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...Originally Posted by Kwizzy
want to hear CD guys spill everything they know so far on this stuff...
"E"
Last edited by xGRIDIRONxGURUx; 05-20-2010 at 06:30 PM. Reason: because im an idiot and didnt read it very well =\
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.....
Yeah definitely, adds a whole different set of decisions & depth to recruiting.
You're most likely going to see this coach's choice only once....but maybe twice.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Last edited by JeffHCross; 05-28-2012 at 08:58 PM.
Twitter: @3YardsandACloud
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.
Twitter: @3YardsandACloud
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by fsuprime; 05-21-2010 at 10:15 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.
^^
+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.
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.
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
If not, no bigs, just keeping my fingers crossed
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks