Why no 85 man rosters?

[cmckinnon15]

I believe that last year I read that it was an issue with dic space (same reason we don't have FCS teams). I just don't get how FIFA games can have so many teams, but disc space isn't a problem for them. Is this the true reason we have limited rosters/teams, or is it something else?

[SmoothPancakes]

Yes, it is a issue of disc space. Look at the number of player on a team in FIFA. Now look at the number of players on a team in NCAA. Large difference in number of players. Sure, going from 70 to 85 seems minor, until you do that for 123 (now that we have UMass and the other teams coming up from FCS) teams, and you're looking at 1,845 extra players that you have to make room on the disc for. That a pretty large amount of extra players and extra disc space needed for just a seemingly minor extra 15 players per team.

[Jayrah]

I believe that last year I read that it was an issue with dic space (same reason we don't have FCS teams). I just don't get how FIFA games can have so many teams, but disc space isn't a problem for them. Is this the true reason we have limited rosters/teams, or is it something else?
1: 122 teams (I think) adding 15 players per team = almost 2,000 more players!!!!!! That's on top of 8500 that are already in the game, not including thousands of recruits.
2: I still don't see the need for 85 man rosters in game. I don't see 70 players in NCAA as a limited roster when I carry like 56 on a Madden roster.

[Rudy]

I've never had a problem with 70 man rosters. Like you said Jayrah, I've only struggled with the smaller NFL rosters but there isn't a single recruit I've ever missed that I cut due to being limited to 70.

[SmoothPancakes]

I've never had a problem with 70 man rosters. Like you said Jayrah, I've only struggled with the smaller NFL rosters but there isn't a single recruit I've ever missed that I cut due to being limited to 70.

:+1:

Pretty much every recruit that I cut when over the 70 player limit, are the shitty 1 star players that are all 50-something overall players. Never missed any of them and even if I kept them on my team with an 85 man roster, none of them would have any hope of even seeing the light of day on the playing field until their senior years if they were lucky, if ever.

[Rudy]

Totally agree Smooth. Those guys never see the field but the real problem is people recruiting on the lower difficulty levels and hoarding the talent from the cpu. I'd rather see some of the decent recruits you get when you are a powerhouse actually go to a team that can use and play them. A team like Michigan never has to settle for less than a 3* recruit in the game but I don't want to sign them and then either cut them or never play them.

[jaymo76]

Roster size doesn't bother me but maybe we should have less recruits we can sign? Each year I have to CUT a number of players I signed due to roster size. Maybe 20 recruits would make more sense with 70 man rosters?

[baseballplyrmvp]

pretty much the only case you can make for having 85 man rosters, is if you've played like 10+ minute quarters. i could see them moving towards 85 man rosters when the new consoles come out, but i dont think there's a need for em right now.

[steelerfan]

If injuries were realistic, 85-man rosters would be a priority to me. As it is, my depth is never challenged.

I'd love to see players who I cut end up going to another school.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[SCClassof93]

If injuries were realistic, 85-man rosters would be a priority to me. As it is, my depth is never challenged.

I'd love to see players who I cut end up going to another school.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

+1 :nod:

[WarEagle]

If injuries were realistic, 85-man rosters would be a priority to me. As it is, my depth is never challenged.

I'd love to see players who I cut end up going to another school.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

+2

[JBHuskers]

Simple answer is that would be a huge undertaking. We're talking the addition of almost 2,000 players in the game, not to mention the recruiting databased would have to be increased too. It could very well be disc space (360), but the resources and cost of doing so could be too high.

[Rudy]

People complain enough about the initial rosters EA puts out. Adding 15 more players per team to bitch about is not something EA is looking forward to, especially since this is a feature that would generate no extra sales or revenue.

[JeffHCross]

Adding 15 more players per team to bitch about is not something EA is looking forward to, especially since this is a feature that would generate no extra sales or revenue.They could add 15 slots without actually adding in 15 more players for each team's default roster (many of the default team rosters don't even fill 69 (every roster has a space for RTG)) and the change to the default rosters would be minimal.

I don't think disc space is the issue. However, there could be other constraints (memory) that make it a lot harder than we like to imagine. There's no way that the roster file is large enough to move the needle on the disc (the save file is ~7 MB). However, the amount of data that must be stored in the active database while in dynasty would be a different story.

[Jayrah]

Roster size doesn't bother me but maybe we should have less recruits we can sign? Each year I have to CUT a number of players I signed due to roster size. Maybe 20 recruits would make more sense with 70 man rosters?I have hated the fact that you can sign a significant amount more than the allotted amount of players to your roster. I think there should definitely be a 73 maximum signing (to leave room for signing players for position minimums, as well as still giving the option to have an extra player spot in case you're fighting for a guy that you're not sure you'll get). So if you have 10 seniors on your 70 man roster, you can only sign 13 guys (and then you have to cut 3). The 25 max signing is the most unrealistic thing when the cpu loses the chance at those players over your roster size.

On the other hand, if the cpu and/or other users in OD picked up your first year cut players (like how the transfer system works with the player maybe going to his second highest school at the time he signed his LOI) and got the chance to pick them up that would be cool. A roster minimum would then not be necessary and if the player gets cut by the 2nd receiving team THEN he can disappear. If the player was already on your team for a year and gets cut he can still disappear regardless.

[JoeyJojoShabadoo]

LOL, no it's not disc space, each player record in the DB is about 120 bytes, meaning the required save file would have to grow ~240 KB. they've been using the same DB since NCAA 2004 at least, it's probably so brittle they don't want to touch it

[Treadstone6700]

Just looking for something concrete from someone at EA or who has talked to someone at EA.

It seems to be that we think it would be hard because 2,000 but we don't really know that.

Adding 2,000 new catch animations would be very hard. Adding 2,000 rows to a database might not be as hard.

Just looking for a concrete answer.

[gschwendt]

It's been several years ago (maybe for NCAA10?) but I asked in the past about 85 man rosters and remember being satisfied with the answer. Obviously that doesn't answer your curiosity but it's been several years ago so I apologize.

I imagine one of the bigger hurdles is that it's not just a matter of changing the limitation and then walking away. In order to do it, they'd have to make sure their recruit generator that builds the recruits would build enough, at the right skill levels. As well, they would also have to revamp their recruiting logic to ensure that teams took into account the new limitations. I'm not saying that's the reason and I'm not saying it's a good reason but just explaining that it is more than just changing one number from 70 to 85.

All that said, the demand for it has been even greater this year than it has in the past. Before, a lot of people put it on their wishlist, but this year seems like everyone has reached the point that it's a bigger issue. I think the mindset of "it's not for Texas, it's for Texas State" is the right one. In the past, everyone just said "85 man rosters" but now some have actually given the right aspect of "it's for those small teams to be able to redshirt and built up their players over time".

[souljahbill]

Man, I have players on my 70-man roster that don't play. Not that mind 85 but that would give me a lot more bottom feeders.

[steelerfan]

Man, I have players on my 70-man roster that don't play. Not that mind 85 but that would give me a lot more bottom feeders.

But, if injuries were done well, that would change a bit. That's what I want. Fix the injuries and challenge my depth. Then give me a bigger roster.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[gschwendt]

But, if injuries were done well, that would change a bit. That's what I want. Fix the injuries and challenge my depth. Then give me a bigger roster.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2I agree with this... with 85 man rosters, you'd also have to expect changes to injuries as well as fatigue (seasonal fatigue for example). As is, it wouldn't challenge me at all, it would make it easier because then I could stack my roster even further.

[Rudy]

I'd like to see better season fatigue but if they make mobile QBs get hurt any more than they did in NCAA 12 I would lose my mind. In the short time I had NCAA 12 I remember Denard getting hurt constantly. I would like to see guys get hurt that aren't the ones just holding the ball or making the tackle. I'd rather see more minor injuries and less major ones as well.

Does NCAA 13 have an injury or fatigue slider?

[gschwendt]

Does NCAA 13 have an injury or fatigue slider?Not that I'm aware of, so likely no.

[Rudy]

Not that I'm aware of, so likely no.

I don't understand this. Madden has had injury, fatigue and fumble sliders for awhile. Why won't the NCAA team implement some of these things? Do they hate sliders that much? I'd love to see pass coverage split between man and zone and also see a Shotgun Run Blocking slider to fine-tune the spread option game. The majority of fine-tuning needs to be for the cpu. I still have major doubts the cpu can run the spread-option effectively and there are no more excuses for that.

If they had tuning files that we could use like the NHL this may be different but the NCAA team has largely wasted the tuning file concept.

[JeffHCross]

But, if injuries were done wellOr transfers.

[steelerfan]

Or transfers.

To a much smaller degree, yes. Aren't they increasing the amount of transfers this year?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[MattUM2]

85 players on roster would kill roster makes. So much more work.

[SmoothPancakes]

85 players on roster would kill roster makes. So much more work.

And so many more complaints from people all over the internet whining about how rosters aren't already done the day the game comes out, nor within 2-3 days after the game comes out. :fp:

[Treadstone6700]

It's been several years ago (maybe for NCAA10?) but I asked in the past about 85 man rosters and remember being satisfied with the answer. Obviously that doesn't answer your curiosity but it's been several years ago so I apologize.

I imagine one of the bigger hurdles is that it's not just a matter of changing the limitation and then walking away. In order to do it, they'd have to make sure their recruit generator that builds the recruits would build enough, at the right skill levels. As well, they would also have to revamp their recruiting logic to ensure that teams took into account the new limitations. I'm not saying that's the reason and I'm not saying it's a good reason but just explaining that it is more than just changing one number from 70 to 85.

All that said, the demand for it has been even greater this year than it has in the past. Before, a lot of people put it on their wishlist, but this year seems like everyone has reached the point that it's a bigger issue. I think the mindset of "it's not for Texas, it's for Texas State" is the right one. In the past, everyone just said "85 man rosters" but now some have actually given the right aspect of "it's for those small teams to be able to redshirt and built up their players over time".

I appreciate the response.

Honestly, I have no need for this when I run a franchise with Miami because I'm always bringing in recruits who are 76-82 and are ready to play right away.

As you mentioned, it's for when I'm running a franchise as Texas State and I have to cut guys that I really want to stash on my roster to develop.

Also, it's not about having 85 guys that I'm going to use - it's about having 85 guys that I'm always progressing and developing. I'll still probably only use 35 or so of them, but the other guys are still developing.

This is how it's done in real life - at smaller schools a lot of guys don't see the field until their redshirt junior or redshirt senior year. This would just add an element of depth and immersion to a "rebuild" that I would love to see.

Would love to get a response from the devs this year on it.

[Treadstone6700]

Obviously, each console generation is different but NCAA 07 for xbox had 70 players for all the FBS & FCS teams which would be more players than having 85 for the 123 teams that will be in NCAA 13.

I understand it's different between consoles, but they've had a bigger player database in the past.

[JeffHCross]

I understand it's different between consoles, but they've had a bigger player database in the past.On the disc, yes. But, if memory serves, you weren't actively running I-A and I-AA teams at the same time, all in the same dynasty. So it was only tracking the 110 I-A teams (though you could swap teams in and out, yes?) at a time.

I don't think default rosters is the problem.

[Rudy]

The truth is it can be done. It just requires time to implement. Much like dynasty discipline, in game saves, spring games, medical redshirts - these are all things that can be added. EA just allocates the resources where they think they get the best bang for their buck. While some are disappointed that it doesn't go to bigger rosters I'm disappointed it doesn't got to in-game saves. It is what it is. There is no real reason this can't be done other than time required. I can't see any hardware or disc limitations being the problem.

[JBHuskers]

The truth is it can be done. It just requires time to implement. Much like dynasty discipline, in game saves, spring games, medical redshirts - these are all things that can be added. EA just allocates the resources where they think they get the best bang for their buck. While some are disappointed that it doesn't go to bigger rosters I'm disappointed it doesn't got to in-game saves. It is what it is. There is no real reason this can't be done other than time required. I can't see any hardware or disc limitations being the problem.

Well said. To me, this is pretty much right on.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

[JeffHCross]

Agreed, Rudy. Sometimes the line between "limitation" and "really difficult" is really blurry. Contrary to the opinion of some of my co-workers (:D), not everything is magically possible via programming.

But, overall, you're right. It's all about resource allocation.

[jaymo76]

I don't understand this. Madden has had injury, fatigue and fumble sliders for awhile. Why won't the NCAA team implement some of these things? Do they hate sliders that much? I'd love to see pass coverage split between man and zone and also see a Shotgun Run Blocking slider to fine-tune the spread option game. The majority of fine-tuning needs to be for the cpu. I still have major doubts the cpu can run the spread-option effectively and there are no more excuses for that.

If they had tuning files that we could use like the NHL this may be different but the NCAA team has largely wasted the tuning file concept.

I agree totally Rudy. I am also curious why Madden has so many more sliders than NCAA and why NCAA has not added those sliders over the years. More sliders would help the game out so much.

[steelerfan]

I think you all know how I feel about sliders. :nod:

What I will say about NCAA is, at least they give you separate sliders for User and CPU Special Teams!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[Rudy]

I think you all know how I feel about sliders. :nod:

What I will say about NCAA is, at least they give you separate sliders for User and CPU Special Teams!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

That Madden decision on special teams is the most mind boggling. It's horrible not to have separate sliders for special teams since kicking FGs is way too easy for the user but dropping the accuracy kills the cpu. I can't understand that one at all either.

[Jayrah]

The truth is it can be done. It just requires time to implement. Much like dynasty discipline, in game saves, spring games, medical redshirts - these are all things that can be added. EA just allocates the resources where they think they get the best bang for their buck. While some are disappointed that it doesn't go to bigger rosters I'm disappointed it doesn't got to in-game saves. It is what it is. There is no real reason this can't be done other than time required. I can't see any hardware or disc limitations being the problem.Good point. But personally I still don't see the need for it. You can develop every position properly with 70 players if you just take the time to actually recruit what you need. We are already so caught up in trying to sign the highest rated playmakers we can, that they forget about signing for their O and D Lines and working from there to take the time and develop what's already on the roster in other positions. Like Treadstone said he'll still use 35 guys, which means it's more a matter of the user not allocating the correct amount of players to each position for development... 85 guys developing in your program isn't necessary when you aren't going to use 15-20 of them ever anyway. I'm sure it could be useful for a gem or 2, no doubt. But the necessity of it in the overall scheme of development is overblown I think.

[Rudy]

I totally agree Jayrah. I have never had a need for anything beyond 70 unless I want to start stacking three punters and kickers on my squad lol. I'm just saying EA could do it if they wanted to.

[hawkeyeguy]

As long as the recruiting bug is gone from this year's game I don't care about the rosters (ya know the whole can't cut incoming freshman deal)

[SmoothPancakes]

I totally agree Jayrah. I have never had a need for anything beyond 70 unless I want to start stacking three punters and kickers on my squad lol. I'm just saying EA could do it if they wanted to.

Yeah, I don't mind 85 man rosters and if EA ever added them, hey, great, but as for how it is right now, I don't even need 70. I use a MAX of 40 players in a given season. All the players that I cut in the offseason to get back down to 70 or under? A bunch of players rated in their 50s or extremely low 60s. If we go up to 85 players, great, I'll get to enjoy a roster of 15-20+ 50-something OVR players who suck ass. Woo hoo. :D

So yeah, if 85 man rosters ever make an appearance, hey, I'll call it a good addition by EA, but for now, on my own personal Wishlist/Shit list (all the issues and problems that arise in the various modes, online, gameplay, etc), 85 man rosters aren't a top priority for me on what I'd like to see added/fixed.

[JBHuskers]

Basically if it's an item someone can take and run and constantly bitch about...

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

[SmoothPancakes]

Basically if it's an item someone can take and run and constantly bitch about...

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

aka socks and dreads. :fp:

[natetcu]

85 man rosters are HUGE for me. I use a realistic dynasty. Injuries and fatigue are turned way up to realistic levels. It is not uncommon to go into a game with 2-5 starts out with injury, especially late season. I use formation subs to utilize a 7-man rotation on the defensive front, 5-man rotation at linebacker, three HBs and 7-10 receivers, this is the only way to keep players fresh when fatigue is realistic. I run 7-minute quarters for time constraints and it makes for pretty realistic stats and scores (which is what I am going for).
It is not like Madden where you can go grab a free agent when your first and second team RB goes down, you are stuck with the same 70 guys all year. So the Madden use 53 argument is dumb. Also in college you need to red shirt players, especially for little schools.

On a separate note, the NCAA last year changed the recruiting rules (IRL) to allow schools to choose between offering the traditional 1-year renewable scholarships or the new multi-year scholarships. A multi-year scholarship is a cool recruiting tool because it protects a player from being cut for as long as the original scholarship is for. AKA if you offer a kid a 4-year scholarship you can’t cut him from your team for four years. This would be a cool addition to recruiting in the game, but it makes 85 man rosters even more necessary.

Just my two cents.

[IBI]

As long as the recruiting bug is gone from this year's game I don't care about the rosters (ya know the whole can't cut incoming freshman deal)You can cut incoming freshman. It's definitely a bad bug, but there is a work around. Make your cuts. Never go back and look at your cuts. Advance. That's it. At least for online dynasties it is.

The first time I ran into this bug in 2012 was our first offseason in one of my ODs. I made my cuts, but we didn't advance right away. I went back in later to see if I wanted to cut anyone else. When I went back in, I still had way more than 70 players. So I cut the guys again, checked back later, and they were still there. Finally I just cut some of my non-incoming players. This resulted in the loss of all the players I had originally cut, and the players that I cut due to the incoming player bug. The next season I just cut the players that I wanted to cut, and fought the urge to check the dynasty until after the commish had advanced. It worked. The freshman that I had cut, stayed cut.

[Little Steve]

85 man rosters are HUGE for me. I use a realistic dynasty. Injuries and fatigue are turned way up to realistic levels. It is not uncommon to go into a game with 2-5 starts out with injury, especially late season. I use formation subs to utilize a 7-man rotation on the defensive front, 5-man rotation at linebacker, three HBs and 7-10 receivers, this is the only way to keep players fresh when fatigue is realistic. I run 7-minute quarters for time constraints and it makes for pretty realistic stats and scores (which is what I am going for).
It is not like Madden where you can go grab a free agent when your first and second team RB goes down, you are stuck with the same 70 guys all year. So the Madden use 53 argument is dumb. Also in college you need to red shirt players, especially for little schools.

On a separate note, the NCAA last year changed the recruiting rules (IRL) to allow schools to choose between offering the traditional 1-year renewable scholarships or the new multi-year scholarships. A multi-year scholarship is a cool recruiting tool because it protects a player from being cut for as long as the original scholarship is for. AKA if you offer a kid a 4-year scholarship you can’t cut him from your team for four years. This would be a cool addition to recruiting in the game, but it makes 85 man rosters even more necessary.

Just my two cents.
So much effort for just a video game...

[Jayrah]

So much effort for just a video game...:o
Dost mine eyes deceive me?
:whoa:
A clean post?
:nod:
DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING!
:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:
:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:
:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:
WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'M SO PROUD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think English just got its student back! :D

[SmoothPancakes]

:D :D :D

You crack me up Jayrah. :D

He's still on my ignore list so I haven't seen how horrible or great his English has been, and I still have no plans to take him off my ignore list anytime soon, after everything in the last two weeks.

As for 85 man rosters, like I said at the top of the page, if they do ever add it, that's great and maybe I'll change how I use my full roster of players from season to season (maybe substitute more rather than letting the game auto-sub players in and out (RBs and WRs mainly), but until then, for me personally, there are just too many issues and too many things that need to be added that I personally have higher up on the list of importance before they should spend time and focus on 85 man rosters and the required changes to recruiting and the recruit database that would have to be made to accomodate the extra numbers of recruits needed for 124 teams recruiting an extra 15 roster spots each weekend.

[hawkeyeguy]

You can cut incoming freshman. It's definitely a bad bug, but there is a work around. Make your cuts. Never go back and look at your cuts. Advance. That's it. At least for online dynasties it is.

The first time I ran into this bug in 2012 was our first offseason in one of my ODs. I made my cuts, but we didn't advance right away. I went back in later to see if I wanted to cut anyone else. When I went back in, I still had way more than 70 players. So I cut the guys again, checked back later, and they were still there. Finally I just cut some of my non-incoming players. This resulted in the loss of all the players I had originally cut, and the players that I cut due to the incoming player bug. The next season I just cut the players that I wanted to cut, and fought the urge to check the dynasty until after the commish had advanced. It worked. The freshman that I had cut, stayed cut.

Interesting, well if our OD ever lives again I'll try that