30 year update: The sometimes absurd nature of NCAA 11

[jbrew2411]

OP you said you had done this type thing in years past on other sites. I ask you this, how does NCAA 10 or 09 compare to NCAA 11? I ask because this was the first year they went with the lower rated recruits. I didn't get as many years in with NCAA 10 since it took them so long to get the game right. I did get 10 years into a dynasty on NCAA 09 and things seemed to fair better IMO. I still had the files on my 360 and had the game in a box in my basement storage. I dug it out the other day and loaded it back up. I was just looking at where I left off in year 10 with Miami. I found most of the teams were full of players rated close to what the original roster file had. I just remember in years past that the lower teams would have that run of one or two good years then drop off for a few years then have another run. I remember the top teams stayed on top with a bad season here and there. It would be great if you still had info on NCAA 10 to compare.

[Noble Evildoer]

Quote: Originally Posted by stcloudgopher

That is sad. I know there are peaks and valleys, but this game gets a bit ridiculous with the lower teams. It needs to be addressed in 12, no doubt. Oklahoma hasn't beaten Texas in something like 15 years in my dynasty. Along with numerous unbeaten teams (pre-bowl games there are usually 4-7 undefeated teams; post-bowl games there are usually 3 or 4), the number of one-loss teams is insane.

I had something similar recently in year 5 of a dynasty where 5 of the 6 major conferences produced an unbeaten team and the end of the regular season (the ACC had a one-loss team). After the bowls, there were 4.

[xblake16x]

Quote: Originally Posted by sbird91939

I'm all for a good laugh, but I think parity is more important at this point

Super funny I'm glad i wasnt the only one to catch that

[fcboiler87]

Quote: Originally Posted by jbrew2411

OP you said you had done this type thing in years past on other sites. I ask you this, how does NCAA 10 or 09 compare to NCAA 11? I ask because this was the first year they went with the lower rated recruits. I didn't get as many years in with NCAA 10 since it took them so long to get the game right. I did get 10 years into a dynasty on NCAA 09 and things seemed to fair better IMO. I still had the files on my 360 and had the game in a box in my basement storage. I dug it out the other day and loaded it back up. I was just looking at where I left off in year 10 with Miami. I found most of the teams were full of players rated close to what the original roster file had. I just remember in years past that the lower teams would have that run of one or two good years then drop off for a few years then have another run. I remember the top teams stayed on top with a bad season here and there. It would be great if you still had info on NCAA 10 to compare.

Me and a buddy did a dynasty on 10 and we went all 60 years, jumping around to different jobs as certain levels of success were obtained. 60 years down the road the rosters were quite similar to the original ones. However, as we progressed, the ups and downs of various teams were apparent, almost as if there were some kind of coaches cycling through. No one team was dominant and all of the traditional powerhouses saw ups and downs. It was quite realistic and as good as I think it can be, as I mentioned to you in another post. Why it had to change I don't know. This year's gameplay coupled with last year's ratings and change, plus a coaching carousel = perfect NCAA 12.

[RedZoneD25]

Quote: Originally Posted by sbird91939

I'm all for a good laugh, but I think parity is more important at this point

Beat me to it.

[bgeno]

Are there any "diamond in the rough" recruits? I think that's part of the issue with good teams staying good and bad teams staying bad. Without your occasional 2* or 3* player that turns into a decent player, the bad teams never get a guy that can change their program. That and you don't see a mid-high level school get a really good recruiting class to shake things up like you see in real life. The rich stay rich and the poor remain poor.

[RedZoneD25]

Quote: Originally Posted by bgeno

Are there any "diamond in the rough" recruits? I think that's part of the issue with good teams staying good and bad teams staying bad. Without your occasional 2* or 3* player that turns into a decent player, the bad teams never get a guy that can change their program. That and you don't see a mid-high level school get a really good recruiting class to shake things up like you see in real life. The rich stay rich and the poor remain poor.

Well, IMO, the rich get less rich, and the poor stay poor. I'm Duke in year 2, and even the one or two 4* guys I get aren't worth the recruit trouble over most of my 3*s. I can't imagine how it is down the line. I've read a lot how teams across the board take a hit in overall talent.

BTW, LOVE the sig.

[jbrew2411]

Quote: Originally Posted by fcboiler87

Me and a buddy did a dynasty on 10 and we went all 60 years, jumping around to different jobs as certain levels of success were obtained. 60 years down the road the rosters were quite similar to the original ones. However, as we progressed, the ups and downs of various teams were apparent, almost as if there were some kind of coaches cycling through. No one team was dominant and all of the traditional powerhouses saw ups and downs. It was quite realistic and as good as I think it can be, as I mentioned to you in another post. Why it had to change I don't know. This year's gameplay coupled with last year's ratings and change, plus a coaching carousel = perfect NCAA 12.

That is what I was thinking. I made it about 7 years in on NCAA 10 and from what I remember the balance was more even. My brother-in-law is going to give me his copy of NCAA 10 so I think I will play it until we see how NCAA 12 is going to look.

Quote: Originally Posted by WTFitsDaveyJ

Well, IMO, the rich get less rich, and the poor stay poor. I'm Duke in year 2, and even the one or two 4* guys I get aren't worth the recruit trouble over most of my 3*s. I can't imagine how it is down the line. I've read a lot how teams across the board take a hit in overall talent. BTW, LOVE the sig.

I think the experiment with lower ratings has come to pass. It just didn't work like they had hoped it would. All 4 tuners improved the recruits but it was not enough. There is no way anyone can think this is a better system. I recruit a lot of 3* guys and only one now and then can play before their red shirt Junior year. There is no way in year 7 with Nebraska that I'm the best team in the North by far (B ovr me, next highest C- Mizzu, all the rest are D's). Then the south is Texas (A ovr) and Oklahoma (B+ ovr) then every other school is a D ovr. I have seen the schools that have won 1-2 games in 3 years. While the NCAA team tried to close the gap on the number of team dropping off there are still a large number that do.