What do you want to see in NCAA Football 13?

[JeffHCross]

What? So if I have 3 LTs and 2 RTs on my team and I recruit 2 Ts but they come in as LTs, that's lack of planning on my part?

I may have misunderstood you. I was thinking that you were saying that the depth chart-like interface for Position Changes didn't show you enough of the guys at other positions. I always know where I need to move guys to going into the offseason, so I never have that problem.

Little hint though (going off memory, so I may be slightly wrong) ... if you've offered a player a promise, then you can go through your "My Promises" and it will show his position, even to the detail of showing a LT or RT, before he signs.

most WR you look to move to DB come in as 40s

Yeah, I moved a 40 AWR guy once, he ended up at like 26 AWR. Never recovered from that and was permanently on the bench.

The people that are going to abuse it are going to abuse it no matter what. They do it in the offseason now so it's really no different.

Actually, it is different. What I meant is that you'd have to guard against some guy getting an advantage out of changing positions weekly. If changing the positions still incurred a AWR hit, then you probably have built-in protection against abuse. There'd just have to be sanity checking to make sure a player couldn't gain something from repeated switches.

[psuexv]

I may have misunderstood you. I was thinking that you were saying that the depth chart-like interface for Position Changes didn't show you enough of the guys at other positions. I always know where I need to move guys to going into the offseason, so I never have that problem.

Well this is in a sense what I was saying. Take my example, it would be nice to see all 7 Ts and other positions on the line. First you could see easier which Ts you wanted to move to the other side, and you would also be able to see if maybe one of them was better suited for a G position. Or if your SO G blew up in training and is prime to move to C etc...

[baseballplyrmvp]

Well this is in a sense what I was saying. Take my example, it would be nice to see all 7 Ts and other positions on the line. First you could see easier which Ts you wanted to move to the other side, and you would also be able to see if maybe one of them was better suited for a G position. Or if your SO G blew up in training and is prime to move to C etc...

changing them from the left to right side/vice versa, doesnt result in any penalty.

i dont know for sure if this applies to every recruit; but every t/g/c i recruited in that offline dynasty year followed this pattern:

tackle -> guard is generally a -1 point in OVR, but a +2 OVR changing to center
guard -> tackle is generally a -1 point in OVR, but a +2 OVR changing to center
center -> guard or tackle is generally -4 OVR

thats just what i've noticed when changing them their freshman year.

[psusnoop]

Having true ATH's in the game would be really fun and just something like that could add a level to the recruiting experience as well.

Right now knowing that you have an ATH that is only good at WR really limits the experience so to speak. And yes JB there are way way to many ATH's out there.

[JBHuskers]

Having true ATH's in the game would be really fun and just something like that could add a level to the recruiting experience as well.

Right now knowing that you have an ATH that is only good at WR really limits the experience so to speak. And yes JB there are way way to many ATH's out there.

I don't mind the number of ATH, there are just a lot of them that are trash, on paper at least.

[psusnoop]

I don't mind the number of ATH, there are just a lot of them that are trash, on paper at least.

Lol that's what I meant too.

[JeffHCross]

Well this is in a sense what I was saying. Take my example, it would be nice to see all 7 Ts and other positions on the line.

If they were to do that, I'd want to have both options ... one a micro view, and one a macro view. Like add "OL" to the screen drop-down. Reason being that without the position-by-position breakdown, I can easily get into a spot where I have nothing but RTs (and no LTs, I mean), and I hate that.

[brycewillie]

I somehow landed the top athlete, 5 stars, he was 5'11 230. He ranked 81 at FB, 68 at TE, and 70 at C. thats what 5 stars got me. Oh and also a few times i got Athletes who could only play 2 positions, Kicker or Punter.....Is there really any need for that to be an athlete since that is EVERY kicker in the game

[baseballplyrmvp]

i know its kinda stupid, but if i move out of the pac 12 and make them an independant, their conference prestige rating should be an A+, instead of a D.

a couple of years ago, ben released an article explaining the different recruiting pitches, and for the conference prestige pitch, he said that notre dame is the only school that doesnt need to be in a conference, so that's why they're rated an A+. imo, (and it'd probably take a lot of work to do), but some kind of recent history should be taken into account if you move your team to be an independant, so that you arent stuck with a D rating just because you arent in a conference (especially since i've been the best team in the nation the last 5 years).

i mean, if alabama were to go independant in real life, should they have a D rating as a conference pitch? maybe this is where a strength of schedule could be tied in to the conference pitch rating (especially with a dynamic conference prestige rating)?

[JeffHCross]

I somehow landed the top athlete, 5 stars, he was 5'11 230. He ranked 81 at FB, 68 at TE, and 70 at C. thats what 5 stars got me.

I noticed this started in NCAA 11, where suddenly there were a ton of "athletes" that were primarily FBs. And, as you said, they weren't even necessarily that good. Perhaps they're trying to have H-back type players, but these supposed 5-stars don't compare.

i know its kinda stupid, but if i move out of the pac 12 and make them an independant, their conference prestige rating should be an A+, instead of a D.

Well, the reality is that Conference Prestige needs to change. Period.

I think it was a NCAA 10 or 11 where ND's Prestige rating would start as A+, but then go to D in Year 2.

[baseballplyrmvp]

one of my biggest pet peeves right now, are the stupid position requirements. i shouldnt be forced to carry a certain position on my team; just give the user complete control over his roster management. i'm guessing they're in place mainly to help the cpu controlled teams, and that's fine, but let me run a team the way i want to.

[JeffHCross]

FB and K/P are the obvious ones. Which minimum requirement bugs you? I don't often have a problem except for those two (and since I normally like having FBs, I rarely have any problem with the minimums).

[baseballplyrmvp]

FB and K/P are the obvious ones. Which minimum requirement bugs you? I don't often have a problem except for those two (and since I normally like having FBs, I rarely have any problem with the minimums).

you can make a case for some of the extreme kind of offenses...... tight ends/fullbacks/rb's for pass heavy offenses. wr's for run heavy offenses. in my USC offline dynasty, i rotate 6 rb's in throughout the game, as well as about 10 o-linemen, and about 5 te's too. having plenty of depth at those positions is hard when i'm forced to carry 5 wr's in my offense that runs 90% of the time.

i guess i've finally reached the point in my offline dynasty that i like recruiting players to fill a certain role, rather than just playing guys every down (like having 4 tight ends on your roster- 2 blocking and 2 receiving. sub the blockers in on running plays and receivers in on pass downs). in my mind, i feel like i'm executing/following a gameplan, rather than just randomly calling plays, when having a bunch of players filling a certain role.

[JeffHCross]

I hear you. I guess, even with my run heavy offenses, I still like having 5 WRs for those 4-WR sets I occassionally employ. Actually, I like having 6 because I use Mass Subs and run plenty of 3-WR sets.

You're right about TEs, now that I think about it, particularly for a true Run-and-Shoot-no-TEs-on-the-field offense.

With Custom Playbook being the heavy feature for NCAA 12, I could see some changes coming down the pipe for minimums. I actually thought that Custom Playbook had some influence on that, but maybe that was only in my mind. I've long thought that minimums were not dictated by the system or scheme, per se, but by the formations that were in your very playbook. But, again, that may only be in my mind.

[brycewillie]

I tried looking a little into the ranking system to see where there would be a reasonable way to give independents better then a D rating for conference prestige. Since afterall, Notre Dame sells recruits BECAUSE they are independent. I basically used 12's numbers to come up with this but here it goes.I made the system based on the preseason 120 for NCAA 12, and also assigned rank for ammount of stars, keeping all same star schools the same star rank to keep the playing field level. I took this new number of each team and plugged it into each team, and found the average of each conference.
SEC
BIG TEN
BIG XII
ACC
PAC 12
Independents!
BIG EAST
MWC
CUSA
WAC
MAC
SUN BELT
Since with teams like BYU and Notre Dame being independent, it makes it alot better to be independent than in the Big East. Something like this to make conference prestige dynamic would be great.I went one step further to see how this could affect the conferences after all the current expansion plans over the next few years, out of all of this the only real differences I notice is that the Big East is projected to drop off alot in terms of talent from losing WV, Pitt and Syracuse. The only thing saving them from falling below the Mountain West is that they took Boise State from the MWC, Thus bringing down THEIR average that they can't really catch the Big East.

[jaymo76]

With regards to the post above... a HUGE ADDITION required for NCAA 13 is DYNAMIC CONFERENCE PRESTIGE! This is absolutely massive for longevity in the dynasty mode.

[PoseyM316]

I would like to see being able to add sections to the stadiums to add seating. But you would have to earn money some how to be able to build the new seats and have to to good in order to be considered to be allowed to build. And getting rid of the super jumping LB's, and also a DB should not be able to turn on a dime and swat the ball if he doesn't know its coming.

[baseballplyrmvp]

really minor detail, but when the cpu has the ball, with a running clock, they call a timeout with 5 seconds left before the end of the half/game to kick a field goal, regardless of where they are on the field. however, it happens quite often that after the kick, there's 1 or 2 seconds still left up on the clock. if they'd drop the time down to 3 seconds at which the cpu calls the timeout, it'd be a nice change.

another stupid little thing that i hate, is when i'm returning a punt from the cpu and i call for the fair catch. the cpu takes control of my return man and moves him out of the way, allowing the ball to bounce who knows how many yards back.

[SmoothPancakes]

I would really really really like to see a Continue Dynasty option in 13. With my CC dynasty still going and no plans at all to stop it anytime soon (though I do need to get back to a regular playing/updating schedule ), when NCAA 13 comes around, my only options are going to be continue playing NCAA 12 solely for my dynasty, or try and do a player by player transplant from whatever team I am playing as at that time in 12, to the same team in 13, so I can continue with the same players.

The good thing about the transplant, would be I wouldn't have to wait for named rosters, instead being able to auto-name rosters and then update my team's roster. But it'd still a bitch of amount of work to do moving 70 players and every individual rating and stats (name, height, weight, color, left/right handed, etc) over from 12 to 13.

[JeffHCross]

I would really really really like to see a Continue Dynasty option in 13.

Hear hear! If nothing else, a way to save your team and import it into the next version would be nice.