Progression question about playing vs simulating

[goalieump413]

I've read here that the progression results, after simulating several season, cause the overall team talent levels to retreat to dismal at best. But that's when you simulate games.

What about when you play the games? I know it would take a lot longer, but has anyone done a comparison between simulating a season and playing it out in full?

I can see some tangible benefits to playing the games. When you walk up to the LOS, you make pre-snap reads of the defense. You change routes and call audibles. You press the buttons and control the left and right sticks. In essence, your human awareness rating trumps the AI of the player you're controlling.

By overriding the AWR rating of the players under your control, you make more plays, have a greater chance of scoring on a drive, and a much better chance of winning against a superior opponent. For example, I watching in horror as my 2 star Wyoming Cowboys got pounded by Boise State 49-13 when simulating, but when starting another dynasty, and actually playing against the Broncos, I still lost, but by only 1 point.

In real college football, a 1 point loss to a top 10 team is really a big win for your program, if you're expected to lose big.

It also occurs to me that there may be some hidden benefit(s) built into the game for playing the games, rather than simulating through a season or more. I know this occured in HC 09, as simulating a game didn't give your head coach the bonuses for emotional reaction to big plays, as well as the "defining moments" thing.

I don't know what hidden benefits may exist, but if I had to guess, I'd say that playing the games out in full may expose player ratings or recruiting bonuses. Can't be sure, of course, but if I was a devious game developer, I'd probably throw some easter eggs into the game like that.