Why Not Having 85 Man Rosters Severely Hinders the Realism of NCAA Football

[mackattack14]

Quote: Originally Posted by jarato

Wow at that logic , wow.

Well, we only had 30 players on my team in high school. So what's the difference? Wow at YOUR logic

[Gap Integrity]

I think what these guys are trying to say is having 85 man rosters makes the recruiting better, you dont have to cut guys if you sign too big of class. I guess they could not let you over sign players during recruiting. Nick Saban would be pissed.

[ndfan1993]

Give us 85 + 5 walkons, how hard would that be?

[Special27K]

Quote: Originally Posted by mackattack14

Well, we only had 30 players on my team in high school. So what's the difference? Wow at YOUR logic

I'm not sure you 100% understand the argument that's being presented. Its not about the number of players you use during a game. Its about developing those bench warmers on the lower prestige schools and once they're no long riding the pine developing the next crop of starters.

Do we need 85? Meh, idk but certainly 75-80 scholarship spots

[Special27K]

Also regarding the set up now, those "cut" players just disappear forever. Its not like being sent to a gas chamber and never playing the game of football again or disappearing off the face of the earth. I would like to see them transfer, at least some of them as some do go to FCS or D2 schools.

[hurricanefootball4]

Quote: Originally Posted by JerseySuave4

By the time those frosh would develop into someone worth playing i have new recruits i can use.

This is my point, if you're playing as a 4-6 star school you just bring in a new 4/5 star recruit and he comes in ready to play. No issue. If you're a 1-3 star school though you're bringing in lower rated recruits who have to redshirt and develop before they're ready to play.

Smaller schools HAVE to care about their 3rd string FS and 8th string WR because they aren't bringing in game-ready recruits next season. A lot of times those guys are going to be starters or at least in the two-deep next season.

For those schools to be competitive they have to stash players away to develop even if they won't sniff the field for 2-3 years and increasing the roster sizes to a realistic size would allow you to reflect that.

At the end of the day, it's about realism. There are 85 scholarship players allowed in NCAA Football, we're basically just asking for the roster size to be realistic.

[lasthour]

The size of the roster in the end can't make up for lack of realism in the game itself. Sure a fat roster would be more, "realistic", but come on really. The game needs more AI to feel more organic or real, not an 85 man roster.

Yet, I see your technical point about the roster.

[K0ZZ]

If they want to fix progression and not make it random than sure.

The way it is though, it's really irrelevant at the moment. It may not be realistic but I barely ever have to cut someone and be upset about it.

If they make it so we can actually develop players so things like a physical player that may not be very football smart / technically adverse so he is a low OVR initially and we can have him focus his training on a specific category of his game, than sure.

EA won't add that feature any time soon, so I won't be too concerned about it, they have a long line of things to fix, if they don't fix progression than expanding rosters is really just going to cause more issues with higher schools stockpiling talent.