This question, I'm sure has been brought up before, but does anyone think the strat player rankings should be figured differently??
It doest seem fair that someone who has had 200 teams but won say, 15 championships, should be ranked higher than someone who has had 50 teams but has won 25 championships. Now, for sure there should be a certain # needed to be figured with everyone else, (obviously 2 teams with 1 championship isn't the same) but the current way it's figured doesn't seem at all fair. It gives an unfair advantage to players with the $$ for many teams. (in some cases, an unbelievable amount!)
Maybe it would be enough to just rank players by; 25 or less, 50 or less, 100 less, etc..etc..
Just an observation