PDA

View Full Version : NCAA Football 11 - Dynasty Blog 2 of 3: Prospects



AustinWolv
05-20-2010, 04:26 PM
You can view the page at http://www.thegamingtailgate.com/forums/content.php?162-Dynasty-Blog-2-of-3-is-up

cdj
05-20-2010, 04:34 PM
Thanks for posting this, Austin.

I love the changes made to help the ratings of prospects match up with the base roster. That had been a problem for years in the franchise. They really put in a lot of work and time into this huge database, but it'll be worth it.

Schauwn
05-20-2010, 04:42 PM
im surprised we got a new blog so quickly, here's to hoping the 3rd comes in a few days too...

it sounds great to me. I love the idea of spreading out the ratings and making really great players stand out. also with the retooling of the entire recruits database to fit in with the base rosters is fantastic. this will help dynasties stay interesting longer IMO. I think something that shouldn't be overlooked in this blog is at the beginning where he talked about the ability to win a "coaches choice" or whatever he called it. this will give me something to look forward to while recruiting with smaller schools, when i can get that topic of my own choosing and really harp on something that is maybe my only real strong suit with the prospect. maybe my favorite thing of this post though is the idea of having a potential rating, this is AWESOME IMO. to see that a kid might be good as a freshman but not really ever get any better or to see a kid that might not be that great as a freshman but has huge upside, this adds another level to recruiting that hasnt been there in the past, i'm excited.

wish they would have called this recruiting blog rather than dynasty blog though...teased me as to what was going to come along.

Solidice
05-20-2010, 04:42 PM
I love that they spread the ratings out as well as putting the potential rating more into the progression. I also like the menu interface with the ESPN theme to it. looks nice.

Also, TCU's pro-combat uniform. I love those.

Jayrah
05-20-2010, 04:57 PM
Thanks for posting this, Austin.

I love the changes made to help the ratings of prospects match up with the base roster. That had been a problem for years in the franchise. They really put in a lot of work and time into this huge database, but it'll be worth it.

*Standing Ovation*

A few things: (1) This is actually partial recruiting and partial miscellaneous dynasty, because of progression throughout a players career. It sounds like the 3rd blog may be something similar in concept. But I love the changes. (2) Our first look at pro combat unis [TCU], looks like those are in :cool:. (3) CD guys: it sounded like 'potential' was already there but didn't matter previously as much, is that correct? Also, is it a visible or invisible rating. It sounded like it's invisible, and thus we would only be able to calculate our recruits based on lower rated recruits jumping above a higher rated recruit (at least within the position).

AustinWolv
05-20-2010, 04:59 PM
potential rating
This. Big.

Cool element of the decision to chase a QB A who is rated nearly the same as QB B, but has higher potential while only having you 4th on his list while QB B has you listed as first on his list.

A comment that was dropped from my original post:
I think the value of recruit position is hopefully tying nicely into how different teams with different styles will pursue certain positions and thus recruit according to their needs for those styles.....hopefully on offense AND defense.

AustinWolv
05-20-2010, 05:02 PM
*Standing Ovation*

A few things: (1) This is actually partial recruiting and partial miscellaneous dynasty, because of progression throughout a players career. It sounds like the 3rd blog may be something similar in concept. But I love the changes. (2) Our first look at pro combat unis [TCU], looks like those are in :cool:. (3) CD guys: it sounded like 'potential' was already there but didn't matter previously as much, is that correct? Also, is it a visible or invisible rating. It sounded like it's invisible, and thus we would only be able to calculate our recruits based on lower rated recruits jumping above a higher rated recruit (at least within the position).

The raw potential isn't visible is what I gather, but you'll be able to determine which guy has better potential by how they are ranked:

Using an arbitrary number to adjust the rankings really seemed like a poor way of going about things, so we took a rating that isn't visible to help solve the problem: potential. What we did for some of the Prospects is change both their overall rank and position rank based on the potential they have. This doesn't mean that you'll now see a 40 OVR player as a 5 star... but it does mean you might see a Prospect who is technically a few points lower in OVR rated above another Prospect. So, why did we use Potential?

Player A - True Freshman QB, 70 Overall rating, 90 Potential rating
Player B - JUCO Junior HB, 75 Overall rating, 75 Potential rating
Player C - True Freshman HB, 73 Overall rating, 50 Potential rating
Player D - True Freshman QB, 71 Overall rating, 70 Potential rating

On average with the 4 players above would end up being ranked like this in NCAA Football 11:
1. Player A
2. Player D
3. Player C
4. Player B
In previous years, only overall would have mattered.

Jayrah
05-20-2010, 05:02 PM
this. Big.

Cool element of the decision to chase a qb a who is rated nearly the same as qb b, but has higher potential while only having you 4th on his list while qb b has you listed as first on his list.

A comment that was dropped from my original post:
i think the value of recruit position is hopefully tying nicely into how different teams with different styles will pursue certain positions and thus recruit according to their needs for those styles.....hopefully on offense and defense.

yes

Kwizzy
05-20-2010, 05:03 PM
Sounds great. There isn't one thing discused in the parts about the ratings & rankings of prospects that doesn't sound good to me.

Nice to see that the coach will sometimes have the ability to chose which pitch he makes though hopefully it's not just a random thing. Just based on what we've heard so far, and not having played the game at all, it seems to me like it might've been a good idea to remove one of the 3 "change topics" per call & add one "coach's choice" per call. After all, the coach can always steer the conversation in a direction he wants to go during a call. It'll be interesting to see how it works.

Every blog is just more & more impressive. It's not even necessarily one specific thing either. It's like cdj said, when you take a step back & examine the big picture of what they've added/changed this year it's really impressive. :D

cdj
05-20-2010, 05:03 PM
CD guys: it sounded like 'potential' was already there but didn't matter previously as much, is that correct? Also, is it a visible or invisible rating. It sounded like it's invisible, and thus we would only be able to calculate our recruits based on lower rated recruits jumping above a higher rated recruit (at least within the position).

I've been under the impression it's always been there (invisible), but that now it means more than ever and is still invisible.

Jayrah
05-20-2010, 05:04 PM
The raw potential isn't visible is what I gather, but you'll be able to determine which guy has better potential by how they are ranked:

That's how I read it too. That actually gives a bit of mystery back to your recruiting, as the numbers won't always match up, and you'll have to determine who you wish to pursue based on more factors. I like it.

AustinWolv
05-20-2010, 05:06 PM
I've been under the impression it's always been there (invisible), but that now it means more than ever and is still invisible.
See my pos (http://www.thegamingtailgate.com/forums/showthread.php?144-NCAA-Football-11-Dynasty-Blog-2-of-3-Prospects&p=1258&viewfull=1#post1258)t above. It would seem it is implied by the recruit rankings, although not an absolute known number, but rather a potential hint that is the surprise that it may or may not play out, i.e. the gamble that is recruiting in college football.

texacotea
05-20-2010, 05:07 PM
Love the ESPN 150, love the potential rating. like the ranking of players. This in all is a great blog. Good stuff here and alot of reason to be excited

Kwizzy
05-20-2010, 05:08 PM
There has always been a potential rating it's just been invisible (& unimportant aparently).

Deuce
05-20-2010, 05:22 PM
I really like the fact the most freshman will come in below 80. No more easy reloading. Hopefully it takes time and some good recruiting to reload this year.

Jayrah
05-20-2010, 05:28 PM
Haha, still holding out for that uniform blog tomorrow, based on the release of a combat uniform screeny. If not no biggy though, I didn't expect this one today, so hoorah.

Jayrah
05-20-2010, 05:32 PM
I really like the fact the most freshman will come in below 80. No more easy reloading. Hopefully it takes time and some good recruiting to reload this year.

Also gotta love the fact that so many fewer players are *elite* status this year. Makes it easier to go after a mid to high 60's player when you are in need of position depth, when you know the other teams aren't loading it up with 80's guys right off the bat. And finally we will get information on cpu recruiting logic in the next blog. This will be BIG. I can't wait.

EDIT: Can I also just say that I LOVE the fact that you have to EARN the *coaches choice* option in phone calls. More strategy! They'll explain how in the final blog sounds like.

JBHuskers
05-20-2010, 06:14 PM
Sounds great. There isn't one thing discused in the parts about the ratings & rankings of prospects that doesn't sound good to me.

Nice to see that the coach will sometimes have the ability to chose which pitch he makes though hopefully it's not just a random thing.

The coach's choice is a random thing across the board for all schools. This was still being tuned at community day, but it was usually somewhere between one and three times per phone call.

xGRIDIRONxGURUx
05-20-2010, 06:14 PM
love this... so good to know that elite players will barely crack 80 sometimes as a freshman... i like having the potential rank as well... allows us to recruit for short term players to be in rotation in positions that can possibly produce immediately, but given the rotation, the long term potential wont matter... things like that make things interesting, different, and create the ability to be creative within dynasties, which we all know, is NEEDED BADLY...

"E"

Kwizzy
05-20-2010, 06:22 PM
Just to clarify Pistol, I'm pretty sure the potential rating will still be hidden, it always has been anyway. I don't know if you were thinking it would be shown.

JB- 3 times in one call seems like it defeats the purpose of the random & limited topics in the first place no?

xGRIDIRONxGURUx
05-20-2010, 06:27 PM
Just to clarify Pistol, I'm pretty sure the potential rating will still be hidden, it always has been anyway. I don't know if you were thinking it would be shown.

JB- 3 times in one call seems like it defeats the purpose of the random & limited topics in the first place no?

nevermind... i was reading it wrong... at first i thought he was saying that made it more prevalent by putting out there, but now i see its going to be hidden...

want to hear CD guys spill everything they know so far on this stuff...

"E"

JBHuskers
05-20-2010, 06:28 PM
Just to clarify Pistol, I'm pretty sure the potential rating will still be hidden, it always has been anyway. I don't know if you were thinking it would be shown.

JB- 3 times in one call seems like it defeats the purpose of the random & limited topics in the first place no?

Yeah, and I told them it was too many, it was still being tuned.

At most with promises and skips, you could have up to 12 topics come up for one call.....

Kwizzy
05-20-2010, 06:28 PM
yeah still hidden, i got that, just figured you could strategically pick up some guys middle of the pack that can really be explosive in 2 years or be good right off the bat, and fade out to a guy you want to red-shirt...

"E"

Yeah definitely, adds a whole different set of decisions & depth to recruiting.

JBHuskers
05-20-2010, 06:29 PM
You're most likely going to see this coach's choice only once....but maybe twice.

AustinWolv
05-20-2010, 06:43 PM
Was it already confirmed that roster size was staying the same as previous years? I thought I saw that, but can't recall now.

Deuce
05-20-2010, 08:31 PM
Was it already confirmed that roster size was staying the same as previous years? I thought I saw that, but can't recall now.

Good question. I doubt we ever get to 85 man rosters but it would be great. Maybe they could increase injuries and decrease stamina so roster depth would be more important.

Rudy
05-20-2010, 09:10 PM
Potential is still tied to the overall ranking of the player even though you can't see it. They indicated that when they showed the rankings of the recruits in the 4 player example. I don't know if I like that.

JBHuskers
05-20-2010, 10:10 PM
Potential is still tied to the overall ranking of the player even though you can't see it. They indicated that when they showed the rankings of the recruits in the 4 player example. I don't know if I like that.

Why don't you know if you like it? Or what about it don't you like? Just curious.

JBHuskers
05-20-2010, 10:11 PM
Good question. I doubt we ever get to 85 man rosters but it would be great. Maybe they could increase injuries and decrease stamina so roster depth would be more important.

I dunno what it is, but there is something that is preventing 85 man rosters. Dunno if something just goes completely haywire by adding more to where they don't want to focus the manhours trying to figure out all the working parts to get it to 85.....that is my best guess.

steelerfan
05-20-2010, 10:23 PM
Potential is part of the rankings but not for every player. Therefore, one player could be a 75 as a Freshman and an 85 as a Senior while another could be a 70 as a Freshman and a 90 as a Senior. Depending on whether or not Potential is calculated for those two players, either one could be ranked higher.

JeffHCross
05-20-2010, 10:34 PM
Awesome blog by Russ. Can't wait for Part 3 ... CPU recruiting!!!!

I dunno what it is, but there is something that is preventing 85 man rosters.I actually saw a logical reason for keeping it at 70 the other day. Apparently every BCS conference besides the Pac 10 has a 70-man travel roster. The Pac actually only take 64. While the reasons for remaining at 70 may be technical, there's also a realism reason to keep it at 70, unless the team introduces some kind of "travel roster" system (like healthy scratches in NHL).

JeffHCross
05-20-2010, 10:49 PM
I am amused ... to the point of getting a headache ... that there is not a single mention of Coaching Carousel on this thread on TGT, yet on another site it's in nearly 20% of the posts.

Good grief.

And how in the world people think "Coaches Choices" connects to Coaching Carousel is beyond me.

JBHuskers
05-20-2010, 11:31 PM
Awesome blog by Russ. Can't wait for Part 3 ... CPU recruiting!!!!
I actually saw a logical reason for keeping it at 70 the other day. Apparently every BCS conference besides the Pac 10 has a 70-man travel roster. The Pac actually only take 64. While the reasons for remaining at 70 may be technical, there's also a realism reason to keep it at 70, unless the team introduces some kind of "travel roster" system (like healthy scratches in NHL).

Yeah I'm pretty sure one of the devs last year told me there is a technical reason too....but my memory can be the most horrible at times....thank god for Blackberry, the phone and the brandy.

Jayrah
05-21-2010, 03:43 AM
I am amused ... to the point of getting a headache ... that there is not a single mention of Coaching Carousel on this thread on TGT, yet on another site it's in nearly 20% of the posts.

Good grief.

And how in the world people think "Coaches Choices" connects to Coaching Carousel is beyond me.

Jeff.....I'm laughing too man. How the choice of a topic in a recruiting phone call hints at a coach changing schools and taking his system with him is beyond the realm of sophistication. Dimensions far too deep to comprehend I'm sure. DOH! It hurts my head too.

fsuprime
05-21-2010, 10:08 AM
Thanks for posting this, Austin.

I love the changes made to help the ratings of prospects match up with the base roster. That had been a problem for years in the franchise. They really put in a lot of work and time into this huge database, but it'll be worth it.

yes this is big news for me, it was always terrible after about 2 years of recruiting and most of your base freshman and sophomores were out of the job, rated way to low to compete with random 3 and 4 *s from recruiting.

also could the potential rating be unlocked once you get him signed and on your roster (like madden)? or will we just have to guess at the potential after one year of training.

JBHuskers
05-21-2010, 10:13 AM
With a set amount of points you can earn based on your schools rating in that particular area....I have a good feeling that smaller schools are going to have a tough time getting the big dogs right off the bat this year. Then you combine this with part two of the blog....the challenge of building up a small school may finally be here. I'm hoping so.

Schauwn
05-21-2010, 10:20 AM
^^

+1

me too, its fun to build up small schools, buts it has been unrealistically easy in the past...

JBHuskers
05-21-2010, 10:39 AM
^^

+1

me too, its fun to build up small schools, buts it has been unrealistically easy in the past...

I think that is what has killed longevity and interest in online dynasties.

Solidice
05-21-2010, 12:43 PM
With a set amount of points you can earn based on your schools rating in that particular area....I have a good feeling that smaller schools are going to have a tough time getting the big dogs right off the bat this year. Then you combine this with part two of the blog....the challenge of building up a small school may finally be here. I'm hoping so.

should be fun. I love building up bad teams for my offline dynasties. I really love that they are stretching out the ratings and changing up the new recruits too.

BlindRedBaron
05-21-2010, 04:41 PM
All this info is really great. Agreed on stretching out the ratings, I really feel that too often a couple of years into a dynasty you have 20 some odd teams with an "A" or better overall rating. I'm sure this will help ameliorate that.

I echo some of the disappointment that all three of these "dynasty blogs" will be about recruiting. The silver lining is that all of this stuff needed the upgrades, and the fact that they seem to be coming out quickly is a big plus.

Don't want to sound greedy, but I hope there's more news that may affect dynasties beyond recruiting :o

If not, no bigs, just keeping my fingers crossed

Rudy
05-21-2010, 07:04 PM
Why don't you know if you like it? Or what about it don't you like? Just curious.

Sorry for the late reply JB - stupid Websense. I think potential is different in every player and I'm not really sure coaches truly know how much potential a player has when they recruit them. About the only time you can predict a higher ceiling is if a kid is a late bloomer physically or hasn't really played much and is raw. I love having potential ratings but nobody should really know what that potential is. It's the unknown that's great in recruiting and I think they should remain hidden. The rankings should be based on what they have done and what they are perceived to be. People can go after all the 4* and 5* kids but you never know how they will really perform in real life. Some 5* kids become first rounders and others disappoint. Some 2 or 3* kids occassionally become great football players. If the game ranks prospects with a weighting system that includes where they will start and their potential, it's almost like knowing what your Christmas gifts are ahead of time. I want to be pleasantly surprised by a kid that ends up better than expected or disappointed in certain kids.

steelerfan
05-21-2010, 09:08 PM
Potential is part of the rankings but not for every player. Therefore, one player could be a 75 as a Freshman and an 85 as a Senior while another could be a 70 as a Freshman and a 90 as a Senior. Depending on whether or not Potential is calculated for those two players, either one could be ranked higher.

Rudy, read this ^^^ and read the blog again. I'm certain they're trying to say that potential will sometimes cause a lower rated player to be ranked higher in the ESPN 150 but potential will not always be factored in which will also allow for hidden gems and busts. I'm not positive, but I don't think you'll see potential ratings until the player is on your roster (if ever).

Jayrah
05-21-2010, 10:19 PM
Rudy, read this ^^^ and read the blog again. I'm certain they're trying to say that potential will sometimes cause a lower rated player to be ranked higher in the ESPN 150 but potential will not always be factored in which will also allow for hidden gems and busts. I'm not positive, but I don't think you'll see potential ratings until the player is on your roster (if ever).

Exactly right Steeler. That's what I saw. Plus Rudy, the potential is there as a "hidden" rating. We won't see it. We can only guess based on a lower rated player being higher on the recruiting board 150. The use of that hidden potential is randomly used and unused per player. Could be a 5* bust or a 3* All American. So the best thing to do is look at need and ratings based on how YOU run your system this year. Star power will help, but won't always pan out to be that super steal you thought you were getting. I think we may get a better understanding on that as they round out blog 3.

Rudy
05-22-2010, 05:15 AM
I like the sound of that much better guys. Looks good.

Lava
05-24-2010, 02:20 PM
Can any of the CD guys comment on the extent that the ratings have been stretched to? Is it similar to Madden? More? Less?

I'm just wondering if there will actually be a tangible difference between bad, good, and great players this year. Thanks in advance.

gschwendt
05-24-2010, 02:38 PM
Can any of the CD guys comment on the extent that the ratings have been stretched to? Is it similar to Madden? More? Less?

I'm just wondering if there will actually be a tangible difference between bad, good, and great players this year. Thanks in advance.
The rosters were still a work in progress while we were at CD but from the comments they made, it sounded like they would be stretched similar to Madden. I'm not sure if they will be THAT drastic or not but maybe JB & cdj saw more when they returned for the draft event.

Lava
05-24-2010, 02:44 PM
Nice. Thanks gschwendt, hopefully JB or cjd can elaborate a bit more. :)

JBHuskers
05-24-2010, 02:49 PM
Nice. Thanks gschwendt, hopefully JB or cjd can elaborate a bit more. :)

The video that was released in a Madden blog definitely gives you a good indication that the ratings will give a good mixture of the overall player. http://maddennfl.easports.com/blog.action?blogId=locomotion the 90 vs. 99 race video.

What we saw at the community day was 50 SPD 50 ACC vs. 100 SPD 50 ACC vs. 50 SPD 100 ACC .... that video we saw definitely can show you the difference between a bad and a good player. And that was just talking in terms of speed and acceleration. Locomotion help a great deal in this.

cdj
05-24-2010, 02:53 PM
Can any of the CD guys comment on the extent that the ratings have been stretched to? Is it similar to Madden? More? Less?

I'm just wondering if there will actually be a tangible difference between bad, good, and great players this year. Thanks in advance.

Even in April, the build didn't like us looking at the depth charts too much, but in the little we were able to, it seemed like ratings were spread out. Though, we were only able to look at a handful of teams/positions before it would freeze, so keep that in mind.

Playing with teams, you do feel a difference between a Nebraska (Top 10) and a Minnesota (maybe a Top 40 team).

Lava
05-24-2010, 03:48 PM
Yeah, it makes sense that Nebraska would feel much different than Minnesota when the skill gap is amplified throughout nearly the entire roster.

I was wondering more along the lines of if you could feel a real difference between individual players; like, for Nebraska, would you notice a difference immediately between say Zac Lee and LaTravis Washington? Granted, Lee wasn't too impressive last year, but you get my drift. I just want it to be similar to Madden in that if your starting QB, HB, w/e gets hurt that you actually notice a real difference and there is a need to adjust your gameplan when you are forced to play with your backup.

JBHuskers
05-24-2010, 04:08 PM
Yeah, it makes sense that Nebraska would feel much different than Minnesota when the skill gap is amplified throughout nearly the entire roster.

I was wondering more along the lines of if you could feel a real difference between individual players; like, for Nebraska, would you notice a difference immediately between say Zac Lee and LaTravis Washington? Granted, Lee wasn't too impressive last year, but you get my drift. I just want it to be similar to Madden in that if your starting QB, HB, w/e gets hurt that you actually notice a real difference and there is a need to adjust your gameplan when you are forced to play with your backup.

Don't forget that Taylor Martinez is the greatest football player ever in college football :D

Lava
05-24-2010, 04:37 PM
Don't forget that Taylor Martinez is the greatest football player ever in college football :D

Haha, I hope we find out that is a fact this season. ;)

JBHuskers
05-24-2010, 05:30 PM
I love that running joke on Unsportsmanlike Conduct (not sure if you listen to that on 1620 ESPN Radio in Omaha) .... I love that show.

These changes are definitely going to make for an interesting go at it within the dyansty. Especially online dynasties when you're trying to find that hidden gem, or the JUCO to put you over the top for the near future.

cdj
05-24-2010, 05:32 PM
Yeah, it makes sense that Nebraska would feel much different than Minnesota when the skill gap is amplified throughout nearly the entire roster.

I noticed it most with RBs. You could really tell who had the higher break tackle ratings as they'd be tough to bring down one-on-one or on the first attempt.

Jayrah
05-24-2010, 05:40 PM
I noticed it most with RBs. You could really tell who had the higher break tackle ratings as they'd be tough to bring down one-on-one or on the first attempt.

Speaking of RB's, was there any kind of penalizing factor for taking the ball on a run and immediately sprinting? Like taking an extra false step to get up to speed.

JBHuskers
05-24-2010, 06:05 PM
Speaking of RB's, was there any kind of penalizing factor for taking the ball on a run and immediately sprinting? Like taking an extra false step to get up to speed.

Not sure if there is a penalizing factor, but you're not going to be following the blocks, so you won't be as successful compared to being patient.

Deuce
05-24-2010, 06:28 PM
Not sure if there is a penalizing factor, but you're not going to be following the blocks, so you won't be as successful compared to being patient.

I really hope that 11 forces me to break that habit.

I can't wait to get a feel for the RS moves. If you gently push the stick does the RB slightly shift and if its a hard push does the RB juke? (rhetorical) Doing 'shimmy' moves and setting up moves on defensive players will hopefully be a lot of fun.

jaymo76
05-24-2010, 09:45 PM
I just hope that this year if I bring say Idaho to play at Ohio St that I am dominated every play... skill needs to be prevelant this year...the game needs that realistic feel.

Deuce
05-24-2010, 09:56 PM
I just hope that this year if I bring say Idaho to play at Ohio St that I am dominated every play... skill needs to be prevelant this year...the game needs that realistic feel.

Ya, me too. I remember on 2004 playing a cupcake against an A+ team and getting blown out. I think I went 6-6 or 5-7 the first season.

Has anyone ever got fired in a dynasty? I think I've only had one losing season in all my time of playing college football. Hopefully this year I'll have a few more.

steelerfan
05-24-2010, 10:18 PM
Ya, me too. I remember on 2004 playing a cupcake against an A+ team and getting blown out. I think I went 6-6 or 5-7 the first season.

Has anyone ever got fired in a dynasty? I think I've only had one losing season in all my time of playing college football. Hopefully this year I'll have a few more.

I've never been fired and never had a losing season. I'd love to have a losing season (went 6-6 with Buffalo once). I wish I could have one several seasons in and not just the first season. I'd like to coach at say - Northwestern or Vandy and struggle in conference. Just having some ups and downs and feeling it when I have a 'Meh' recruiting class.

Hopefully 11 will at least make us have some bad recruiting classes even if it doesn't equal losses.

JBHuskers
05-24-2010, 10:43 PM
I've never been fired and never had a losing season. I'd love to have a losing season (went 6-6 with Buffalo once). I wish I could have one several seasons in and not just the first season. I'd like to coach at say - Northwestern or Vandy and struggle in conference. Just having some ups and downs and feeling it when I have a 'Meh' recruiting class.

Hopefully 11 will at least make us have some bad recruiting classes even if it doesn't equal losses.

Totally agree with you here bro.

JeffHCross
05-24-2010, 10:54 PM
I still remember the shock on NCAA 2004 of playing without a loss for 3 seasons or so with my 1992 Alabama team ... breaking Oklahoma's record (must have been 4+ seasons then), and then promptly dropping two games to the CPU.

jaymo76
05-25-2010, 12:02 AM
I've never been fired and never had a losing season. I'd love to have a losing season (went 6-6 with Buffalo once). I wish I could have one several seasons in and not just the first season. I'd like to coach at say - Northwestern or Vandy and struggle in conference. Just having some ups and downs and feeling it when I have a 'Meh' recruiting class.

Hopefully 11 will at least make us have some bad recruiting classes even if it doesn't equal losses.

Yup same here... never fired... never had a losing season. Since 04 I have never lost more than 4 games in one season and usually avg. 1-2 losses only per season. I have found 09 and 10 to be far, far, far too easy. Let's hope 11 is a totally new and realistic experience.

JBHuskers
05-25-2010, 12:51 AM
It would definitely be great if we are manning say some lower level major conference school like a Kansas State, Arizona, for example....two so-so seasons, the AD pulls a quick trigger and we gotta start back down at another school from a mid-major.

Rudy
05-25-2010, 05:19 AM
In NCAA 08 I found that game to be pretty hard so I started a dynasty with Alabama. I had a bad first year. I may have been 5-7 and I barely survived being fired. I started off 1-5 in year two and my approval rating was a 0! I ran the table to finish 7-5 and lost my bowl game. Very close to getting fired although I have never been fired in any game.

AustinWolv
05-25-2010, 06:51 AM
I agree with you guys, especially when you took some small school, built them up to a powerhouse with a couple seasons and then never lost.
I'd also like to see how the CPU beats you to be within the flow and framework of the game, not because roboQB kicks in.

morsdraconis
05-25-2010, 11:00 AM
I actually got fired on NCAA 08 for the PS2. Started a cupcake team and made the rule that I had to have a B schedule and ended up getting waxed by the first few teams I played so I just simmed the rest of them and went like 1-11 or something and then the next season I again had to have a B schedule and I went like 3-9 or 4-8 and I got fired.

Then I started over and gave myself enough shitty teams to survive and be 5-7 or 6-6 for the first few seasons and then my team got amazingly good defensively and I started beating teams that I should have been beating (like Florida State) and it ruined it for me. Only took me like 3 or 4 seasons too.

Deuce
05-25-2010, 06:44 PM
I kinda figured we'd get blog 3 today since blog 1 came out last Tuesday. :(

Solidice
05-25-2010, 07:33 PM
they're probably going back to the Thursday release for the Blogs. most this year have been on Thursday at least. I think one came on a Monday, and of course last week the one on Tuesday.

Jayrah
05-25-2010, 07:50 PM
Yeah I was hoping on today, but it will be tomorrow or thursday. Can't wait

JeffHCross
05-25-2010, 09:16 PM
they're probably going back to the Thursday release for the Blogs. most this year have been on Thursday at least. I think one came on a Monday, and of course last week the one on Tuesday.Before last week's second blog, they were on a every other Tuesday, every other Friday pattern for the last five or so blogs. As in you had one Tuesday, then a week from that Friday, then immediately that following Tuesday.

Solidice
05-25-2010, 09:35 PM
Before last week's second blog, they were on a every other Tuesday, every other Friday pattern for the last five or so blogs. As in you had one Tuesday, then a week from that Friday, then immediately that following Tuesday.

yeah, looking back at the blog dates, I see that. it seems to be a Friday, then Tuesday thing. the last blog on a Thursday was the ESPN Integration one. and the Locomotion one was on a Monday.

jaymo76
05-25-2010, 11:59 PM
It would definitely be great if we are manning say some lower level major conference school like a Kansas State, Arizona, for example....two so-so seasons, the AD pulls a quick trigger and we gotta start back down at another school from a mid-major.

+1 on this post

Jayrah
05-28-2010, 02:27 AM
So hopefully tomorrow. Man I was so excited for today. But I guess now I'm excited for tomorrow.

JBHuskers
05-28-2010, 10:27 AM
So hopefully tomorrow. Man I was so excited for today. But I guess now I'm excited for tomorrow.

With it being the Friday before a holiday, it's hard telling if we will get one today or not. I'd lean towards next week, but you never know.

jaymo76
05-30-2010, 12:46 AM
I guess we will have to wait until just before E3 to hear the big dynasty news.