360 Dynasty 2011 **Planning***

[jwinslow]

I don't have a set timeline, but I figure we'll give it a week or two to figure out settings, adjust to the game, figure out ground rules, what difficulty setting we want for recruiting, etc. We might even run a test dynasty just to see how things go, with every intention of resetting things after 6-10 weeks (maybe sim some of the games to test recruiting). Not everyone would have to participate in the trial if they didn't want to...

Are we going to do the conference realignment developments that have come up? I think that would add an interesting twist to the dynasty.

What changes do we have so far?

Boise St, Col to Pac-10 - Swap with Ore St & Arizona St?

Nebraska to Big-10 - Swap with Northwestern?

 

[jwinslow]

We gotta wait for good rosters to go up too, especially since we are using real teams this year.

translation: downloadable user rosters with name changes done well. Last year the early ones were often riddled with errors.

 

[CentralMOBuck]

What changes do we have so far?

Utah, Col to Pac-10 - Swap with Ore St & Arizona St?

Boise St. to the MWC

Nebraska to Big-10 - Swap with Northwestern?

Maybe they will come up with an addon for the "super conferences" thing so you can add and remove teams to reflect the recent news in realignment.

 

[jwinslow]

Redbenn has been in this dynasty since 08, wanted in from the beginning but only recently got the necessary internet at his new place. Being a founding member of the BP 360 online dynasties, he gets a spot. That means someone will need to transfer to the other dynasty.

The other dynasty:

- has 8 users once someone switches, enough for two 4 user conferences.

- probably uses better starting teams, which are easier to win with than the mediocre squads we're using here.

- needs a commissioner, which can be fun to run.


I thought I'd see whether anyone was willing to switch voluntarily. Gomer was the last to join the dynasty, but I thought I'd check if anyone was interested in switching due to certain preferences or not having one.

 

[jwinslow]

TeamBuilder | NCAA Football | EASports.com

My preliminary standard is 86 overall or below, with room to veto teams that are too good. Here's the list, let's start analyzing the choices for fairness:

75 Air Force
83 Arizona
82 Baylor
76 Central Mich
82 Colorado
76 Colorado St
79 Connecticut
80 ECU
78 Fresno State
73 Hawaii
80 Houston
78 Illinois
82 Kansas
80 Kansas St
82 Kentucky
78 Louisville
82 Maryland
86 Michigan St
85 Minnesota
[strike]86 Mississippi St[/strike]
80 NC State
79 Navy
82 Northwestern
83 Purdue
85 Rutgers
[strike]85 South Carolina[/strike]
78 Southern Miss
78 Syracuse
78 Tulsa
83 UCF
79 USF
80 Virginia
83 Wake Forest

64 Akron
64 Ball St
66 Bowling Green
66 Buffalo
78 Duke
80 Indiana
83 Iowa State
69 Louisiana Tech
78 Marshall
73 Memphis
65 Miami OH
79 Nevada
68 New Mexico
73 NIU
71 Ohio
64 Rice
78 SMU
73 Temple
71 Toledo
75 Troy
71 UNLV
73 UTEP
82 Vandy
79 Washington St
72 Wyoming

69 Ark St
66 Army
60 Eastern Michigan
65 Florida International
65 Florida Atlantic
69 Idaho
65 Kent St
75 Mid Tenn St
64 New Mexico St
69 North Texas
72 San Diego St
62 San Jose St
76 UAB
71 UL Lafayette
64 UL Monroe
66 Utah St
60 W Kentucky
71 W Michigan

 

[Bucknut24]

i was wondering if you were going to switch that post to this thread

The only one I would suggest in vetoing would be Ariz St, seeing as they are a 4* team

 

[jwinslow]

Removed ASU typo.

At first glance, my only objections are Mississippi St, South Carolina & maybe Rutgers. What do you guys think?

 

[jwinslow]

Here are my quick thoughts for a fairly balanced set of options (obviously we would only use 3 conferences). Any disagreements here?

Should we leave Rutgers in or out?

Minnesota, Michigan St, Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue

Air Force, Arizona, Colorado, Fresno St, Nevada, Wash St

Conn, ECU, Louisville, Rutgers?, Syracuse, USF

Maryland, NC State, Vanderbilt, Virginia, Wake Forest

ECU could be added to Big East or ACC.


If we avoid the ACC, we could have 3 conferences without a CCG, which would be more fair. Using these teams in their native conferences will allow users to retain more of their rivalry games as well.

 

[CentralMOBuck]

I'm all for leaving the teams in their natural conferences.

 

[Bucknut24]

don't we need to determine who is going to choose what team before we change some of the conf?

 

[jwinslow]

This lineup would leave teams in their natural conferences (as of 2011), with one exception, using Fresno or Nevada as the replacement for Utah, who is too good for our purposes.

Minnesota, Michigan St, Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue

Arizona, Colorado, Fresno St or Nevada, Wash St

Conn, Louisville, Rutgers?, Syracuse, USF

Should we use a randomizer to figure out which user pod is attached to which conference?

So we'd assign the conference membership, then a randomizer would let the 4 users pick their favorite team from the list?

 

[Bucknut24]

I think it would be more fair just to let the user pick whatever team they want (within the criteria) then put them into whatever conf they would fit imo, but this is my first time doing this so Im just spitballin, sure you guys know what to do more than me

 

[jwinslow]

Nah everybody has a say here. We'll see what the other guys say when they wake up. I'm fine with custom or standard conferences, so really we're split 50-50 after two votes from you two.

Part of the reason it would help to put people in conferences before the vote is to set up some natural rivalries, even between users. It looks like the pac-10 won't have as many rivalries as the big ten might, so that's something to consider as well.

 

[redbenn]

Nah everybody has a say here. We'll see what the other guys say when they wake up. I'm fine with custom or standard conferences, so really we're split 50-50 after two votes from you two.

Part of the reason it would help to put people in conferences before the vote is to set up some natural rivalries, even between users. It looks like the pac-10 won't have as many rivalries as the big ten might, so that's something to consider as well.

i vote for keep conferences w/ diff pods.

 

[Mac]

Nah everybody has a say here. We'll see what the other guys say when they wake up. I'm fine with custom or standard conferences, so really we're split 50-50 after two votes from you two.

Part of the reason it would help to put people in conferences before the vote is to set up some natural rivalries, even between users. It looks like the pac-10 won't have as many rivalries as the big ten might, so that's something to consider as well.

As long as I have a few rivalry's I'm happy. So I really don't mind either way, as long as there's someone to play for a rivalry game.