|
|
Okay, finally on my computer so I can type what I really want to say.
So far what we have seen from EA's CC is that coaches have one dominant rating and that is it. That rating is prestige. What that affects is how much players progress under them, how well a team performs in simulated games, and one pitch in the recruiting phase. The thing is, we don't know how big of a difference players progress under an A+ coach and a C- coach. Do they always get at least 4 points improvement under the A+ coach or is there more of a possibility to see the "Max Improvement" that has been in the game for some time? Under the C- coach do they sometimes not progress, or only progress up to 3 points a year at the very best? We don't know how much impact they really have.
EA needs to come out and give us the details. What exactly is the differences in progression under coaches with different ratings? What exactly is the difference when simming games with an A coach and a C coach? Just a higher probability of a win with the better coach?
The other thing I have seen new for the CC is coach loyalty. I don't completely know how this works. From my thinking it isn't exactly a pitch, but just a variable there. A coach with higher loyalty gets a bonus when recruiting because the players know he'll be there throughout their careers. I may be wrong, and if so, please someone correct me.
My problems with EA's CC is that we don't know the specifics. For all we know players really don't progress that much better under coaches, and going by last year, recruits don't care much about the Coach Prestige and that can be completely avoided and made useless. So if that is how it really is, then like I have said, the only difference we will see is schemes changing through the years.
Now if EA comes out and tells us players will progress under an A coach twice as good every year over a C coach, then coaches will obviously have a very big impact on the game. Right now though, it is all speculation and I believe the differences won't be enough to truly separate the coaches.
What I want to see EA do with the Coach Carousel is add individual ratings and the ability to pick your coordinators. We don't need 20 ratings for a coach. We can have very basic ones like other games have done. By having something like 6 ratings in the game, but making them have very strong influences will easily separate coaches.
In real life we have all kinds of coaches. For example...
Gary Pinkel and Frank Beamer: Two coaches who don't get the best recruits out there, but they're teaching of the game has their players playing constantly to their potential. So even though these guys get a majority of 3 stars, they easily compete with the better teams that get the top 25 recruiting classes with their 4 and 5 stars.
Lane Kiffin: This guy can persuade anyone, including Tennessee fans, to come to his program. Who knows what it is, but this guy just knows how to recruit. His catch? He isn't the best X's and O's coach. So he draws in the top talent and they do progress under him, but come game time, he isn't the best person to have in charge.
Randy Shannon: Once again another great recruiter. This guy brought in a #1 ranking class several years ago according to ESPN. The thing is, the players never showed that they had progressed under him and they played very inconsistent on the field. Great recruiter and defensive coordinator, but that is it.
Nick Saban: This guy is the best of the best. He can recruit as well as anyone, he can teach as well as anyone, he knows the game as well as anyone, he is just one of the best in every category. This guy is a mastermind that can take any program and easily win with them.
So what does EA need to do? Simple, add ratings. We need basic ratings or areas.
Recruiting: Simple, the higher it is the more points you rack up in a phone call. Have A+ or 95+ in this category, then recruits are going to buy into everything you sell them. Have a terrible rating and you better expect recruits to have their doubts about you.
Offense: If a coach is high in this area, then his offensive players will perform consistently and possibly get boosts to their attributes depending on how high his rating is.
Defense: The same thing as offense.
Teaching: This rating dictates how well players progress under your watch. If you have an A+ or 95+ rating, the players are going to consistently grow 4-5 points per year at the very least. If you are average in this category, then some player might have big jumps while others stay the same or possibly get worse.
Those are simply basic ratings and might not seem like a lot, but if done right they can easily have major impacts on the game. Say Alabama struggles after Saban retires, so they hire a coach that is A- in recruiting, but everything else is B- or lower. So he'll bring in top notch talent every year, but players will never progress under him and their on the field performances will be inconsistent and they may have their attributes decrease if he is bad enough.
On the other hand, North Carolina could be sick and tired of getting no more than 7 wins a season for 6 straight years, so they hire a new guy. He is no greater than a B+ in any rating, but is no worse than a B-. So he is able to get attract some quality recruits, have them progress, and also have them play well on the field. He ends up improving them and gets them to 9-10 wins a year, but no better. So either he has reached his potential and never gets better as a coach and UNC either makes the decision to keep him or try and find a better coach that will be able to build on to what is there and possibly make a BCS Title run.
Situations like that just add so much to dynasty mode.
Ratings do not need to end with Head Coaches. Coordinators need them as well. Say Miami has a Head coach with B- Recruiting, A Defense, D+ offense, and B Teaching, then he needs to get a good offensive coordinator to make up for his terrible rating and he also needs to make sure either his OC or DC have a good recruiting rating. That also brings up a good point. When recruiting players, we should be able to pick whether we want the HC, OC, or DC to be the one talking to the kid. So in this case, we'll say the HC has that B- recruiting rating, the OC has a C+, but the DC has an A-. So when recruiting you will always use your DC because he'll sell the school. The downside is that a Coordinator with A+ will still not leave as big an impact on a recruit as a HC with an A+. That will help keep people from just progressing their coach to all defense or offense and then stacking up on coordinators who can recruit like crazy.
Also, if a HC has a B+ Teaching rating, but the OC has a C+, then the players on offense should either have the progression range of a C+ to B+, or they should progress like they're under all B or B- coaches since that is about the average. The same would happen for a defense. So it would also be important to make sure not only your HC can teach, but also the coordinators.
That will make getting the right coaches a nice chess game. Do you want to risk having bad teachers as coordinators and make your HC a great one, or do you make sure your coordinators are average teachers at least, but maybe not so great on their respective side.
Something like Having the HC ratings be A Rec, A Def, C- Off, C Tea. Then having to choose between an OC with B, D, B+, C- or you can choose the one that is B-, D, B-, A. That just adds another strategy element to the mode that really makes the game that much more fun.
Now I know this sounds like a lot and it is, but I think this is the direction EA needs to go. You do not need a lot of ratings to separate coaches. If you have basic ones like I have listed, then you can just make those have great impacts on the game. Possibly exaggerating those affects would really make the game that much more fun and make coaches really matter. They need to find the perfect balance.
I hope you guys finally see what I am saying. I am not an EA *****, I don't think they are lazy, or anything like that. I just don't like what the current CC is set up like. I know it is year one and stepping back for a second, maybe I was being too harsh, but I do feel this is entirely realistic to have in NCAA 13 and I think if it was, a lot of people would be very happy, or at least I would be.
|
|
05-24-2011, 05:03 PM
