[fringeelement]

Glad people are finally talking about this. I didn't mean to be dismissive about the article people posted, it's just that I've been using it and it still doesn't seem to work. For example, have a 3rd year WR who's consistently posted great numbers (not on my team). This year, he had 8000 some points and I used them to add 16 points spread out among the 4 attributes that are weighted the highest (12%) and he only went up 1 point OVR. That doesn't seem right.


Thanks for the tip on improving CBs, Ajra21. Unfortunately, because I'm doing the progression for all 32 teams that may be a bit too time consuming for my needs and if I did it just for my team, it would give me an unfair advantage.


It's also an interesting idea to wait a few years before spending any points. Not sure I have the patience though, especially since I'm about to wrap up my 'chise and move on to The Show for a bit before '17 comes out. However, doesn't the cost of attributes go up as a player spends more time in the league. Therefore, would you not get as much for your points in his third year as you would if you spent them after his first?


I know a lot of people hate the whole XP progression, and I personally am indifferent towards it. I just want it to work properly. Last year it was too easy, this year too hard. Along those lines though, I do like that it prevents the league from being inundated with 90+ players, which I think should be reserved for HOF caliber players. However, there does need to be some of them that come out of the CPU generated classes.


It also would cease to be a problem if they would just do away with OVR, rate the intangibles by letter grade, and force players to make personnel decisions based on production.


But now I'm rambling...