The arguement for a PBP is that if a player has a great statistical season, their ratings should improve in accordance to their performance and not be limited by a "hard cap". An example being if a QB throws for 4000 yards, 35 TDs, and 10 INTs with a 65% completion percentage, he should not be stuck at a 75 ovr just because that is what his potential limits him to.
The arguement for the hard cap system is that:
1.) If players don't perform well statistically during a season due to being a product of the system, their ratings will drop in a PBP format even though they shouldn't. This goes hand in hand with players that overproduce statistically due to being a product of the system, their ratings may improve to a level they should not.
2.) If players had no limit to their overall ratings, the league could become unrealistically skilled.
My idea is that the potential rating should still be implemented in the game, but it should be used in a sense that applies to what the word actually means. The definition of potential is "1. The inherent ability or capacity for growth, development, or coming into being." No where in this definition are the words ceiling or limit used. Potential should be used not as an impediment of progression, but as a modifier to it. What I mean is that potential should determine "how much" a player progresses, not "to what extent". An example being if a QB with an A potential and a 75 overall throws for 4000 yards, 35 TDs, and 10 INTs with a 65% completion percentage, he would recieve a large ratings boost (10+?) overall. Now take the same season but apply that to a player with a C potential. He would still progress, but he would not recieve as large of a boost (5-10?) to his ratings as the player with an A potential saw. This format allows players to improve based upon their performance, but takes into account players who may perform at a statistically high level due to being a product of the system.

Comment