THE GREAT SIM DEBATE

[tteeebooooow]

I also agree that a sim player is a person who doesnt exploit the game, but i also think there are grey areas with that though.
ex: using mike vick in madden
Mike Vick was never a sim player in a video game and was never a conventional qb in the nfl there was no "realistic" way he played. Thats why he was an amazing qb when he played, he could put up 100 yards passing but a 150 yards rushing he could score in many ways thats why he was called the "human joystick" If he wanted to run he could run and tear it up, if he wanted to throw the ball he could throw it. If someone ever told you that their quarterback ran for over 1000 yards, threw for 2500 yards, and had over 20tds in franchise im pretty sure u would say they "cheesed" i know i would.
Basically the bottom line of this rant was that there are players that are very easy to exploit a defense, but also in real life they exploit defenses in the same ways. Although calling a hail mary and running isnt sim, i would consider running with your quarterback multiple times to get a first down sim. There are some very clear cut ideas of being sim but there are also some very grey areas when it comes to stats and player usage but thats just my opinion though lol.

[da ThRONe]

The problem with these games are there design not the players no matter how cheesey there play is. A coach that can find mix-matches on either side of the ball an exploit the other team is viewed as a genius. So I disagree with anybody that says exploiting isnt sim. Exploit arent fun and it sucks the life out of a game but IRL your there to win not to be entertaining.
Sportsmanship isnt displayed in the game cause coaches love each other they do it because its the best way to win. Until good sportsmanship is the best way to win in games you wont see the masses doing it.

[Captain Mallow]

Quote: Originally Posted by GetYaWeigtUp

I agree with the no huddle in that instance but lets not forget that teams run the no huddle all the time and we shouldnt get the NO HUDDLE offense, confused with the HURRY UP offense. Hurry up is usually used when trying to get quicker scores, but sometimes teams like Oklahoma will do it all game to catch the defense unprepared. The NO HUDDLE offense is used to keep the defense off guard but not quite the same pace. Usually its just a normal pace without a huddle. Teams do this so they can signal plays in from the sidelines and to keep the defense off guard. I also believe they have a new rule where if the offense goes no huddle, you cant make a sub on defense unless they make sub, but I could be wrong. But I thought I heard the commentators saying that in an OU game last season. I wish EA would implement a no huddle offense where you would have maybe a limited package of formations and plays to choose from on the fly. The game has evolved into, why not bring it to the video game. I can refute that entire argument by giving the example of Charlie Weiss. He took Tom Brady and NE's offense to a whole new level with less talent than they have now, to a SB and won it. Then he goes to ND and turns Brady Quinn into a 1st Rd pick and won 10 games. Their offense was as dynamic as it had ever been, with Quinn at QB, and his WRs. I think its safe to say Weiss is a great offensive mind and coach, but hasnt done a thing without that talent he had back in 05-06. He doesnt have a Brady Quinn, or a Jeff Somardja or Mo Stovall at WR anymore and it shows. He doesnt have 1st Rd TEs or OL anymore and it shows. Sp did Weiss all of a sudden forget how to coach? He has the same system, with highly rated HS players? No, he just doesnt have that same talent he used to have. Its safe to say the players he does have arent as good yet. We'll see if they can step up to that level because they were pretty young, but its put up or shutup time for him. So I believe if you ask any coach in America, they'll tell you talent wins, thats why they go out and recruit the top guys so hard, or why they try to find diamonds in the rough. Everyone is looking for the next Pat White, or Vince Young, or Reggie Bush. Those kind of players win you titles. They make you look better as a coach and make coaching easier. Of course they all have playcalling skills and all that, and feel their system will excel with the right players, but they know that having better players make it work better. If talent was as important, we wouldnt see schools cheating to get the good players. Coaches would feel they can coach up anyone, but in all actuality they know they cant so they cheat to get the good ones sometimes.

I can refute THAT entire argument with one game: 1987 Fiesta Bowl.

Charlie Weiss, apparently, was/is not the offensive guru he was proclaimed to be. Coaching wins...coaching recruits talent, develops it, and uses it in the right manner. A smart/well-prepared coach withe medicore talent beats Bobby Bowden's talented FSU teams every time...

[coachchris]

Quote: Originally Posted by doom41

That is not entirely true. The "Hurry up" offence is used all the time by weaker teams to throw off a stronger team, by doing something that they haven't prepared for. And as a HS Coach I can tell you that it is most certainly done after incomplete passes. Not to conserve the clock, but to keep the Defence on their toes, and prevent Defensive adjustments just like you said. The ball can be snapped following an incoplete pass as soon as the ball is spotted and the offence is set, just like after any other play. If we're in the hurry up and it is working, we are not going to take our foot off the petal because of an incomplete pass. However, you are correct that the way it is done in the game is not sim. In real life, we practice a hurry up defence, so that we can make quick personel changes between plays. In the game the defence can't make any changes, so in that regard you are right in saying it is not sim.

Agreed.

Many HS and college football teams run hurry up offenses all game now a days. The main reasons for running a full-time hurry up offense is to make defenses become vanilla although many defensive coaches are adding there own versions of hurry up to stay with the times. A second reason is to allow the O coordinators a chance to see how the defense lines up and make a call that could be advantage to the offense whether that is a certain pass against a certain coverage or the ability to out flank the defense on the run. Hurry up also allows the offense many more plays in a game thus more chances to gain yards.

With all that said these things cannot be replicated in the game so I can see how they are not considered sim.

[GetYaWeigtUp]

Bobby Bowden is the all-time winnningest coach of all time, so he clearly hasnt forgotten how to coach. FSU doesnt get the talent they used to. Yes they do well in recruiting but they dont have the horses on offense like they are acustomed to having. They still put out 1st rd defensive talent every year but they havent had a good QB in a while, and their WRs have underachieved.

You cant blame a coach for a player playing below his expectations. We all though Mike Williams would be a stuf WR in the NFL and he's been a total waste of time, same goes with Matt Lienhart and many others, so you cant just say coaches coach up talent because sometimes the players just dont produce.

When was the last mediocre team you saw win a national championship? 1987 Fiesta Bowl is one of very few examples. Each year, one of the top 5 most talented teams win it all. And that has nothing to do with coaching, more recruiting and get the right players than a coach. I dontt think Phil Jackson has won any of his NBA titles with mediocre talent. When he had mediocre talent he had to go out and Gasol to help put them over the top.

So I think in ever sport besides maybe baseball, talent wins. You can have the mediocre guys who play hard, I'll take the more talented team every season. I think thats why USC has been atop the rankings so many years now without a real down season. They keep the best talent and they reload.

[Happyvally74]

Quote: Originally Posted by GetYaWeigtUp

Bobby Bowden is the all-time winnningest coach of all time

WHOA not so fast my friend.

383-127-3

Quote: Originally Posted by Survivor

I really agree with most of your thoughts, but this is where I really struggle with the sim philosophy. This happens from time to time, and I am terribly torn in matters like this: I will play a whole game sim, and things are sooo incredibly realistic, but it is a very tight game, and it comes down to a hail mary. Now, I am a good button pusher, and can User Catch with the best of them. In past versions of NCAA I could score on the deep bomb atleast 75% of the time. Is throwing the deep ball and user catching it against sim? The play would be called in that situation, and I'm just doing what I can on the field ONE play to win it all. My solution was a bit discouraging, but I would throw it and let the computer try to catch it. I figured user catching was exploiting the game, and couldn't win that way. Am I thinking right?

Personally I don't user catch anymore because it's too easy in NCAA. In our online league we have a house rule against user catches and user INTs. Once the ball is in the air, whatever happens happens.

It's personal preference on how you like to play.

My definition is my own interpretation of "sim".

[SHO]

My definition of sim = play fair and have sportmanship. Like somebody said, if you don't see it on Saturday/Sunday, refrain from doing it in the game - and even then I'm not so much of stickler about it if it's within reason.

Too many rules are in place nowadays in order to be so sim that take the joy of actually playing (like the Mizzou poster talking about user catching) and it gives sim gamers a bad look. People are using 'sim' as a coverword for 'things within reason they can't stop'. I remember reading a thread that they were in a "sim" league and was kicked out because he ran the draw too effectively vs. the commish in a game, so the guy called it cheese and kicked him out. Hearing corny stuff like that makes me cringe whenever I hear the word 'sim'.