NCAA Football 10 (PS3) BP Super Conference

[IronBuckI]

I like the once a week advance. It should help, but people are going to have a very hard time getting together on weekends. I really dont remember how well it worked last year.

That's another reason why I wanted to give people all week to get their game in. For the people that are hard to schedule each other, like you and Basebuck, we'll have a known week and a known window that we can play our game. If you and Basebuck know that you play in week 8, then you'll be able to schedule a Saturday or Sunday morning to play your game, and will just need to confirm the appointment a few days before the game. If someone is going to be out of town for a Buckeye game or whatever else will take up a whole weekend, then they'll be able to try and schedule their game earlier in the week.

There would, of course, be a limit to the amount of time to get a game in. The Sunday night deadline would be a rock solid deadline, unless there were another midwestern hurricane, or my internet goes down Sunday night.

 

[IronBuckI]

Open for debate:










A few things that I am going to look at changing next season will be:

1. Getting rid of Ice The Kicker. I think that this would be unanimous, and I meant to do it earlier, but when Piney did it, it didn't work for the first week, and once we started in on the human vs. human scheduels, I didn't want to tinker with the settings.
2. Turning off homefield advantage. I like having a reasonable homefield advantage, but what we have right now is not reasonable, IMO. I don't think that it's actually caused me to lose any of the games that I've lost in this dynasty, but I'd like our games to be as skill based as we can get them.
3. In order to calm down some of the angst over shitty servers, and scheduling conflicts, I think that this dynasty should focus on getting people to play each other, rather than blowing through season after season. That means that I would go to a weekly advance (probably on Sunday night), at least during football season, and the Piney Dynasty and Madden Franchise can move as fast as they want to move, without people feeling like they have to juggle.
4. Getting back to finding some good Varsity sliders for smoother gameplay, and eliminating the comeback code. I would actually like to find a set of sliders that will make the human vs. human games more realistic, or maybe even two sets of sliders...one for the early cpu schedule, and one for the rest of the schedule. I don't think that we have any human vs. human games before week 4 or 5 (can't remember which one) next season.
5. Adding a 9th team to the "conference". I'd have to play around with the schedules a little, but I think that I could add Notre Dame to everyone's schedule. That would give us 8 human opponents though, so let me know what you think about adding another player, if we have anyone interested in joining.

I also wanted to discuss one more change that could be a potential solution to the progression issue, since it doesn't appear that EA can/will fix it via a patch.

• Cuts are not allowed. You can't sign more players than the number of openings that you have available. If you currently have 66 players on your team and 15 are seniors, then you can't sign 25 players...just the 19 required to fill your 70 man roster. If you have a couple of players leave early or transfer, then you can only attempt to fill those extra roster spots during offseason recruiting, after those players have left. If you don't/can't fill those roster spots, then the scholarship will carry over to the next year. This will keep players from unrealistically cutting low rated players. It will force users to pay closer attention to "need" players and roster balance. It will also put more strategy on who you sign and when. If you've got a stable of runningbacks, and the #4 RB in the nation is interested in your school, then you might have to think about whether you can sign that guy, and still be able to fill the roster hole left by the 3 offensive linemen, 2 safeties, 3 CBs and 2 LBs that you have leaving.

 

[Basebuck]

I also wanted to discuss one more change that could be a potential solution to the progression issue, since it doesn't appear that EA can/will fix it via a patch.

• Cuts are not allowed. You can't sign more players than the number of openings that you have available. If you currently have 66 players on your team and 15 are seniors, then you can't sign 25 players...just the 19 required to fill your 70 man roster. If you have a couple of players leave early or transfer, then you can only attempt to fill those extra roster spots during offseason recruiting, after those players have left. If you don't/can't fill those roster spots, then the scholarship will carry over to the next year. This will keep players from unrealistically cutting low rated players. It will force users to pay closer attention to "need" players and roster balance. It will also put more strategy on who you sign and when. If you've got a stable of runningbacks, and the #4 RB in the nation is interested in your school, then you might have to think about whether you can sign that guy, and still be able to fill the roster hole left by the 3 offensive linemen, 2 safeties, 3 CBs and 2 LBs that you have leaving.

What if we considered the JR year the SR year and had to cut all SR's. Kind of radical but just a thought

 

[Smooth Olaf]

I also wanted to discuss one more change that could be a potential solution to the progression issue, since it doesn't appear that EA can/will fix it via a patch.

• Cuts are not allowed. You can't sign more players than the number of openings that you have available. If you currently have 66 players on your team and 15 are seniors, then you can't sign 25 players...just the 19 required to fill your 70 man roster. If you have a couple of players leave early or transfer, then you can only attempt to fill those extra roster spots during offseason recruiting, after those players have left. If you don't/can't fill those roster spots, then the scholarship will carry over to the next year. This will keep players from unrealistically cutting low rated players. It will force users to pay closer attention to "need" players and roster balance. It will also put more strategy on who you sign and when. If you've got a stable of runningbacks, and the #4 RB in the nation is interested in your school, then you might have to think about whether you can sign that guy, and still be able to fill the roster hole left by the 3 offensive linemen, 2 safeties, 3 CBs and 2 LBs that you have leaving.

I don't like that one too much. If I get the top two running backs to commit to LSU (Oh yeah, I did!), then I should get to keep them. Don't punish the user for EA's horrible progression or their refusal to expand the roster sizes.

 

[IronBuckI]

I don't like that one too much. If I get the top to running backs to commit to LSU (Oh yeah, I did!), then I should get to keep them. Don't punish the user for EA's horrible progression or their refusal to expand the roster sizes.

Or their inability to avoid free agent and trade exploits? I think that the two ways of roster stacking are very similar in that neither one is a very realistic way of building a team. Anyway, I'm not punishing anyone for recruiting well. I'm saying that there's a decision to be made when doing recruiting. That a user shouldn't be able to unrealistically cut 10 sophomores, juniors and seniors, because they unrealistically signed 25 4/5* recruits. If you've only got a few positions of need, and have the room to keep those two top runningbacks, then go right ahead and keep them. If you've got a limited number of schollies, say 12, and you have 8 or 9 positions of need, then you've got a decision to make. Also, the 70 scholarship limit as opposed to the 85 schollie makes the ability to sign 25 freshman every season even less realistic...not more realistic.

This is, afterall, just a suggestion. If it gets voted down because people want to continue to recruit the same way that they always have, and not worry about who they sign, then the rule won't be enacted.

 

[buckeyemania11]

I vote against the "no cuts" rule as well

since EA refuses to expand rosters to the realistic amount, I think its unfair to try to impose "realism" on the already unrealistic roster limit

 

[IronBuckI]

What if we considered the JR year the SR year and had to cut all SR's. Kind of radical but just a thought

Never thought of that, but that would significantly reduce the number of 90+ OVR players on our teams. At least initially. That would really fuck alot of you guys with Junior and Senior heavy teams. Ohio State and Miami would probably be ok, but I can't imagine the amount of losses that the rest of the dynasty would take.

 

[IronBuckI]

I vote against the "no cuts" rule as well

since EA refuses to expand rosters to the realistic amount, I think its unfair to try to impose "realism" on the already unrealistic roster limit

I'm not sure where it's unfair. Either way, you have to have a minimum number of players at each position, and either way, you can't have more than 70 players on a team. Also, the rule would apply to every player in the dynasty.

I think it's a good idea. I assumed that some would not feel that way. I'm more than willing to listen to any ideas. Maybe you could explain what's unfair about this one?

 

[buckeyemania11]

I think it's a good idea. I assumed that some would not feel that way. I'm more than willing to listen to any ideas. Maybe you could explain what's unfair about this one?

It really doesnt matter much to me, I just think its kind of stupid I guess, if someone wants to go rich rod and recruit 20 slot WRs and end up thin at other positions then so be it

 

[IronBuckI]

So is it unfair, or stupid, or both? I think that it does matter to you, which is why you voted against it, which is great. Nothing annoys me more than bringing up an idea and getting no feedback whatsoever. I'd just like an explanation of your characterization. Because, obviously, I don't understand either of those characterizations.

 

[buckeyemania11]

So is it unfair, or stupid, or both? I think that it does matter to you, which is why you voted against it, which is great. Nothing annoys me more than bringing up an idea and getting no feedback whatsoever. I'd just like an explanation of your characterization. Because, obviously, I don't understand either of those characterizations.

it doesnt matter to me....but if I had to throw out an opinion on it id say its a stupid idea, like smooth said, I dont think we should make up a rule like this because of EAs refusal to have realistic roster sizes in the game........

its really not going to effect me either way, I dont go out and load up on a single position in recruiting

 

[IronBuckI]

it doesnt matter to me....but if I had to throw out an opinion on it id say its a stupid idea, like smooth said, I dont think we should make up a rule like this because of EAs refusal to have realistic roster sizes in the game........

its really not going to effect me either way, I dont go out and load up on a single position in recruiting

That's not why this rule would be enacted. Most universities don't go out and sign 25 players every year, even with an 85 man schollie limit.

The reason behind this is; because dumping upper classmen that don't progress at a ridiculous amount, in favor of freshman that are rated slightly lower, just makes the progression issue even worse. Cuts already made it ridiculously easy to build a team before progression was broken. Now that it is broken, it's even easier.

You and Olaf disagree with this idea, so your opinions/votes have been noted. If it gets voted down, then it won't be enacted. I just wanted to get some actual discussion on these possible rule and setting changes, rather than just one word characterizations, that really don't help me understand why something is voted in or out.

Also, everyone that disagrees with me is a poop head...It wouldn't be a "discussion" without some good old-fashioned name calling, and since no one else sank to that level, I thought that it was necessary to get that in too. :tongue2:

 

[fanaticbuckeye]

Take the name calling to the poli board.

What if compromise and say no more than 3 cuts? Give a little wiggle room

 

[IronBuckI]

Take the name calling to the poli board.

What if compromise and say no more than 3 cuts? Give a little wiggle room

Yeah, we could set some sort of low number also. 3 is a good place to start. Especially for the first offseason, since no one was recruiting this year with the idea that they couldn't just load up.

The weekly advance for this dynasty is really the only thing that I'm set on. Everything else, I would be open to alterations, or flat out being voted down.

However, if we're going to start compromising, then I can't go to the poli board. They don't allow any sort of compromise over there. :tongue2:

 

[Piney]

Was going to agree with Iron. I like the no cuts. Tressel knows he only has X amount of spots, so he has to make tough decisions in who he recruits. In addition I think EA has rendered the limit of 70 man rosters mute because there are NO busts. So every guy you recruit is going to be good and or get better with no regression.

Like I said... was going to agree with you 100%, then I read this...

What if compromise and say no more than 3 cuts? Give a little wiggle room

I actually like this idea more. The only issue I would have with no cuts would be what if you signed 1 or 2 more than you should? Or you only need 1 RB, so you target 2-3 because there is stiff competition for him but you somehow beat the odds and land all 2 or 3 the same weekend?

This solves my only concern. Gives guys just a little wiggle room but doesn't allow you to totally overhaul the roster.

And this is from a guy who picked a team with only 13-16 seniors and planned on oversigning and then cutting any deadweight from the team.