We could take Kentucky/Vanderbilt/Ole Miss out and add Texas, Florida State, and Miami so we can REALLY get nasty
We could take Kentucky/Vanderbilt/Ole Miss out and add Texas, Florida State, and Miami so we can REALLY get nasty
In the SEC I would look at Georgia/LSU/Auburn maybe. If we did a Big 12 we could replace ISU and Kansas with Neb and Iowa. We could also add Mizzou and the Aggies back to is also. Just some thoughts. I only refuse to use 4 teams. UF, FSU, ND, and tOSU.As long as it is balanced, I am good with it. It would suck if someone had a 2* and others had 5* and 6* teams.
For the love of pete, I would hope that we would add two teams to get the Big XII back to, y'know, 12Originally Posted by ryby6969
Twitter: @3YardsandACloud
If we choose SEC I would go with A&M. If we go with the Big XII I would go with 1. OU 2. TCU
In case you guys didn't see this, here are the team rankings going into the season
http://www.thegamingtailgate.com/for...l=1#post142334
Wisconsin 99 97 95 5 B10 Michigan 97 94 91 6 B10 Ohio State 95 89 95 6 B10 Michigan State 93 89 89 4 B10 Iowa 91 89 89 4 B10 Nebraska 91 91 87 5 B10 Penn State 89 86 89 5 B10 Northwestern 87 86 84 3 B10 Purdue 87 84 84 3 B10 Illinois 83 81 82 3 B10 Indiana 77 77 76 2 B10 Minnesota 77 75 76 2 B10
Texas 99 91 99 6 B12 Oklahoma 97 95 93 6 B12 Oklahoma State 95 92 91 5 B12 TCU 93 94 87 5 B12 Kansas State 91 92 86 3 B12 Baylor 87 88 84 3 B12 Texas Tech 87 89 82 3 B12 West Virginia 87 91 76 4 B12 Iowa State 83 81 82 2 B12 Kansas 79 80 76 2 B12
LSU 99 92 97 6 SEC Alabama 97 92 95 6 SEC Georgia 97 95 91 5 SEC Arkansas 95 95 87 5 SEC South Carolina 95 92 91 4 SEC Auburn 93 89 91 6 SEC Texas A&M 93 92 87 4 SEC Florida 91 84 93 6 SEC Missouri 89 89 84 4 SEC Tennessee 89 88 84 4 SEC Mississippi State 87 84 86 3 SEC Kentucky 83 83 80 2 SEC Ole Miss 83 81 84 2 SEC Vanderbilt 77 80 74 2 SEC
Oregon 99 94 95 6 PAC12 USC 99 99 91 6 PAC12 Utah 95 92 91 4 PAC12 Stanford 93 91 89 5 PAC12 Washington 93 92 86 4 PAC12 UCLA 87 88 82 2 PAC12 Arizona State 85 84 80 3 PAC12 Cal 85 89 76 3 PAC12 Arizona 83 81 84 3 PAC12 Colorado 83 80 82 2 PAC12 Oregon State 79 81 76 2 PAC12 Washington State 79 83 74 1 PAC12
The SEC might be the most balanced.
I'd vote for 1-2 conferences but not restrict us to real-world conferences. If ryby wants Miami and prime wants FSU, go for it. That way, I don't have to worry about Papa getting Alabama or LSU while I'm stuck with Missouri or Mississippi State.
I agree G, I'd be all for what we've done in the past and moving teams around. I'd be willing to stick with USC if that's that case
Also, as much as I think one conference would be cool, we do have to realize it's probably not going to move as fast with that many user games.
I have no problem if we do a theme and I do not get Miami. My big thing is getting stuck with a 2* team while 2+ people have 6*s and it takes until the end of the dynasty to become "competitive".
Completely agreed.
The pace would certainly be affected by the conference alignment but so would the enjoyment of creating rivalries and knowing each week that it's a big week. No more 8-9 CPU wins a year, no more like ryby had last year 1 user game for the championship.
We need everyone to have a certain level of attachment though to their teams so that each of us keeps the competitive itch there.
6-Star Teams:
LSU,99,92,97,6
Oregon,99,94,95,6
Texas,99,91,99,6
USC,99,99,91,6
Alabama,97,92,95,6
Michigan,97,94,91,6
Notre Dame,97,94,95,6
Oklahoma,97,95,93,6
Ohio State,95,89,95,6
Auburn,93,89,91,6
Florida,91,84,93,6
5-Star Teams:
Wisconsin,99,97,95,5
Clemson,97,95,91,5
Florida State,97,92,95,5
Georgia,97,95,91,5
Arkansas,95,95,87,5
Oklahoma State,95,92,91,5
Virginia Tech,95,88,99,5
Stanford,93,91,89,5
TCU,93,94,87,5
Miami (FL),91,88,89,5
Nebraska,91,91,87,5
Boise State,89,89,82,5
Penn State,89,86,89,5
I completely agree. I would be willing to play a season less if it meant being in the same conference and not having to play so many cpu games. I also agree about people using teams they have a connection with. I like having a conference theme just because it means we are all in the same general area, which makes recruiting even that much more important. When you start pulling teams from one side of the country to another, the recruiting battles are not near the same as they would be. Just my two cents.
Hell, we could basically do a 6* dynasty with one team taking a 5*. There are a few 5*'s that are better than a couple 6*'s. Or just do a 5* dynasty. I guess first we have to find out who is in, and go from there.
Goodness....Texas with 99 D....I know those DBs are filTHY....if Oneback wants to roll with the Longhorns again....*cough*LSU*cough*
I may be up for running with the Longhorns again.
If E takes USC I think I'll run with Oregon. I say this because he needs some recruiting battles out west right from the start. I've never played with them either.
But if we decide to run one conference that's cool too. Just let me know.
I am not sure who I will use. It of course will depend on what stipulations we decide, but Georgia is pretty intriguing to me. Of course, Miami is always a definite possibility. Hell, I might just choose Bama!
That's what I was just thinking ....
Personally, one thing I'd like to see us avoid is teams that are dominant in recruiting. Maybe with the dynamic pitches this will change this year, but USC dominates California, Texas dominates Texas, Ohio State dominates Ohio ... and it's damned impossible to compete with any of those teams, really.
It'd be interesting to see what would happen if we didn't allow ourselves to take the "top" team in a state, and see if the CPU could recruit against us.
Twitter: @3YardsandACloud
As far as conference setup... I say we either go with two 9 team conferences or one 16 team conference. With a 9 team, it ensures that you play each player in the conference. With the 16 team conference, it ensures you play everyone in your division plus two cross-divisional opponents.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks