[BIG17EASY]

Quote: Originally Posted by EvanRG

Way to not quote my whole post. My point is not that we shouldn't demand excellence. Heck, last year I sold NCAA 10 faster than you can write your response to me because frankly, it was the worst NCAA ever. My point is that this is an issue that hasn't even been proved to cause gameplay issues! Rather it is purely ratings driven and has everyone in a tizzy over a bunch of letter grades and numbers. How else could we have teams with C+ grades winning conference championships? This forum is frankly unreadable because of all the people who are just jumping on the bandwagon of complaining about progression. If we do get a patch for progression everyone will realize that the only thing different about the game will be the numbers and letters next to players and teams.

It is causing gameplay problems, though. When CPU-controlled teams don't bother kicking 25-yard field goals because kickers are just awful or when they do, they miss them horribly, it's a problem. People have reported CPU teams in never punting because punters are so bad. That's a gameplay problem. Users are converting cornerbacks to kickers because they have higher kick ratings than the kickers they recruited. That's a problem.

The reason teams with C+ ratings are winning conference championships is because the lower-tier teams in BCS conferences are filled with rosters of players rated in the 60s or lower. Five or more seasons into dynasties and teams are ending up with rosters with seven or eight QBs, or no quality running backs. It's a problem when Penn State doesn't have a running back rated overall above the 40s, as one user reported when this first came up. That may be a rarity, but just the fact that it's possible is a big problem.