More Links

CheckMate · 05-15-2003, 10:40 PM

Quote:

fsquid said:
I usually just keep only 6 LBs and 3 tackles and guards.

O-Linemen never seem to get hurt, so there's no need for depth.

Mizzou23 · 05-15-2003, 10:41 PM

defintiely not an issue that would make me buy or not buy this game, but it would have been nice for 65 man rosters or so. I guess they do it to keep dynasty save sizes down?

At any rate, it would have been nice to have. my main complaint with the 55 man roster is that you see a lot of freshman starters, more than you would normally see in a real game. It's cool though, maybe next year.

fpac · 05-15-2003, 10:44 PM

Kinda sucks, but oh well. I'm not going to cry about it. The postitions I usually try and load up on are WR and DB because I almost always lose 1 or 2 of the for several weeks due to injury. Plus I always find myself cutting seniors to make way for new freshmen I've recruited that I think wil be better than the guys I have now. Guess I'll still be using this strategy.

Brandwin · 05-15-2003, 11:03 PM

Not a big deal...i wish it would of been expanded but it wasent....is in game saves in this yr?

Programmed2Kill · 05-15-2003, 11:13 PM

this stings some..because people asked for it over and over again but hey, i can live with it. i wonder if you can change players' years though. it would make roster editing easier.

rockchisler · 05-15-2003, 11:19 PM

1 thing I would like to see in dynasty is not have freshmen come in at speed of over 90, i looked at the entire roster on the game in year 3 and the top 25 fast players where all soph or freshman slow them down so u dont have a roster full of speed players..

sammyinafrica · 05-16-2003, 02:42 AM

MATH LESSON.....Ok I am not a math wiz or anything but think about this....

117 D1 teams. Say ten new roster slots that takes it up to 65. Now that is 1170 new players. Which means that they would have to revamp the recruting a bit. They would need maybe 5-10 times that many players for recruting to give people good or different choices. Maybe leave the Blue Chippers the same but increase the 4,3,2 stars. My point is this....There is a lot more to it that just bumping the rosters to 65. If we have 65 on a team but the same recruting numbers....it would get old.

baccVols · 05-16-2003, 06:18 AM

But isnt this been the #1 wish over the last 3 years. Why do they continue to ignore it.

05-15-2003, 10:40 PM	#9
CheckMate All Star OVR: 14 Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Akron, OH	Re: NCAA 2004 Roster Size Stays at 55 Quote: *fsquid said:* I usually just keep only 6 LBs and 3 tackles and guards. O-Linemen never seem to get hurt, so there's no need for depth.

05-15-2003, 10:41 PM	#10
Mizzou23 MVP OVR: 13 Join Date: Dec 2002	Re: NCAA 2004 Roster Size Stays at 55 defintiely not an issue that would make me buy or not buy this game, but it would have been nice for 65 man rosters or so. I guess they do it to keep dynasty save sizes down? At any rate, it would have been nice to have. my main complaint with the 55 man roster is that you see a lot of freshman starters, more than you would normally see in a real game. It's cool though, maybe next year.

05-15-2003, 10:44 PM	#11
fpac MVP OVR: 15 Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Norman, OK Posts: 3,830	Re: NCAA 2004 Roster Size Stays at 55 Kinda sucks, but oh well. I'm not going to cry about it. The postitions I usually try and load up on are WR and DB because I almost always lose 1 or 2 of the for several weeks due to injury. Plus I always find myself cutting seniors to make way for new freshmen I've recruited that I think wil be better than the guys I have now. Guess I'll still be using this strategy.

05-15-2003, 11:03 PM	#12
Brandwin Hall Of Fame OVR: 50 Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 30,643	Re: NCAA 2004 Roster Size Stays at 55 Not a big deal...i wish it would of been expanded but it wasent....is in game saves in this yr?

05-15-2003, 11:13 PM	#13
Programmed2Kill Banned OVR: 20 Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: P.H.I.L.A. Posts: 14,644	Re: NCAA 2004 Roster Size Stays at 55 this stings some..because people asked for it over and over again but hey, i can live with it. i wonder if you can change players' years though. it would make roster editing easier.

	MLB The Show 24 Review: Another Solid Hit for the Series
	New Star GP Review: Old-School Arcade Fun
	Where Are Our College Basketball Video Game Rumors?

05-15-2003, 11:19 PM	#14
rockchisler All Star OVR: 40 Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Ohio Posts: 8,271 Blog Entries: 5	Re: NCAA 2004 Roster Size Stays at 55 1 thing I would like to see in dynasty is not have freshmen come in at speed of over 90, i looked at the entire roster on the game in year 3 and the top 25 fast players where all soph or freshman slow them down so u dont have a roster full of speed players..

05-16-2003, 02:42 AM	#15
sammyinafrica Rookie OVR: 2 Join Date: Jul 2002	Re: NCAA 2004 Roster Size Stays at 55 MATH LESSON.....Ok I am not a math wiz or anything but think about this.... 117 D1 teams. Say ten new roster slots that takes it up to 65. Now that is 1170 new players. Which means that they would have to revamp the recruting a bit. They would need maybe 5-10 times that many players for recruting to give people good or different choices. Maybe leave the Blue Chippers the same but increase the 4,3,2 stars. My point is this....There is a lot more to it that just bumping the rosters to 65. If we have 65 on a team but the same recruting numbers....it would get old.

05-16-2003, 06:18 AM	#16
baccVols VlStr OVR: 7 Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,380	Re: NCAA 2004 Roster Size Stays at 55 But isnt this been the #1 wish over the last 3 years. Why do they continue to ignore it.

More Links

NCAA 2004 Roster Size Stays at 55