Players Degression

[Hellisan]

Quote: Originally Posted by mattbooty

This is a great discussion, and I also like the idea of some kind of regression built into the game. But I also agree that it shouldn't be based on stats. With my understanding of football, if you see an unknown player have a huge season, he didn't suddenly get insanely better, he was just already better than anyone realized and maybe improved a bit over the season. Same with regression. If you see a player like Chase Daniel have a poor (based on his observed potential) season, he didn't suddenly get worse, he played pretty much the same, but the defenses he played improved and the talent around him failed to, and he himself failed to improve. But rarely did he himself get significantly worse, he just didn't improve at the level he was expected to. Most players are not going to progress/regress more than a few "points" over the course of a season, the bulk of this will happen in the offseason and isn't tied to how well they performed the year before, its based on how well they worked out, studied, and how their bodies changed (they are still kids) over those months. There should be some potential, work ethic, football IQ ratings, hidden or not, that control this in the offseason, but I think this is something you should be able to recruit as well... maybe there are lists of questions you can ask a recruit during recruiting to get a feel for these things so maybe you find a 3* guy that seems dedicated and hard working, and he improves much quicker. Guys on the bench shouldn't improve during the season, but to say that they shouldn't improve as much in the offseason, in my mind, isn't correct. Numerous players have broken out in their first seasons of play time becuase they worked out hard in the offseasons and in-season practice to be ready for when they got their shot.

I agree with what you're saying, but I do believe that players with good potential should improve at least a little bit even without playing time. Practices are fairly arduous and consistent throughout the regular season, I bet players get a lot better then.

[mattbooty]

I agree, you are right, I think bench players should have the potential to improve during the season, but not as much as players who get playing time (and bench players who see spot action or mop-up duty should be somewhere in between), but during the offseason I think playing time the previous season should have very little effect on how they improve. Lots of times you'll see a starter lose their job in the offseason to players who played a backup role the previous year because they got much better in the offseason.

You see players lose their jobs during the season also, but normally its not (to use EA's rating system): 85 rated starter dropped to 80, 75 rated backup went up to 81 so he is now the starter.

Usually, I think, its more like starter is 85, backup is 83, starter plays poorly so backup is close enough in skill to get a shot, and maybe their ratings adjust a few points in the process.

[TrevJo]

Quote: Originally Posted by Hellisan

Ok well I'm in 2018 in one OD and 2013 in another, so I've seen my fair share of progression. Each and every time that I've recruited two similarly talented players and anointed one of them as the starter, he's improved faster than the other guy. I really think that playing time has a lot to do with progression, that's why I try to get all my guys on the field if I think they will ever be useful players at some point. You seem to be as into the NCAA game as anybody judging by the number of posts you create. Do some critical thinking: You're asking for a brand new progression system (ok fine) based on stats (dubious to say the least) and theorizing that this would be realistic if the game was made hard/realistic enough. At the end of the day, it's going to be a video game. It's gonna have ways you can take advantage of it, just like every video game ever created. I like that progression seems to be based on playing time up to a point. I honestly think it's perfect, I would just like the ability (as the coach) to ask my players to work on something specific. -Get into the playbook (improve AWR) -Get into the weight room (STR, Weight) ...and down the line. IMO, even if you ask them to work on something it obviously should not guarantee that the rating goes up, or that the player improves at all, etc... Just general guidelines. They could make it a little bit like the OOTP spring training sequence if they want... Have a bunch of categories, and let you decide how much the player works on all of them.

Great post.

[da ThRONe]

This sounds so much like a better Idea now then when I created this thread!

[mvandor]

Quote: Originally Posted by NikB13

I think its a fantastic idea if used correctly.

Completely agree. Injuries should cause some regression, missed playing time, lack of playing time even perhaps on a select basis.

Should be SOME formula to include SOME regression.

[TrevJo]

I still think player regression is a terrible idea, for the reasons stated by me in this thread.

[da ThRONe]

Quote: Originally Posted by TrevJo

I still think player regression is a terrible idea, for the reasons stated by me in this thread.

Ok and your entitled to your opinion and made some real good points that EA would have to deal with before they can add a regression system. But It still needs to be added IMO. Injuries should affect physical regression and lack of and/or poor performance should affect mental regression. Is the regression idea exactly the reason player dont play to expectation? Dont know but it is the best way to represent it in a videogame. If they were to release a weekly updates of rosters they would manually progress and regress players so how would this be any different?

[Potatoes002]

I dont want regression until EA learns to use progression right.