The Mass Sub issue that has plagued NCAA for a decade.

[Deegeezy]

The fix for this is simple...Give us more depth chart slots.

This way we won't be relying on the game to simply put in a player that may be the next highest rated player not on the depth chart (usually a player at another position).

[J-Unit40]

Quote: Originally Posted by Deegeezy

The fix for this is simple...Give us more depth chart slots. This way we won't be relying on the game to simply put in a player that may be the next highest rated player not on the depth chart (usually a player at another position).

Perfect. This would alleviate most of our depth chart nightmares. Especially, the mass subs issue.

[dkrause1971]

Quote: Originally Posted by Deegeezy

The fix for this is simple...Give us more depth chart slots. This way we won't be relying on the game to simply put in a player that may be the next highest rated player not on the depth chart (usually a player at another position).

This is the answer. 105 players is pointless if the depth chart would be the same. The depth chart is what has to change first. I personally would like it offense and defense formation specific too.

On the same note- take the coach sliders out of the dynasty and place in a separate file. That way you can name, change teams D, etc, etc only once. Could even DL other peoples. If NCAA BB 2k8 can figure that out- EA should.

[KG]

Quote: Originally Posted by dkrause1971

This is the answer. 105 players is pointless if the depth chart would be the same. The depth chart is what has to change first. I personally would like it offense and defense formation specific too. On the same note- take the coach sliders out of the dynasty and place in a separate file. That way you can name, change teams D, etc, etc only once. Could even DL other peoples. If NCAA BB 2k8 can figure that out- EA should.

This. Seems like a such a simple fix too (the 1st part). The 2nd part would be a great addition to make the game more customizable.

[kestrel]

More depth chart slots would require a larger roster, in my estimation. Otherwise, who do you put in at your #10 WR slot when you only have 8 WRs on your roster? Who do you put in at your #5 RG slot when you only have 4 Gs? etc. A larger roster would allow us to recruit more players to those positions.

A larger roster would mean we would probably need more scholarships available to recruit with, more time to do the recruiting, perhaps even a larger recruiting board. With larger rosters, more players will graduate and leave early (maybe even transfer, if the logic isn't tuned). Therefore, there will be more holes to fill. Potentially, the whole recruiting process would have to change.

A larger roster would also require the ability to duplicate jersey numbers (once per side of the ball). While I would like this ability anyway, it's going to be necessary if the roster size goes to 105 per team; it could even be helpful at 85 per team.

There may be other things that need to be done, too, just so we could have more depth chart slots. I'm not saying I'm against the idea (in fact, I like it), but there will be a lot more work required than just adding a few more slots per position.

[AuburnAlumni]

Quote: Originally Posted by kestrel

More depth chart slots would require a larger roster, in my estimation. Otherwise, who do you put in at your #10 WR slot when you only have 8 WRs on your roster? Who do you put in at your #5 RG slot when you only have 4 Gs? etc. A larger roster would allow us to recruit more players to those positions. A larger roster would mean we would probably need more scholarships available to recruit with, more time to do the recruiting, perhaps even a larger recruiting board. With larger rosters, more players will graduate and leave early (maybe even transfer, if the logic isn't tuned). Therefore, there will be more holes to fill. Potentially, the whole recruiting process would have to change. A larger roster would also require the ability to duplicate jersey numbers (once per side of the ball). While I would like this ability anyway, it's going to be necessary if the roster size goes to 105 per team; it could even be helpful at 85 per team. There may be other things that need to be done, too, just so we could have more depth chart slots. I'm not saying I'm against the idea (in fact, I like it), but there will be a lot more work required than just adding a few more slots per position.

No, there wouldn't be.

You just add more slots.

Doesn't matter if there are 40 guys, or 85 guys.

In the game right now, there are empty slots on depth charts. If you don't have a ton of WRs...then you simply have empty slots in the lower spots. Just like there are right now.

You don't have to fill every depth chart slot. As I said, in the game right now, many depth charts have empty slots in the 3rd or 4th slot, for example.

It's not that complicated.

[jliehr]

Quote: Originally Posted by youALREADYknow

It's 2010 and we still only have 70 man rosters in this game. 105 man rosters for NCAA 12 please. Then EA can keep all of these terrible 1-star recruits in the game.

While I would like to see them expand, there are only 70 players allowed to travel to most games.

Maybe have an 85 man roster then have 70 on the depth chart that travel? It could look like

3 QB
5 RB
2 FB
4 TE
8 WR
10 OL

6 DE
6 DT
6 OLB
4 MLB
8 CB
6 S

1 P
1 K

But then again they can't figure out how to fill the depth chart they have now, so adding more may just make it worse.

[Deegeezy]

I'm okay with just having a travel squad (70) as my max roster. If they can add more, fine. But it's no biggie to me if they don't.

After dealing with 55 man rosters back in the day, I am thankful for what we have.