In 2nd edition you added up SPP to figure out cost to team rating. It was a hassle to track for sure but a player got his last skill at 176 SPP which would be 350k to the team rating. As that star player got more SPP they continued to add to the team rating (which I had some issue with but from a roleplay stance it makes sense.). In the current system your last skill costs you a total of 120k onto your team rating. The general argument is that it is the same for all the teams so it is fair. I dont think that is true and here is why.
when the game came out it was about filling out your roster where now most teams only carry a player or two on their bench. Who does this help? the high armor teams for sure. Who does it hurt? Goblins and halfings for sure but in truth I dont care about them much. I think the biggest loser in this scenario is the humans. With the old system and a full roster the human team had the advantage of flexibility of roster. I had four catchers, only one would play on D vs strong teams. I had two catchers who were on the field against passing teams. On offense I used all 4 catchers sometimes and other times I would use one based on match up. realistically the human team cannot afford to have a full roster because each extra player they have is 2-4 skills for the other team to be balanced.
I understand the mini max logic behind keeping the small roster but what NFL team goes into a game 5 players short just cuz? From a sport sense it makes zero sense and I think it is far from what was intended when the game was created.
I dont want to go back to tracking SPP, but I think some kind of scaling cost of skills would help balance out this issue and really help and promote teams to have a full roster instead of the mini max strat or atleast I have an option because right now there is ZERO reason to have a full roster with most teams