Pocket Scout College Football Statistical Analysis of Patch & LTP3

[swhyte21]

Quote: Originally Posted by PocketScout

In theory thats a great way to do it, but for a computational model to work you have to be able to quantize the possible interactions in your model. There is a reason they have a CIT rating. In trying to model a simulation of the great game we Americans call football, players catch a ball in traffic, the same goes for some guys can make amazing one handed grabs that others can not, so we need to quantize that and its done with a SPC rating. Again in theory hiding all of that is good, but if you do how do you know a guy is good at catching in traffic? Then if you just have a drill grade for all of these quantizations what is any different from what we have now? Grey Dog Softwares Bowl Bound College Football had a little different approach to the problem. No matter what, to model something as complex as football you have to have the attributes/interaction ratings, but instead of giving you what your players were rated your coaching staff did it. If the coach had an eye for talent he was more accurate, but you had some coaches who were better at developing talent, but not scouting it, while others were great on the field. You had to balance all of this when selecting a your coaching staff. I think this is a better way of handling this and just hiding these interactions that are quantized pieces of a greater model.

Well thats what they used to do in NCAA. Well, in a way. While recruiting, you didn't have the letter grades, you had scouts saying things about their potential and such, if a guy is average at a certain skill set, from a 75-85, they won't make a big deal of letting you know, but if he is <75 or >85 they will give you notice. And hey, if you get notice maybe that can unlock the attribute rating or something like that. I just really would love to see a coaching staff making it feel like you were actually in charge.

[PocketScout]

Quote: Originally Posted by swhyte21

Well thats what they used to do in NCAA. Well, in a way. While recruiting, you didn't have the letter grades, you had scouts saying things about their potential and such, if a guy is average at a certain skill set, from a 75-85, they won't make a big deal of letting you know, but if he is <75 or >85 they will give you notice. And hey, if you get notice maybe that can unlock the attribute rating or something like that. I just really would love to see a coaching staff making it feel like you were actually in charge.

Here is a sample of BBCF's scouting report on a runningback......

"His inside running game could develop into something really special. Shows definite signs that he will become an excellent receiver. Once he harnesses his skills, his speed will make him an exciting player. With a little work in the weight room, he should become very good at slipping tackles."

I would love to have a breakdown like this for each recruit and have it for what they would be at each position set. Then if they are one of those guys who also has the ability to be a kicker, let me know he has a leg on him. But also the grades in recruiting are a nice fast way to see all this info as well. But i'd still love to get a written report like the one above.

[l3ulvl]

OK, after reading more and thinking about it you guys have sold me on some guys having top end speed without high acceleration and vice versa. Now I'm shifting my focus toward making it match better with the players size and tying in with other attributes.

Running backs, for example come in different shapes and sizes but the attributes given to them on the game don't always match up with what you would expect to see from physical standpoint. If I want a power running game and I find a 6'1 240 lb back I'm not expecting him to be a burner, but that doesn't mean he won't reach his top speed quickly so I'd be fine with him having high acc and low speed but hopefully his tackle breaking ability would match up.

Someone said earlier it doesn't make sense to have a 5'6 160 lb kid who has no speed but is somehow a power runner, the only way a player with that size plays Div1 football is if he's electric, and most likely he won't break many tackles. If he's that size and slow, I sure hope he isn't a 4* recruit, unless he's a built-in bust that you identify yourself through scouting.

[PocketScout]

Quote: Originally Posted by l3ulvl

OK, after reading more and thinking about it you guys have sold me on some guys having top end speed without high acceleration and vice versa. Now I'm shifting my focus toward making it match better with the players size and tying in with other attributes. Running backs, for example come in different shapes and sizes but the attributes given to them on the game don't always match up with what you would expect to see from physical standpoint. If I want a power running game and I find a 6'1 240 lb back I'm not expecting him to be a burner, but that doesn't mean he won't reach his top speed quickly so I'd be fine with him having high acc and low speed but hopefully his tackle breaking ability would match up. Someone said earlier it doesn't make sense to have a 5'6 160 lb kid who has no speed but is somehow a power runner, the only way a player with that size plays Div1 football is if he's electric, and most likely he won't break many tackles. If he's that size and slow, I sure hope he isn't a 4* recruit, unless he's a built-in bust that you identify yourself through scouting.

These are the things that need to be looked at and tweaked before next year. These are the little tweaks that turn a good game into a truly great game.

[Palo20]

Is the transfer system working for CPU teams? If a user team keeps 7 QBs, we're gonna see some transfers.

If those guys just transferred at a realistic rate it would help even the playing field.

[Starfleeter]

I've played Out of the Park Baseball and they have the option in that game of using numbers or stars for showing the rating of players. They also have written scouting reports for each of the players. Essentially, while the numbers are still in play, you can opt to go to a smaller range (1-20) etc so that you don't get exact numerical data on your players and it's more speculation. Anyway, here are some screenshots.

Really, I think the only way they can do this is because they don't have tons of ratings for the players but it's a nice idea and I would love to see some sort of similar implementation in NCAA 12 if possible.

[PocketScout]

Im in Preseason right now and yes the signing logic is still screwed up...

Number of QB's
10-Baylor
10-Vanderbilt
9-Arizona State
9-BYU
9-Illinois
9-Iowa St
9-LaTech
9-Marshall
9-South Carolina
9-Virginia
8-Auburn
8-Ball State
8-ECU
8-Houston
8-Kentucky
8-Michigan
8-Navy
8-Purude
8-Rice
8-TCU
8-ULL
8-Wake Forest
7-Cincinnati
7-Iowa
7-Louisville
7-Nebraska
7-North Carolina
7-North Texas
7-Oklahoma
7-Pitt
7-SJSU
7-Temple
7-Troy
7-USF
7-W.Michigan
7-Wyoming

[Starfleeter]

Quote: Originally Posted by PocketScout

Im in Preseason right now and yes the signing logic is still screwed up... Number of QB's 10-Baylor 10-Vanderbilt 9-Arizona State 9-BYU 9-Illinois 9-Iowa St 9-LaTech 9-Marshall 9-South Carolina 9-Virginia 8-Auburn 8-Ball State 8-ECU 8-Houston 8-Kentucky 8-Michigan 8-Navy 8-Purude 8-Rice 8-TCU 8-ULL 8-Wake Forest 7-Cincinnati 7-Iowa 7-Louisville 7-Nebraska 7-North Carolina 7-North Texas 7-Oklahoma 7-Pitt 7-SJSU 7-Temple 7-Troy 7-USF 7-W.Michigan 7-Wyoming

Yeah, the whole problem with talent on teams is that Recruits don't care if they get playing time or not and teams don't care about filling their teams with players they need or at a minimum, players at positions where they need tons of them like WR, CB, LB, DT, etc. I hope they can tune this logic since it would most likely fix a lot of the decline in talent that makes lots of B teams decline to C.