Probably too late for '12, but...

[stcloudgopher]

I don't know why I didn't think of this earlier, but it just came to me after reading the Show previews. This regards progression, and one big thing I think could change for the better.

There has been a bit of chatter about how to change the progression system for the NCAA franchise. Even though the facilities at your school play a part in how well your players develop, there seems to be a larger, under-the-hood "potential" rating that seems to make most progressions too random. Here is my idea:

Make progression (as far as human controlled teams) more dependent on statistical performance. This could go on of two ways:
1. Make it a game-by-game change. Throw for 300-yards and 4 TD, see a bump. Do it for a few games in a row, and see a bigger bump. Do it for most of the season, and see a huge bump. Of course, this would work in the opposite manner as well. Struggle a bit, and watch those ratings dip. This could be a big factor as far as confidence is concerned. Maybe playing that true freshman isn't such a good idea after all.
2. Season-by-season. This could be in addition to, or replace the game-by-game scenario above. Certain thresholds would have to be passed in order to get ratings boosts. This could be tied into the playbook (at least offensively). For example: If you throw for 3,000 yards in a pro-style O, then there is a +7-10 boost in relative categories. Throw for 4,000 and see that boost get to +15. However, throw for less than 3,000 in an air raid O and watch some stuff take a dive.

Of course, there are there other things that should and should not happen as far as progression goes. Two things:
1. Make injuries matter. If I blow out a knee, maybe my speed and acceleration take a hit, but my awareness and strength go up from time in the film room and weight room.
2. Certain abilities should never go down: awareness, catching, stamina are a few. Injury rating should rise with an injury free campaign. It should drop if you suffer a couple of major ones.

And, finally, since I'm ranting anyway, two things kill me with dynasties (not including things like coaching carousel, poor recruits and legacy gameplay issues). They are:
1. Promises. A kid has Early Playing Time as his Most, and my grade is an A+. Yet when I promise him No Redshirt, I get 90-points. When I promise Significant Playing Time, I get another 90. That's BS. Tied to this is a thing I'd love to see. Start your phone call, and when PT comes up, the recruit says something like, "Texas promised me Sig. PT, can you do that?" That could make things fun, especially if you are a grade below another school. Promising that could make your incumbent back a bit mad/more likely to transfer.
2. A way to figure out why I can never out-recruit sometimes. The whole "-1" thing seems to have no use. Even with comparable (and sometimes better) grades, promises and x2 points, I still struggle to land a recruit sometimes. And don't even get me started on being No. 2, recruiting a kid all season, and then watching him commit to his No. 1 who never offered. I think the points system is a nice feature, but it means nothing. I get to the same point that the teams above or below me do, and then it's a weird race to see who can erase the "-1" and be No. 1, even though I out-pointed No. 1 that week. Maybe make promises the tie-breakers? I don't know, it just needs a look.

EDIT
Just thought: Does the CPU get the x2 bonus as well, or is that a user only thing. Again, it doesn't seem to matter as much the later in the season you get, but was just curious.

[the veteran]

All really good suggestions that I agree with it, I hope EA reads this post.

[CLEAR17]

Good read. I do like the progression threshold that a player must exceed to to develope.

I would like to see players have a potential rating A-F, is fine. That way a 2 or 3 star recruit can become a stud and a 5 star can be an f and never get better than their original rating. This could even go deeper and provide the potential rating for Madden. Intergration, haha, it never works but its an idea.

The key to the Potential rating is that is hidden until after their freshman year or after their freshman redshirt year. You cant see their potential rating til after the play or sit the bench for a year. That way you cant just redshirt players to see their rating and cut them when they are a D.

[Kase]

All very good points. I especially agree on the in-game progression along with end-of-season progression based on performance. I also would add proper progression for offensive and defensive lineman. Most offensive line recruits are not strong enough when they first step on campus. On average, most Oline recruits should have a lower strength rating that progresses faster than other ratings.

Also for online dynasty players, the option for the commish to schedule a time for weekly advancement. For example the commish could set the advancement time as 6pm on mondays, wednesdays, and fridays. Therefore users could have a set schedule for when they have to get their games in by and allow for advancement without the commish having to log in to the console. If there are users that haven't completed their game by that time, they're SOL.

[Schreck]

The problem with progression based on stats is it isn't realistic. If I'm a quarterback that can throw a ball 50 yards with good accuracy, and I have a 300 yard game, I can't suddenly throw the ball 60 yards with great accuracy the next week, or year or whatever. The experience might have given me a slight boost in my game knowledge or "awareness", but has nothing to do with my athletic abilities.

Progression should be based on a players potential, which in real life is hidden and has to be brought out through coaching, practice, training, and natural development as a player matures. If anything, they should give us assistant coaches with various ratings that would affect a player's development. I could go on and on for this stuff, but you get the idea. The gist is using performance as the basis for progression just doesn't make sense, a player doesn't get better because he puts up big numbers, that just means he is maximizing his current skills.

[CLEAR17]

Quote: Originally Posted by Schreck

The problem with progression based on stats is it isn't realistic. If I'm a quarterback that can throw a ball 50 yards with good accuracy, and I have a 300 yard game, I can't suddenly throw the ball 60 yards with great accuracy the next week, or year or whatever. The experience might have given me a slight boost in my game knowledge or "awareness", but has nothing to do with my athletic abilities. Progression should be based on a players potential, which in real life is hidden and has to be brought out through coaching, practice, training, and natural development as a player matures. If anything, they should give us assistant coaches with various ratings that would affect a player's development. I could go on and on for this stuff, but you get the idea. The gist is using performance as the basis for progression just doesn't make sense, a player doesn't get better because he puts up big numbers, that just means he is maximizing his current skills.

I agree with this as well. Some ratings should be limited. Throw Power should be limited to a 2-3 point gain, which it may already be. Speed shouldnt increase much at all. Play recognition, awareness, strength. Those are things that should progress and jump

[DonkeyJote]

I disagree that stats should determine progression. A players rating determines how well he plays, not the other way around. A player has a good season because he got better, not the other way around. If a player has a 3000 yard season, that doesn't mean he will be a better player the next season.

I agree that there needs to be more user impact on progression. A coaching carousel feature where you hired different coaches could help this, you facilities could have something to do with it, maybe make an offseason thing, or have a feature where you determine what players should work on, and that helps determine how the player does. But I've never liked the idea that what a player does one year, helps him do better the next year.

[stcloudgopher]

Quote: Originally Posted by Schreck

Progression should be based on a players potential, which in real life is hidden and has to be brought out through coaching, practice, training, and natural development as a player matures. If anything, they should give us assistant coaches with various ratings that would affect a player's development. I could go on and on for this stuff, but you get the idea. The gist is using performance as the basis for progression just doesn't make sense, a player doesn't get better because he puts up big numbers, that just means he is maximizing his current skills.

I agree with this, but in the absence of a carousel or any other way to really "develop" players, it's what I came up with. I tossed a few other ideas around in my head, trying to come up with a tangible way to progress players beyond whatever hidden formula there may or may not be.

I wouldn't mind a graded system tied directly into potential, like the A-F mentioned. But that still doesn't do what I would like it to. Somehow, there has to be a way to develop the players that can separate programs. The asst. coaches/carousel would be a great way to do it. As would being able to set up training schedules (taken, again, from The Show) where you can get your linemen into the weight room, have your QBs and WRs playing 7-on-7 drills, RBs run tires and stadium steps, etc.

Basically, I would like to control some of the development. A grading system seems to simply pull that hidden formula into view, but I don't know that that would change anything.