Why not just have historical stars with 90+ ratings for the most part then? There are so many - I bet 500+ name stars we've all heard of.
I wouldn't play an 83 McFadden over an 85 Joe Schmo, because I want my team to be as good as possible.
Hell, you could pyramid it and only have 1-2 99s, 4-5 98s, and on down, down as low as you want to go - maybe 85 or so. But all-time stars should be highly-rated and not tiered, with several different levels of the same guy. I don't get that part.
I guess I'm saying there's enough volume of great players for each player to have one card. Current players can have tiers, for whatever reason, but idk.
I just don't get it, besides money. My mind doesn't default to micro-transaction GOLD.
Or have a 99-rated player for each position, then a 98, and so on. Rare as hell. But one card for each guy.
I view it similarly to the playoff people wanting non-square playoff slots (24 over 16, 12 over 8). What in the actual hell? Who is guiding that?