Little thing but I would also like to see the soft commit become an "LOI". And a hard commit become "Signed"
Printable View
Little thing but I would also like to see the soft commit become an "LOI". And a hard commit become "Signed"
Would be a nice touch, except it would be wrong. You can't sign a LoI until Signing Day, and Signing Day is after Week 5 of Offseason recruiting inside the game. Both Soft and Hard are "verbal" commitments ... just only one of them might waver.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayrah
I mentioned this a looooooong time ago, but I saw it again last night.
Notre Dame went 11-2 and was #9 in the BCS and they played in the GMAC Bowl. That shouldn't happen.
Your right it shouldn't, but it does bring a smile to my face :DQuote:
Originally Posted by steelerfan
I've seen it at least 3 times.Quote:
Originally Posted by psusnoop
Hell in our PS3 OD Central Michigan got a BCS Bowl bid :D WITH one loss.
Well If you are allowed to customize the normal formation that's one thing and I'd agree. But I definitely don't want to lose that ability. Ideally I'd like to see you be able to set a 2 deep for the normal package as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
Don't hate on the Chippewas!! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by JBHuskers
I like Souljahs number 4(on page 1). I always enjoy taking a randon terrible team(1 star) and making them a 6 star, but rivals are hard to come by one you get invited to better conferences and such. addition of rivals would be awesome, maybe by the fact of playing close games with a team, or beating someone of higher rank later in the year might earn some "rival points" or something?
Looks like air force got it this year :PQuote:
Originally Posted by SmoothPancakes
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdj
cdj,
what about a non rival you play close every year, you win or lose it has big implications on a big bowl game, national championship, or even winning your division. earn "rival points" or soemthing against that opponent. and they go up or down depending on the game. after so many you have a rival? its an idea. could also cause for tougher games on the schedule.
i like taking a 1 star school into a 6 star powerhouse, but you have terrible rivals after you have changed conferences numerous times, and no longer want to play other terrible 1 star school. also i like the fact of taking a school from 1 to 6 stars, but ti seems they become a 6 star too quick. or 6 stars become terrible too quick. why not have some dynasty implications over a 3 year term. for example: win 10 games 2 out of 3 seasons, beat "so and so rival" 2 out of 3 years. then you earn a star. just seems too easy to play 6 years and already be a 6 star school.
it would alsp help to upgrade the stadiums of one of those teams. attract more fans for bigger games, helps with recruiting. stadium add on's things of that nature. maybe certain prospects wont play for a school under a certain attendance.. just some ideas i have on rivalry and dynasty.
I like those ideas, zacattak. It's a pretty good idea to have goals or tasks the user must meet in Dynasty Mode. That would definitely make certain games feel more important.
Thanks for joining the site!
Your kidding right... why wouldnt they leave for auburn? SEC school, good team year to year. only school i could see him changing for in your statement is Ohio State.. Notre Dame has been long out of championship limelight. and are trying to work their way back. and clemson... enough said right there. they are good, but dont start playing auburn down until clemson wins against them(even if it was an overtime win)Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantera1968
Thanks, i didnt know this site existed until i was looking for the features to the new updated NCAA game. All the sites are blocked at work, and i ran across this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by cdj
I have something else to add to my last statement i made before you replied.
What about the ability to go up and down in all recruitment catagories. Academics, Coach and Conference Presige(usually accurate), Fan base? (never has a chance to increase or decrease( goes with stadium upgrades, along with workout facilities etc.) i think you get what im saying. just someother ideas i have. and what about a style of play where you start off as a new coach, at a bad school(possibly d2), and you have to earn your way to a better program, by winning games, recruiting skill( would be a good NCAA addition), etc...
Your last idea is basically what you do on College Hoops 2K8. Which is really the best and only way to do a "coaching" career mode IMO. But in order for that to be real successful, we need a coaching carousel.Quote:
Originally Posted by zacattak
Agreed, Maybe it will eventually happen. Im tired of naming all the coaches. Not to mention they never get fired... ironic...Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingpin32
I dont remember trying to do it this past year..?
can you put an athlete at multiple offensive and defensive positions ? i know people complain about people putting players in unrealistic positions but college still has an -Ironman/men- old school appeal and I would want an all everything player to use like the 1940s and such .
No you can't. But you're right. And there's still plenty of players that play multiple positions. Owen Marecic of Stanford played something like 85 or 90% of all snaps last season. I know there were several others that played multiples.Quote:
Originally Posted by ram29jackson
Oh yes, Owen Marecic. I will never forget that Notre Dame-Stanford game. Scored a touchdown as the fullback, then a mere 13 seconds later, returned an interception for a touchdown. That was incredible to watch on TV.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayrah
"Plenty" isn't the word I would use. I'd go for "some". Charles Woodson, Chris Gamble, and Champ Bailey are really the only ones beside Owen Marecic to do it a a high level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayrah
That's superstar players on both sides of the ball that you hear about. There are PLENTY of guys that do it though. WSU had 2 guys play both sides just last year. Their starting TE is now starting DE, and one of their backup WRs played a ton of nickel back cb sets. I believe Arizona has/had a d-lineman/olb that played both sides just last year.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
Also don't forget that several players play multiple positions on one side of the ball, which you can do with form subs, but you lose the effectiveness because ratings are screwy when you put a player out of position.
I think you're overstating things here ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayrah
Stormo had 3 career receptions going into this year, according to ESPN. And that's a Position Change -- totally different from being a true Ironman or Two-Way player.Quote:
Andrei Lintz is No. 1 at tight end after Skylar Stormo moved from No. 1 tight end to backup defensive end behind Travis Long.
You're right about WR / nickel though, and that does happen (usually when a team lacks depth, though). Troy Brown did that with the Patriots a few years ago. Again, though, it's a far cry from someone like Bronko Nagurski.
Now this I agree with. Position Changes (and just moving guys on the depth chart) are out of whack. AWR doesn't recover nearly as fast as it should in NCAA 11. That would certainly help with the Ironman issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayrah
Im not talking about true ironmen", just 2-way players...Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
i'd like to see more "one sided" mid tier players in recruiting. examples like a corner who excels at zone coverage, but sucks at man coverage. linebackers that can hit, but cant cover to save their lives. big arm qb's who cant hit the broad side of the barn or deadly accurate qb's who have noodle arms. players are too balanced, imo.
I'm not so sure about that, MVP. I was just looking through some of the recruits that like my school in the Powerhouse OD, and I see plenty of QBs that can't hit the broad side of the bar, DBs that can't do man coverage, and Linebackers that can't cover.
I have had 4 of my last 6 CB's that are great at zone coverage and terrible at man coverage (93-99 for zone) and a range of (82-88 for man coverage).
I also have had two QB's that were 99 throw power and 86 throw accuracy.
82-88 is terrible? thats pretty damn good, imo, especially for starters at >4* schools.Quote:
Originally Posted by psusnoop
i'm thinking more in terms of 1-3* players here. like cb's with C+ zone coverage and d- man coverage ratings; lb's with b+ hit power but d tackling; qb's with b+ throw power but d accuracy, d-ends with b+ finesse moves but d- power moves, etc.... i want to see more variety in players and think it could be a way of getting the game to feel like not every player is the same.
Yeah, don't listen to him. He's at a six star school :)Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
I have seen a couple guys with B or higher THP (that'd be in the 85+ range, I believe) and C- THA (lower than 73, I believe).
I was giving what they were as SR's with redshirts. I should have made that clearer from the start. Those CB's were mid 80's and low 70's as FR, and never saw a big jump till their RS SO year where they got to be competitive for me.
Actually my recently graduated QB was as a FR a 94 throw power and 72 throw accuracy. As a SR he got to be a 99-88.
the cpu needs to do a better job of managing its recruiting board; specifically removing players from the board with whom they have no shot at signing. i simmed an entire season with lsu, games and recruiting, and took a look at the recruiting board at the end of the season. while lsu was able to sign in about 13 recruits during the season, there were a significant amount of players on the board that lsu had no shot at signing during the offseason. its spending time on guys who, even though have lsu listed as their #2, 3, 4, or 5 team, are 1000 points or more behind the recruits favorite school.
it needs to learn when to cut ties with a recruit, remove them from the board, and move on to the next guy. additionally, the cpu needs to remove players from their recruiting board who have hard committed to other schools. thirdly, the cpu needs to be able to identify when it has fulfilled position needs (there's no need to spend time recruiting additional mlb's when 3 have already committed).
Hear, hear.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
Actually, while the players are on LSU's board, it's unlikely they're spending much, if any, time on them. The CPU often devotes a high amount of time to their Top 10 or so, and no time to those beyond, even though they remain on the board.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
They already do?Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
Well, maybe not just "needs", per se, but there's certainly no reason to go overboard. Minimums shouldn't be enough, but I get what you mean and completely agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
then whats the point of having those players, who rank lsu 1000 points behind their favorite school, on the board for 6 or more weeks if the cpu isnt gonna talk to them once? just cut ties with that player.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
i bet the cpu added them (since cpu recruiting board assistance was set to on), and then the recruit committed to the other team. nvm on this point. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
Well, maybe not just "needs", per se, but there's certainly no reason to go overboard. Minimums shouldn't be enough, but I get what you mean and completely agree.[/QUOTE]well i mean, one of lsu's recruiting needs was a punter. at the end of the regular season, one punter had already committed, and there were 3 other punters on the board, 2 of which were listed in the top 5 of the recruiting board.
another example, has lsu needing 1 mlb. after i manually took over for the recruiting for the offseason, i removed all the players i didnt have a shot at, cutting the board down to 16 players (13 of which were already committed, 3 of those commits were mlb's) from 35. i forgot to turn the cpu recruiting board assistance off. week 2's recruiting board had 3 more mlb's on it (had they all committed to lsu, there would have been 6 mlb commits). the cpu had already taken care of its need at mlb; why did it try to add 3 more? lol
I don't disagree that they should cut ties. But it is worth noting that they aren't wasting time either. It's really the same question I'd have for the human players (and I know they exist) that have a 35 member board even though they only call 15 or less.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
Yeah, the thing to keep in mind is that the CPU board processing takes place as the week advances but before recruit results are in. So recruits that commit to another team won't get removed until after the week advances.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
Right. But you wouldn't necessarily want a team that's losing 3 LBs, but only "needs" 1 to be content with recruiting only 1, y'know?Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
Don't disagree with this either. No idea what would trigger that.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp