[quote author=mikefails link=topic=504.msg4828#msg4828 date=1317425825]lame that players are dreading the possibility of not ending up on some golden team.&nbsp; I personally find more satisfaction playing with a weaker team<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Well more power to you, but the bad teams I was on were bad because of the players not being reliable or not putting the team first.&nbsp; I think I could enjoy a team that sucked if the team was cohesive and trying to win.&nbsp; I was planning to tough it out on SPE until some crazy shit happened.&nbsp; I toughed it out on TNMT as well.&nbsp; I don&#039;t think people expect &quot;golden teams&quot;.&nbsp; They just want a solid team, not much bullshit, and a respectable effort from their team mates.&nbsp; That doesn&#039;t always happen and often there is not a good way to fix a problem team.&nbsp; It&#039;s a bad situation for the team and the league as a whole since it drags everyone down with it.<br /><br />[quote author=mikefails link=topic=504.msg4828#msg4828 date=1317425825]The more you approach parity, the more random the results of games are &lt;snip&gt; reduces the amount of upsets which take place in the league, &lt;snip&gt;&nbsp; Nobody will ever remember<br />[/quote]<br /><br />You&#039;d still have favorites for sure but yeah the more even teams are the more likely results can be not random but harder to predict.&nbsp; The better team will still likely win but it&#039;s much harder to actually know who is the best team before hand when the teams are so close in skill.&nbsp; Given what you said however, it would lead to more upsets, wouldn&#039;t it?&nbsp; Also let&#039;s be honest most of us don&#039;t really remember too many specific matches.&nbsp; There have just been too damn many.&nbsp; I have a very hard time remembering any match I didn&#039;t play in and even then it&#039;s vague and fuzzy.&nbsp; I&#039;d need to check specific things to confirm if my memory is correct or not.<br /><br />[quote author=mikefails link=topic=504.msg4828#msg4828 date=1317425825]<br />There is no top team to beat within a perfectly even league &lt;snip&gt; there is less incentive to develop high risk/reward strategies if a game is expected to be close<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Most of this is bullshit that you said I think but regarding the stuff I left in quotes.&nbsp; There will always be top teams.&nbsp; There is a big difference between dominant teams and top teams however.&nbsp; In close matches you&#039;d still use anything that worked, I doubt it would change strategies use.&nbsp; If people think it&#039;ll work they will use it.&nbsp; There are no strategies which will let SNAX beat a Masterbowl team, no matter how high risk it is.<br /><br />[quote author=mikefails link=topic=504.msg4828#msg4828 date=1317425825]<br />Also others I would imagine, obviously I have no statistics to point towards these outcomes due to a state of parity within the league never existing (nostar) rather they are the product of my expectations and some application of common sense.<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Parity will never happen.&nbsp; If we could always get all teams into the .300-.700 range I&#039;d be very impressed.&nbsp; Usually there is a team(s) near .900 and .100.&nbsp; .900 isn&#039;t as a big an issue as .100 teams though but usually they come together.<br /><br />I really think you are expecting parity to go too far.&nbsp; It is highly unlikely we can ever get all teams anywhere near .500 but if we can avoid any big differences between teams that&#039;d be nice.&nbsp; Even if the records don&#039;t reflect it, it&#039;d be nice if the worst team in the league could beat the best.&nbsp; In the NFL it can happen sometimes, as they say &quot;Any Given Sunday&quot;, but I feel at times IDL matches between the .900 and .100 teams are pretty pointless unless shenanigans like starters not playing for the better team or other crap like that happens.