puffchuggo

What about letting us pick any team we want? Like 2 detroits? How do you feel about that? That solves the problem of the league being "too bland", and at the same time, makes it totally fair. I dont see any flaw in it.

Yeah losing every game by 1 goal with a scrub team vs. an all star team "is getting my ass handed to me". What exactly have you won? Oh yeh, same as me, jack, and s**t. And letting players pick any team they want is "ridiculous"? Why? Too fair for you? Do you like to cheat?

What you say is true, all teams have weaknesses, and some players may not be "quite" as good with, lets say, detroit, as they would be with edmonton. BUT, while not perfect, that system is BY FAR more fair, imo, than having a traveling all star team vs. a team with nobody scrubs. Everyone has the same team, BUT you can still alter your lines anyway you wish. And my idea is to switch the set team every year so noone has a "continued advantage". You dont seem to be a fan of having one set team. Why not then, at the very least, allow players to pick whatever team they want? If there are 3 edmontons, so be it. GIVE EVERYONE A FAIR SHAKE and let them pick the team they feel they are best with. And if they lose, noone to blame but themselves, either for picking the wrong team, or just playing like s**t. I admit, I was stupid. I picked Washington out of modesty. I wont make that mistake again.

Here's another facet of my argument: The entire regular season, as is constructed right now, is a complete and TOTAL waste of time, space, and energy. EXAMPLE: My record: 29-10 TEAM I GOT SWEPT BY RECORD: 15-25 Is there something wrong with this picture? I mean COME ON. You work your butt off the regular season, beating all different types of players, and styles, and lose because you happen to face an all-star team? See, if you had a league with everyone on equal footing, this crap doesnt happen, and the regular season HAS MEANING. Well, whatever. I guess I'm just "whining". Congrats to pitt and kgboy once again.

That really doesnt solve much imo. Some players will get screwed based on who gets the tallest straw? The only solution is to have equal teams.

You are truly an idiot. Yes my opponent had absolutely no advantage with Mario Lemeuix and Kevin Stevens vs a bunch of scrubs. I dont give a s**t if you think I'm whining. I really dont care. I say what needs to be said, and I speak the truth. If you take offense to the truth, and call it "whining", thats your problem. The "classy" thing for me to do would be to congratulate kgboy. I did that, numerous times, which you fail to mention (reading problems again on your part). I am also not going to sit here and say "gee golly, he had an all star team, but that didnt matter! He was just better!", because you and I both know thats a bunch of bull. And once again, if you actually read my posts you see that I blame myself for losing, but adding that with an even playing field I probably wouldnt have. Now quit being a flamer. This is why noone can stand you dude.

Just answer one question people: Which system is more fair: Players pick any team they want 1st come 1st serve, ranging from Ottawa to Chicago. You snooze you lose. Players all have the same rated team. Line changes optional. Please respond.

No I dont, you said it, not me. You need to learn how to respect other peoples opinions. Thats your problem. You are not as smart as you think you are.

Heres the 47th post: I just got swept. Wont happen again next season, I promise you that. Theres going to be hell to pay for this. I am no longer going to be picking sub par teams out of respect. This year I had first pick and wound up with Washington. That wont happen next season. If the system wont change, I will. If you cant beat em, join em. Lemeuix had 5 goals again the last game. Completely unstopable. f**k that s**t. Next year I'M going to be the one running up the score with superstar players. Enough of this crap. I advise to anyone reading this to NOT be modest anymore, and pick the highest rated team you can get your hands on. This has taught me that nice guys finish last. I made a mistake, and have learned. CARSE you in particular. You made the same mistake I made. You're a top tier player and picked Florida out of respect. Dont f**kin bother man, it aint worth it. Pick a good team next season. Youre one of the better players in the league, dont be a nice guy next season. We both tried to be nice and got reamed in the rear for doing it.

Thats your opinion. Its not fact.

With line changes on, mabye not. With line changes off, they are a top 5 team, easy. No doubt. Calgary is so highly rated because someone from the organization worked on the ratings I believe.

Key word is "steal". Shouldnt have to "steal" it. For example, Kgman will probably win with Hartford this year. Hartford is not very good, but can we really say he "stole" it? No, because his talent is far above anyone else's. I'm interested in a league with equal playing ground, thats why I'm looking into the CSHL with those guys with the 92 rom. They have the system down perfect in my opinion: 10 minute periods (if you fall behind you still have a chance to win, and the person who plays the best game will always win). Same team (League is about player abilities not team abilities). There's really no way to tell who "steals" championships here, because of the huge disparity among the teams. If you have a league with equal footing, lesser players can TRULY steal championships and we'd know they stole it. Players can improve their abilities over the course of time, and upsets can happen in the playoffs. Now that'd be fun. But hey I get what youre saying. I'm not missing the point, I just dont agree with the point. And lets say the random team is Detroit. Cant say "that team doesnt fit my style" because you can always adjust your lines. You can put slow players in, OR you can match up the same lines. Its a fair system. But I realize this place is never going to do any of that, and I dont blame Evan. The way it is, is what the majority seem to want. But I believe if the league did change to a fair system of teams, eventually everyone would realize how much better it would be. But its hard once you start out a league one way, to change it. People are adverse to change, even if that change is for the better.

I've narrowed my choices down to: Chicago Pittsburgh Boston Which team should I pick? I'm stupid and am not sure.

We are too much alike thats why we dont get along.

How do you feel about 92? You ever play that? There are these guys who run a "CSHL" league and they want to go online. They use the 92 rom though. And as far as KGMAN being able to beat pitt I have no doubt. KGMAN could beat pitt with Ottawa. There are always exceptions to the rule, but my thing is, you shouldnt have to be a super gifted player to compete in this league. Its only my opinion, thats all. I respect yours. I am not trying to say I'm the best player at all and lost because pitt played me. I'm just using this as an example to demonstrate my opinion. I agree with you on the point, that a 1 team league is a minority as far as people wanting it. But its not how I feel. I feel a 1 man team is the most fair way to determine who is the best player, and I dont think anyone can offer any valid reason to suggest otherwise.

We can go back and forth all night on this. Lets leave it at this: I feel everyone should be on equal footing, and the league should be based on player talents, not team talents. We will never know who the best player is with such disparity amonst the teams. If you want to say I could beat Pittsburgh with Washington, OK, fine. It'd take much more effort on my part, but its possible. What about the Ottawa's? The Anaheim's? Do they have a chance? The answer is no. I've made my point. That's all. Agree or disagree and leave it at that.

The feeling is mutual, except the difference is many in the snes league feel that way about you too. I can see why. I'm only a tool to those who are a tool to me first.

I'm only offering my opinion. If you bothered to read my post, I already said I dont expect anyone to change the league based on my opinion. I ALSO said I didnt post this just because of my 1 loss. Can you read? NEWSFLASH: I could have picked a better team, but didnt. I actually have integrity. If I pick Chicago I dont feel its fair someone else cant. But now, its getting a bit old, so I just might take your suggestion. And coming from the biggest whiner on this board, I find your comments ironic. Sorry, tried to be nice to you. Now I gotta say it like it is. I am seeing why everyone in the snes league hates you lately. Dont bother replying to this. If you cant hold a civil conversation, dont participate.

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I totally get your point. But by the same token, I think the league should be about the players ability, not the teams. My compromise is this: Every year, switch the "main" team, to keep things fresh. One seaon Edmontn, the next, Pittsburgh, etc. etc.

I've felt this way a long time. The game just prompted me to say it. You may think its fair that some players have all star teams while others dont, and the players that dont "should just adjust and live with it". I say, hogwash. Shouldnt be like that. Equal ground for all!

Thats why I said a league with one team would be ideal. Mabye one season it'd be Edmonton, the next Detroit, just to keep things fresh. OR do the opposite of what you said. Dont ban teams, OPEN UP EVERY team so EVERYONE has an EQUAL chance. Although I like the first idea better (one team per year). It wont happen but thats how it really should be. Telling me to improve my defense is nice and it sounds good, but when an all star gets hot, the best d in the world isnt going to stop him. Could I have played better? Sure. I dont deny that. But youre not going to tell me if I adjusted my D that would solve everything. My record is 29-10 this season, but there is only so much you and your d can do when you face a team of all star calibur. When you play an all star team, they are going to score goals, no matter what your d does. The only fair way to balance that out is if player b has an all star team as well. Thats all I'm saying. I dont really know why voicing my opinion is not going to earn me respect. I suppose the title of the thread was flaming like so I apologize for that, but I stand by how I feel on this subject. If I lose 8-4 and we both have the same teams, then tell me to work on my defense all you want. But when I'm using a far inferior team vs all stars the point is a bit moot. Its like telling an AHL team to work on their defense when they lose to Edmonton circa 1988. There are limitations when you are handicapped. And Ridley and Bondra are nice little players but comparing them to Lemeuix is insane. I am not making excuses. I am far from the best player in this league. I'm just saying itd be nice to see how good I really am under 100% fair circumstances. Why should I have to bust my hump on defense overcompensating while player b with the all star team relaxes? Sure, I might win, but I'd literally have to leave it all on the table. Is that fair? No, I dont think it is. I respect your opinion, and I wish you'd respect mine. Just because you disagree, I dont feel you should say I havent earned respect.

All I'm saying is we will never know who is truly the best player when one player has an all star team and the other has an average team. I think your argument works ok in the regular season. The problem is, in the playoffs, players "jack up" their level of play. My defense is fine. My record is solid. This is more a case of losing to an all star team controlled by a good player. When an all star player gets hot, the best defense in the world is not going to stop him. Thats why I say the system should change. Then we'd know who the best really is.

I agree with half of what you said. I shouldnt have picked a shitty team, but the system is flawed.