How progression should work

[White Out]

I wrote a bit of a diatribe earlier this year about EA sports and I criticized a few of their choices and decisions. One thing that I feel should be repeated and brought up is the idea of how they do progression and how it can ruin weeks or months of enjoyment.

So here is my breakdown of the situation, the problem, and a solution. Feel free to comment.

The Situation(no, not from the Jersey shore):

NCAA 12 and all versions ship with a roster of players with stats (and highly tuned stats at that). Typically it's quite reasonable and with the help of the community it becomes the best roster available. Year 2 and so on is when problems arise. Freshmen are added and are created using a formula ... and on to this current/existing players are "advanced" by yet another formula. What this exactly looks like is unknown. But one can be safe to bet that the formula is an OPEN system. Meaning, it doesn't take into account what OTHER player ratings are and will be.

The Problem:
What ends up happening is often recruiting classes can be bizarre and players themselves, individually can be VERY bizarre. Massive kickers... QB's and RB's who were slow as molasses or coulnd't pass... and other issues like ultra strong classes or powder puff classes.

The Solution:
OK so stick with me on this while I run you thru it. It's a very easy solution.

Take the TOTAL number of players. Add up their stats... and divide by how many are there. This will give EA an average of what each ranking is. This is our starting number. Every season the average rating of players should be within 3% of this number. Let's say that average is 82.... that means at NO point in the future, even in 2020, should the average player be 85.1 or higher, or 77.9 or lower.

This added 3% cushion either way allows the league to be a living and breathing entity that can have up and down years, but not go nuts.

Now to add further refinement, and to make sure that thing's dont get too bizarre, you can add more restrictions and rules to this VERY simple formula. Take all QB's... how many are 95 or higher, over 90, in the 80s, etc, and adhere to that within 5%. This way you will always have great stars right down to backup's for mid majors. Repeat for every position.

Doing it this way would ensure that to within a 3-5% range, the original rosters will look like the future rosters but of course, with natural movement of power and player depth.

Just an idea, and frankly, I think a good one. But maybe I'm wrong?

[Soarindude02]

Great Idea. We need some logic for this progression.

[Craigsca]

It's a little more complicated than this because you have to back out progression from the mathematics as well.

Let's say the average player is an 82. Let's make the average incoming freshman a 72. That would mean over a 3-4 year period (depending on if he redshirts or not) the average player will gain 10 points.

Ok, now that we've done that - there's no reason to artificially try to keep player ratings within an arbitrary 3% spread. Just have the average incoming freshman be a 72, and the average progression over 4 years equal 10(again, this is only an example, I'm not saying the initial 72 or the final 82 is necessarily correct). If you just use random numbers that are correctly centered on the average, over the long run everything will even out.

Edit: actually, there's a little more thinking involved because while the average player is an 82, he could be a freshman, sophomore, junior or senior. Therefore, we would need a little more data than just "the average player is an 82". Preferably, we'd know the average senior is ... - whatever it is, and then backtrack progression from there.

[TMJOHNS18]

Wouldn't this defeat the purpose of recruiting? If the average player, I'm guessing 3* players fall in this range, were all rated in a tight window, wouldn't I just use all 25 scholarships on them instead of fighting the other top programs for 5* talent? If theres no real fall off of talent and not much reward for wasting time going after top talent, why shouldn't I just load up on depth each year and cut whatever position has excess players?