30 year update: The sometimes absurd nature of NCAA 11

**Ziza9Noles94** · 01-26-2011, 03:38 PM

Re: 30 year update: The sometimes absurd nature of NCAA 11

"Syracuse 49-311" - Ouch, 49 wins in 30 years. They should just shut down the football program. haha Thanks for the glimpse into your dynasty. Very interesting numbers there. I see Eastern Michigan has managed to win some games. In my dynasty (only year 8) they have won a grand total of 0.

**stcloudgopher** · 01-26-2011, 04:14 PM

Re: 30 year update: The sometimes absurd nature of NCAA 11

Originally posted by Ziza9Noles94

"Syracuse 49-311" - Ouch, 49 wins in 30 years. They should just shut down the football program. haha Thanks for the glimpse into your dynasty. Very interesting numbers there. I see Eastern Michigan has managed to win some games. In my dynasty (only year 8) they have won a grand total of 0.

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've flirted with the idea of "coaching" the dominant programs back to earth a bit. I've played Bama in the past 10 SEC title games (once I built Georgia back from a C- team). Florida hasn't been competitive in a decade or more, and, after a good five year run after I left, Minnesota is back to a B- team (they still win 10+ every year).

Oddly, Central Michigan has averaged maybe one-loss per season over the past 10-15 years, Wisconsin and Iowa are doormats in the B1G Ten, UCF/FAU/USF are all A+ in tradition, contender and facilities, Stanford is a D academically and Miami, despite at least a half-dozen undefeated seasons, has yet to play in a national title game. I don't think Dynasty was designed to extend beyond 4 or 5 years.

**footballfan4life** · 01-26-2011, 04:19 PM

Re: 30 year update: The sometimes absurd nature of NCAA 11

How can someone get 26 receptions in a game? 712 passing yards? Holy

**playguitar90** · 01-26-2011, 04:26 PM

Re: 30 year update: The sometimes absurd nature of NCAA 11

Yeah, through my experience the 4-5 year mark is when it starts to get funny. There are way less good players, and the overall team quality appears to decrease. My C+ Michigan State recruited the next Mike Vick (played just like him) and I could dominate anyone due to the lack of speed, and the fact that he had 95 speed and could break everybody's tackles. My C- Defense and my low 70s OL didn't matter, it was a one man show. Bama is always really good though

**Kurt l o l** · 01-26-2011, 04:30 PM

Re: 30 year update: The sometimes absurd nature of NCAA 11

Originally posted by footballfan4life

How can someone get 26 receptions in a game? 712 passing yards? Holy

Brandon Marshall had 22 in a game in real life if I'm not mistaken.

**Special27K** · 01-26-2011, 05:57 PM

Re: 30 year update: The sometimes absurd nature of NCAA 11

Originally posted by footballfan4life

How can someone get 26 receptions in a game? 712 passing yards? Holy

Toledo in the last 3 years has had two different WR's with 20+ catch games I believe. Stephen Williams and Nick Moore.

Also 13 teams over the 30 years won titles is less than ideal for me, its probably about right though given past NC's. The bottom end is absurd to me, 10 teams couldn't win 100 games in 30 years? I'd bet the next 10 teams aren't any better. How many teams in history averaged 3 wins or less for 30 years?

I just want to see a little more parody I guess EA, especially toward the bottom. Not so many programs should fade in to oblivion like that.

Oh and how in the world does Miami win 36 games in a row without a NC?

**sbird91939** · 01-26-2011, 07:10 PM

Re: 30 year update: The sometimes absurd nature of NCAA 11

Originally posted by Special27K

I just want to see a little more parody I guess EA, especially toward the bottom.

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

**jbrew2411** · 01-26-2011, 07:12 PM

Re: 30 year update: The sometimes absurd nature of NCAA 11

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** · 01-26-2011, 07:33 PM

Re: 30 year update: The sometimes absurd nature of NCAA 11

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** · 01-26-2011, 07:39 PM

Re: 30 year update: The sometimes absurd nature of NCAA 11

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** · 01-26-2011, 08:33 PM

Re: 30 year update: The sometimes absurd nature of NCAA 11

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** · 01-26-2011, 10:03 PM

Re: 30 year update: The sometimes absurd nature of NCAA 11

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** · 01-27-2011, 08:54 AM

Re: 30 year update: The sometimes absurd nature of NCAA 11

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** · 01-27-2011, 09:02 AM

Re: 30 year update: The sometimes absurd nature of NCAA 11

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.

30 year update: The sometimes absurd nature of NCAA 11

Recommended Videos

30 year update: The sometimes absurd nature of NCAA 11

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment