the really good multi-player owners, my weights of combine variables were obviously too accurate. That said, there are those of you out there today who could kick my butt in game-planning.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I appreciate that attitude. I understand that many feel this is "broken", though it isn't in the sense that I've looked at the source code and it is doing what it's supposed to do. The problem is that the engine as a whole unrealistically favors an offense with good players in the WR1/2/QB positions. My goal is always to provide as realistic an engine as possible, and I don't think what I'm seeing in my testing is entirely realistic. It *could* be a realistic translation of these skills, but that's in disconnect with hard research into the NFL salary structure.

This is different from the issue a few years back, when many of us recognized that endurance in running backs was hard to figure out. Turned out, on code review, it was a bug. So endurance was "broken" for running backs and a patch was more urgent. Fixing this was much easier, because it was just a matter of changing one line of code, and tweaking down overall yards-per-carry since more running backs have mediocre endurance than top-notch endurance.

As an aside, finding that bug was the moment I realized I could not realistically participate in multi-player leagues, as I simply know too much. When I played just to run a team and paid no attention to the draft, I wasn't being a responsible owner. And when I started putting together charts like the really good multi-player owners, my weights of combine variables were obviously too accurate. That said, there are those of you out there today who could kick my butt in game-planning.

yes you could

[aston217]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Now, my underlying argument is that the power of the WR-WR-QB position group is, in the game's current incarnation, just too heavily weighted.

I agree with this.

However, in the leagues I have played in, a lot of dominant defenses (such as that pesky Lions' D run by Firefly in the CyFL) make a big impact on the game. Seeing what he and others accomplish on a regular basis with fairly humble-looking offenses...I haven't felt a very strong balance issue.

I know it is there, though. But, by and large, it doesn't take away from my enjoyment of leagues. I think that is the point Groo was making, as opposed to jabbing anyone.

I may have said this before, but the extent to which it can shortcut a down-and-out owner to success is - if it is merely a byproduct of a broken system - a pretty nice bone to throw to those teams that always pick high.

Actually, in the OSFL, I have assembled a more or less immaculate offense that is heading now to its third straight bowl. I could go at length about how great they are. My division rival marvelous has assembled the most fearsome defense I've ever seen, with some sharp drafting and some nice FA over the past what, three or four seasons he's been here? This year it came together and he kicked my offense's ass all three times we met. Tore down that best-in-the-league passing game like child's play. This isn't meant to mean anything, just an amusing anecdote and a tip of the hat to marvelous.

I believe in general, offense should beat defense and the problem is more with the tendency for some people to accumulate stunningly powerful offenses. That said, I think I would welcome along with most people a game where the 30/30 rated WR with 60 BPR doesn't kick the ass of the 30/30 rated WR who has none. And less predictability at the top of the draft -- you know, just fewer guys you can point to and say, "OK, he is definitely a game-changing, can't miss stud, outside of the negligible possibility of volatility."

[aston217]

Dola,

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Without making a statement about my future plans, I have spent a lot of time in the last few months testing and straining the game engine (with the source code, I have the ability to create a test environment that even Ben would envy).

Bwa ha ha, Ben.

I'm almost embarrassed to admit the level of truth of the statement above. I'm deciding whether I should put out a patch this fall (not in the immediate future) just to address it. Because it would take a month or so of significant work just in itself. Please don't take anything in this response as a promise or even an indicator of anything.

This is big news, and I think it would be highly welcome. As long as the balance of the game, from the player side, is not distorted just for the sake of realism...(i.e, doesn't create an environment where teams drafting in the Top 5 now have little to no recourse to pull themselves out of the hole)...ahhh, this sounds fantastic, Jim, regardless of if it's the fall or spring or some time later.

If there's anything the MP leagues can do to furnish you with files and draft and performance data over the years that can help you look at how people play the game "in the wild"... I think that sort of data would be an interesting complement to any testing environment.

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

Well if we can sway your interest in doing a patch, let the following flood of responses in the affirmative be an indication that we'll love you no matter what, but we think a patch that fixes this would be incredible.

Heck yes! +1 to this.

[DeepPost]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Please don't take anything in this response as a promise or even an indicator of anything.

No, just hope!!!

[Autumn]

It's just nice to get some confirmation, Jim, that there's something really there. Clearly people are getting a lot of fun out of the game anyway, and lots of teams are doing great without the QB-WR-WR combo, and leagues have found some interesting ways to change the dynamics. But having a change that would give other types of offense a better shot would be fantastic.

[cuervo72]

Special teams! Don't forget special teams!

(Ben might only average 40 ppg and not 50 if he wasn't starting on his own 45 every drive. Maybe.)

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

Well if we can sway your interest in doing a patch, let the following flood of responses in the affirmative be an indication that we'll love you no matter what, but we think a patch that fixes this would be incredible.

That sums it up pretty well.

[Firefly]

Originally Posted by aston217

If there's anything the MP leagues can do to furnish you with files and draft and performance data over the years that can help you look at how people play the game "in the wild"... I think that sort of data would be an interesting complement to any testing environment.

That might be a good idea, I don't know. In the CyFL (or CFL) we've had -correct me if I'm wrong, aston- three recent teams with the whole QB-WR-WR thing going: Denver, Indy and Arizona.

Indy averages over 400 yards of offense every year, but cannot consistently make the playoffs. Arizona couldn't get to the big game, and eventually traded the QB rather than paying him. Denver won one ring about six seasons ago, hasn't made it back since.

I'd still welcome a patch of any kind, but I can't help wondering if Ben's the only guy who can truly take advantage of this unbalance -which has been confirmed by Jim-, and what other factors come into play if so.

For example, the aforementioned special teams. If Ben's truly starting at the 50 every drive, like cuervo mentions, then that's a huge, enormous, killer advantage, even if you don't have the QB-WR-WR thing on top of it. Add a few other tricks, I'm sure, and obviously the guy can't ever be beat.

Again, like I said, I'm in favor of any patch, especially those that bring more balance to the game.

[aston217]

Yes, the Cy is what I was thinking of with all the QB/WR/WR teams that still don't have a great amount of success. There have been a number of teams who have multiple Top 10 picks in a single year, draft high regularly, and years later are battling to make the playoffs.

There are a few more teams than that who have the WR/WR thing going on, maybe without the stud QB.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by aston217

Yes, the Cy is what I was thinking of with all the QB/WR/WR teams that still don't have a great amount of success. There have been a number of teams who have multiple Top 10 picks in a single year, draft high regularly, and years later are battling to make the playoffs.

There are a few more teams than that who have the WR/WR thing going on, maybe without the stud QB.

The game is quite a bit deeper than having QB/WR/WR and presto...superstar! You still need to do all the little things right.

Consider these three scenarios.

Scenario #1
You have a QB/WR/WR but your day to day management of your team is retarded. You go 10-6 and get bounced from the playoffs early.

Scenario #2
You have no superstars at QB/WR/WR but you do all the little things right. You go 10-6 and get bounced from the playoffs early.

Scenario #3
You have a stud QB/WR/WR and you do all the little things right. You go 14-2 and win the championship.

There are multiple pieces to the puzzle, the QB/WR/WR just happpens to be one of the biggest pieces. Think of FOF like Chess. The QB is the queen, the WR's are the rooks. Without those pieces, you can still win...it's just a lot harder, particularly if your opponent still had a Queen and two rooks.

[NawlinsFan]

I for one would not have any problem offering up some form of compensation for a patch addressing this to make it worth Jim's time and effort. Maybe we should start a collection.

[scorp]

Originally Posted by NawlinsFan

I for one would not have any problem offering up some form of compensation for a patch addressing this to make it worth Jim's time and effort. Maybe we should start a colection.

+1

[Templar]

Originally Posted by NawlinsFan

I for one would not have any problem offering up some form of compensation for a patch addressing this to make it worth Jim's time and effort. Maybe we should start a collection.

A collection for a patch or an update?
Count me in! +2

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by NawlinsFan

I for one would not have any problem offering up some form of compensation for a patch addressing this to make it worth Jim's time and effort. Maybe we should start a collection.

I don't think its compensation for a patch/new version that is the hold up.

[scorp]

On question I have:

Do you think having double coverage be based on BPR rather than RR would help? I know for the starters it's easy enough to match up your double team, but once 3wr sets and backs are on the field that can change ( and does very often)
In the NFL the deep threat is usually the guy that gets doubled.

[aston217]

I think doubling by "Bar which we do not know for certain" in general is silly. The guy who has the 73 RR and the guy who has the 72 RR. Scout error? Masking? How do I know I'm getting the right guy? What about the stud rookie creeper who has 55/75 RR? Who gets doubled?

If they rework doubling I hope it can be "Double X player." That's how we like to think about these things anyway. Doubling by side is fine still.

[scorp]

Players are doubled by RR now I believe I'll have to check the F1 key again, and BPR is a static bar anyways.

well when that guy is taking a breather then what? when you have double (x)

[sidthelid]

I think when 15/47 rookie QB's with 7 formations and 65 pass cohesion put up 144 ratings a patch is needed.

[A-Husker-4-Life]

Originally Posted by sidthelid

I think when 15/47 rookie QB's with 7 formations and 65 pass cohesion put up 144 ratings a new game is needed.

fixed for ya..

[aston217]

I think I suck because my 8th year, max SR, 62/62+ QB with a beastly set of weapons and top 5 passing cohesion on offense and a heavy ground game has a hard enough time breaking 100.