GG Panthers

GG Igo/Devils, what a meltdown by Roberts! The 4 picks he threw in the 2nd half killed the Dozers. GL in playoffs, maybe we will meet one more time this season, which would be a real good thing, lol.

GG LA

Good game LA - want to change your team nickname to the Steamrollers?

Did QB Matthew Avila throw the game to ensure his former teammates made the playoffs (2 INTs, lost fumble, 3 sacks, 80 net yards passing)? Put Coif Jenshaw on the case!

Game engine stuck: ''Punt BLOCKED by 71-Robert Hill!'':))

On a serious note i think tanking should not be allowed! in our earlier meeting i said maybe their punter was injured but it seems to me that someone was looking for a higher pick....

I was reading through previous logs and realized Boston was using aCB for punting (actually it was pointed out to me because I thought another owner just had bad *** ST). Idc personally, but I would say doing so lowers competition level and completely deviates from the actual objective of being an owner. I think focus should always be trying to win, not trying to lose.

Next year I'm using my punter as DE, QB at safety, LT as WR2, DT as punter. I will continue to do so until I'm satisfied. My goal is to best the 89 point differential set by Boston this year. Fingers crossed

I just hope it pans out for Boston and in two seasons from now they actually put up a fight. If not, then what was it all for? Kind of stinks to have an owner blatantly lose because of depth chart settings. Similar to not using aCB on field goal blocks - except Boston opted for a non-competetive disadvantage. The highs should match the low. What would recourse be for an owner who opted to use aCB on field goal block? Kick from league? I'm sure many new owners would love 3 seasons of multiple firsts

Its silly to "tank", and Ive never seen a "tanker" compete at a playoff level whether or not they had the 1.1 pick, once or twice in a row. Roster is 1/2 the game. I won 8 games with a team that was entirely FA's, players that no one else wanted, had been cut and/or overlooked. That was the UCLA Bruin team in the NCAA League, 2021 season. They were led by QB Ivan "the Terrible" Clyburn, who had an Ai rating of 61. They came close to making the playoffs in one of the most competitive leagues Ive been in. They started the season 5-1. I wasnt able to spend as much time on the game in the 2nd half of the season, missed several scout & game plans, otherwise they would probably have made it into the playoffs.

Playoffs on the line, so we had to pull out all the stops, lest we wind up like SF.

But regarding Coif, he's been MIA this season. Might be a contract dispute with the network, but we'll see if we can get him back for the postseason.

Regarding tanking: I've said this before. We have no rules against tanking. It is a legitimate strategy, in real life and in this game. However, in this league we also have a general "respect the game" type attitude. Even with no official rules, the "unwritten rules" that most people understand is that, because of effects on the rest of the league and league records and so on, there is a limit to how extreme your tank can go. There's no bright line rule. For example, Independence in its first season (2027) started its young QB, who had no business playing, even though they had an average QB on its roster. They got blown out every week and their QB had 88 INTs that season. That was pretty extreme tanking, but I did not say anything because they were at least starting a QB at QB, and yes, in real life teams try to develop young QBs in lost seasons. I didn't like it and I wouldn't do it, but to me that was legitimate.

On the other hand, benching your punter and putting another position player at punter to tank, seems to me, against the spirit of the game. That's not something people would do in real life. It's not the same as benching your starting punter and adding a young punter to get a tryout for one game. It is very clearly an effort to ensure defeat. The #1 pick was on the line and though it was very unlikely that Boston would have beaten the Kayfabe, you never know. So let me declare right now that tanking is ok, but you must tank within reason of the real NFL - so Boston could have started their backup QB (like the Eagles pulling Jalen hurts for Nate Sudfeld), benched their starters and all that to lose. But doing stuff like putting CB at kicker is a bridge too far I think. Do people agree? I will message Boston about it.

But as it probably did not affect the draft order and it was only for one game it seems, no punishment or anything. But warning for everyone, please respect the integrity of the game and try not to make your tanking too blatant that it rubs people the wrong way. Don't fill your OL with WRs. Don't make your DE your new kicker. Don't try out your kicker at QB.

The big picture: we don't want "tank wars" to break out. I mean next time, if Boston is starting a CB at punter, maybe South Brisbane counters with a CB at QB, kind of like what Waitwut was saying. So if 4 teams are tanking, you get 4 teams worth of players at crazy positions and meaningless games that are 100-0 final score.

I would be perfectly fine if Atlanta, Memphis, and Rapid Valley decided to "race to the bottom" next season.

I wouldn't be offended at all. ;)