NCAA Football 12 Custom Playbooks, 40 Total Formations, 15 Off. and 15 Def. Playbooks

[blkrptnt819]

Quote: Originally Posted by theaub

And you can do that yourself. Other people who want to have some ridiculous offense that ranges from a 5 wide set to the flexbone shouldn't be limited.

Yes, Exactly! U can control your own sim experience if u so choose but don't limit ppl who pay their hard earned money.

[mikehud]

Quote: Originally Posted by RynoAid

Really? i disagree with that. The box i play in is called SIM... and you don't see Texas Tech running the flexbone mixed in with their spread. You don't see Standford running wishbone sets or the Maryland I. The extra layer needed is "style". You should have to designate a "style" that limits the formations you can choose from... I'm not saying you couldn't have some option stuff in there as a spread team.. but it should be very limited selection. Again, all my opinion.

I kind of disagree with you. For instance, the NE Patriots will come out one play in a shotgun spread formation with 5 WR, then next play hit you with a three TE look, or multiple RB's. the reason this shouldn't be limited is that it's a game. in real life, teams may be limited by theire personnel. in a fantasy world, i don't think that should be limited.

[blkrptnt819]

Quote: Originally Posted by smace767

thanks rynoaid you beat me to it. while 40 formations is only 20% of avail, lot of plays are the same concept out of a slightly different alignment. i'm sure there are a good 15 iso plays. however i would like to see that additional filter and force some kind of range limit of playbooks. If you chose a style 70 percent of the playbook match that style. i mean a pass off can still have pistol, one back ect and even have a few different style formations. I would like to see If you choose multiple playbook style then you are limited to 3 or 4 formations from each parent group,(shotgun, wishbone, pistol, i form, ace, ect...) as a note uconn, ucla, utah st, illin, mich st, miami had the most diverse playbooks with only a max of 6 different formation types. and miami had the most formations at 23. The avg was like about 4 different parent formation types. ncaa 11 parent formation types: ace empty far flexbone i form jumbo Maryland pistol power I shotgun split strong weak wishbone

That defeats the purpose. What if I want a refined version on LSU's multi? Then what? I can't have it because it doesn't ft in a methodology? That ain't right! (Mike Gundy Voice)

[blkrptnt819]

Quote: Originally Posted by smace767

Create a playbook and put any formation you want but you should still have some type of base line. why because thats football. if the battle cry is EA needs to be more realistic, sim or whatever we want to call it. Then having : 3 wishbone, 6 flexbone, 5 pistol, 10 shotgun 8 I 6 ace 2 empty formations in the same playbook is about as bad as any animation, slide, warp or suction block in terms of realism. Now it is a game and you should be able to make them and use them as you wish in single player. but in an od or online we should stick to a more realistic approach to playbooks. Anybody who has ever played football knows there is no way you could implement the offense i listed above with any kind of realistic success of execution. There is a reason you dont see real teams diversfy to this extreme. Utah st, uconn and UCLA have very diverse formation sets but even they dont go that far out of their base approach.

Tht's not the point. Ppl can have pieces and parts of whatever offense the want especially in dynasty! My playbook is mostly based off pro looks but it will be a lot of pistol with some spread principles. Also I will diversify my redzone looks.

[mikehud]

Quote: Originally Posted by smace767

Create a playbook and put any formation you want but you should still have some type of base line. why because thats football. if the battle cry is EA needs to be more realistic, sim or whatever we want to call it. Then having : 3 wishbone, 6 flexbone, 5 pistol, 10 shotgun 8 I 6 ace 2 empty formations in the same playbook is about as bad as any animation, slide, warp or suction block in terms of realism. Now it is a game and you should be able to make them and use them as you wish in single player. but in an od or online we should stick to a more realistic approach to playbooks. Anybody who has ever played football knows there is no way you could implement the offense i listed above with any kind of realistic success of execution. There is a reason you dont see real teams diversfy to this extreme. Utah st, uconn and UCLA have very diverse formation sets but even they dont go that far out of their base approach.

the only reason you don't see a lot of this has to do with coaches ego. may coaches get enamored with their system and only want to work in that box. some coaches like to pick and choose and do what best suits their personnel, not try to shoe-horn personnel into their system. i'm all for it. makes the experience a little more enjoyable. say you are a spread team, but you have a back that you might want to power through some teams with. you can swap in a formation of your choosing to suit that need or desire. or if you just happened to like some plays from a formation, throw them bad boys in. i don't get why folks want to put some kind of limitation on it. IT AIN'T REAL and WON'T EVER BE!!

[RColemanVT]

Quote: Originally Posted by smace767

Create a playbook and put any formation you want but you should still have some type of base line. why because thats football. if the battle cry is EA needs to be more realistic, sim or whatever we want to call it. Then having : 3 wishbone, 6 flexbone, 5 pistol, 10 shotgun 8 I 6 ace 2 empty formations in the same playbook is about as bad as any animation, slide, warp or suction block in terms of realism. Now it is a game and you should be able to make them and use them as you wish in single player. but in an od or online we should stick to a more realistic approach to playbooks. Anybody who has ever played football knows there is no way you could implement the offense i listed above with any kind of realistic success of execution. There is a reason you dont see real teams diversfy to this extreme. Utah st, uconn and UCLA have very diverse formation sets but even they dont go that far out of their base approach.

This is the kind of thought process that keeps people like Bryan Stinespring in their coaching positions. Just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean you can't find ways to implement it. I have been experimenting with the flexbone as a spread style formation, and it works pretty well. So if I want a spread playbook with some pistol and shotgun, but want to add in a flexbone formation to give a whole different look and feel to the offense I should be able to.

[Cubone_Jones]

Quote: Originally Posted by mikehud

the only reason you don't see a lot of this has to do with coaches ego. may coaches get enamored with their system and only want to work in that box. some coaches like to pick and choose and do what best suits their personnel, not try to shoe-horn personnel into their system. i'm all for it. makes the experience a little more enjoyable. say you are a spread team, but you have a back that you might want to power through some teams with. you can swap in a formation of your choosing to suit that need or desire. or if you just happened to like some plays from a formation, throw them bad boys in. i don't get why folks want to put some kind of limitation on it. IT AIN'T REAL and WON'T EVER BE!!

You see that all the time. I'm the most excited about the tweeks made year to year in dynasties. My hometown team, the Missouri Tigers, slowly turned into the spread team they are today under Gary Pinkel. Brad Smith came on in the early 2000s and it opened the door to add a few more shotgun/spread sets and run a few options. Chase Daniel then came and it allowed for those same spread sets to be transformed into a pass-focused offense. As Mizzou might recruit a top flight halfback, perhaps they add a few more under center again. Who knows? All I know is I'll be switching up the playbook and LOVING it every season.

[smace767]

Quote: Originally Posted by NDAlum

Thought: Create 14 playbooks for different play styles and assign to CPU teams accordingly. So you can create 14 playbooks but assign them to whoever you want, right? That's my take No more pocket QBs trying to run!!!

I agree but i will not use all of my playbooks for cpu teams. I will have 7 base playbooks to work with and have two more open i can use if i want to use in ods with teams specific adjustments. i will make 6 general play cpu type styles as well. using the same concepts i use for my own but using more formations and plays that i might not run myself.



playbooks for me:

base playbook-will include all the plays i like and fit in my core concept of offense for equal matchups and 5* plus type teams


lower level base-a little more conservative playbook used against better teams while i still have decent level playmakers.


conservative- playbook where i have few true play makers and no threat at qb, not many shotgun or wide runs not many pulling lineman. zone block quick hitters and dig routes.

finesse- used if i have a few decent skill players, wildcat, empty, screens, draws.


power-if i have a good oline and hbs in comparison to the defense, power, wishbone, overloads, power i, multiple heavy te formations


machine gun-if i have a wr corp that needs to get the ball, 5 wide, 4 wide bunch heavy houston texas tech hybrid offense.


dual threat- QB is the playmaker lots of speed option spread option, shotgun passing. think FSU charlie ward type offense

Florida will be the base in most cases so i can use their goaline package. this alone will allow me to run some wishbone and power i without having to include those formations.

now none of these will be as restrictive as the description but 250 to 300 of the plays will fall in that descriptive category. the remaining 100 plays are to break tendencies and diversify somewhat in case injury or weather cause a style change.