Why Not Having 85 Man Rosters Severely Hinders the Realism of NCAA Football

[hurricanefootball4]

In real life teams are allowed 85 scholarship players. In NCAA Football you are only allowed to have 70 on your roster. So, from an obvious standpoint, the game depicts 15 less scholarship players (we're not going to include walk-ons for the sake of simplicity) than there are in real life. That's obvious.

What might not be so obvious is how that severely hinders the realism of college football and why it hurts the realism of a year in, year out dynasty in NCAA Football:

It gives a HUGE advantage to the 5 and 6 star schools.

Naturally, the higher prestige schools get more of the higher prestige recruits. Aside from some outliers, this isn't indifferent from how things are in real life.

Higher rated recruits tend to be more "game-ready" than their 2 and 3 star counterparts, and this is reflected in NCAA Football. 4, 5, and 6 star schools are able to cycle out an early-entry junior or departing senior for a 5 star kid who is ready to play as a true freshman.

But what about those teams that aren't able to haul in those game-ready freshman recruits, the teams hauling in 1-3 star recruits, how do they stay competitive? Because in real life, many of them do still stay competitive. The answer is simple, they redshirt players and develop them for 4-5 years.

Let's take a look at the Boise State roster as an example (Paired up by the class they would have come in):

Redshirt Freshman: 21
True Sophomores: 7

Redshirt Sophomores: 9
True Juniors: 1

Redshirt Juniors: 18
True Seniors: 4

Redshirt Seniors: 22

So on their existing roster (not including their incoming class):
70 players have redshirted
12 players have not redshirted

Boise State has an entire lineup (22 players) of guys who have gone through a full 4 years of college development already. A successful 1-3 star school does a great job of building depth and development at each position.

Obviously, this isn't possible in NCAA Football. Why? Because you have to choose whether or not to keep that game-ready RS JR who is a 76 or the incoming Freshman who is a 68 to keep your roster 70 or under. In real life, they would play the JR because he gives you the best chance of winning now and redshirt the freshman, knowing that in 4 years that freshman would ultimately be better than the JR is right now.

Expanding rosters to 85 players is essential for a college football sim. Without it, higher prestige schools will always have a large advantage in NCAA Football. Having 2-3 star teams staying competitive with the right depth and the right class is what creates those magical upsets that make college football so great.

What do you think, how important are 85 man rosters to creating a realistic college football game?

[PowerofRed25]

Re: Why Not Having 85 Man Rosters Severely Hinders the Realism of NCAA Football

Until depth charts are updated to more properly reflect the offense and defense you use and until there is more variety in individual player ratings, 85 man rosters are not necessary. It is hard enough to get 2nd and 3rd string guys in the game, especially at defense.

What good will being able to have a couple more WR's and a couple more LB's/DB's do when the depth chart is designed in a way that you just can't get these guys in. Not only that but when there is no variety in recruits and player skill set, what's the point? Maybe if height/weight mattered or certain skill sets were more useful in certain formations/game situations, having 85 guys would be nice. But right now, I already have more guys than I use and end up with people buried in the depth chart for years.

What would be nice though is being able to offer certain recruits a preferred walk on role that doesn't apply to the 70 scholarship limit. So if you are a 6* school but see a 3* guy that you might want on your team but don't want to waste an offer/scholarship limit on you could offer him a preferred walk on spot to him.

[Potatoes002]

Re: Why Not Having 85 Man Rosters Severely Hinders the Realism of NCAA Football

After playing Skyrim, I'm not buying the "lack of disc space" excuse.

[raquelraul12]

Re: Why Not Having 85 Man Rosters Severely Hinders the Realism of NCAA Football

depends if they say that if they put this in it will effect something else then am of course against it, but i would like a 75 or 80 roster.

[RColemanVT]

Re: Why Not Having 85 Man Rosters Severely Hinders the Realism of NCAA Football

Until they fix recruiting to where users don't dominate CPU teams they should not up roster size. It is bad enough having four 90 overall QBs every year

[NateDogPack12]

Until depth charts are updated to more properly reflect the offense and defense you use and until there is more variety in individual player ratings, 85 man rosters are not necessary. It is hard enough to get 2nd and 3rd string guys in the game, especially at defense.

What good will being able to have a couple more WR's and a couple more LB's/DB's do when the depth chart is designed in a way that you just can't get these guys in. Not only that but when there is no variety in recruits and player skill set, what's the point? Maybe if height/weight mattered or certain skill sets were more useful in certain formations/game situations, having 85 guys would be nice. But right now, I already have more guys than I use and end up with people buried in the depth chart for years.

What would be nice though is being able to offer certain recruits a preferred walk on role that doesn't apply to the 70 scholarship limit. So if you are a 6* school but see a 3* guy that you might want on your team but don't want to waste an offer/scholarship limit on you could offer him a preferred walk on spot to him.

OP isn't saying he wants to use all 85 players. Quite the contrary, he's saying he wants to develop them for future use.

No real college football team would call upon the 4th string OLB or 8th string WR on a weekly basis with the exception of a possible special-teams job, in which case there are formation subs to sim this in the game for those who would go to such great detail but the point is the players should be there so they can be developed for future use. You don't want to have to dump that 68 OVR true freshman knowing when he's a redshirt junior or senior, he'll be your starter.

[BigDuke]

Re: Why Not Having 85 Man Rosters Severely Hinders the Realism of NCAA Football

85 man rosters are essential for realism. So is fixing the recruiting so 1 school doesn't get the top 4 players at a particular position. Depth charts and in-game substitutions (esp. Def Line) also need to be fixed. This game really needs a massive upgrade in the CPU player management area.

[PowerofRed25]

Re: Why Not Having 85 Man Rosters Severely Hinders the Realism of NCAA Football

OP isn't saying he wants to use all 85 players. Quite the contrary, he's saying he wants to develop them for future use.

No real college football team would call upon the 4th string OLB or 8th string WR on a weekly basis with the exception of a possible special-teams job, in which case there are formation subs to sim this in the game for those who would go to such great detail but the point is the players should be there so they can be developed for future use. You don't want to have to dump that 68 OVR true freshman knowing when he's a redshirt junior or senior, he'll be your starter.

Except I don't necessarily find that to be the case. In OD's where I am building up, by the time that 68 rated true freshman is game ready, I am recruiting well enough where a younger guy is more capable to replace him. This year especially, I've had very few players develop from a mediocre freshman into a capable starter a few years later.

With 70 player rosters, I have never felt compelled to cut players I knew would make a difference. Either I'm not a good enough team to overrecruit to the point where I have to cut or I'm a good enough team to reload every year and not worry about developing a high 60's type guy into a starter because I'll recruit a low 80's guy one of those years to replace him.

Using my last season at Clemson as an example, which was 2015 and I developed them from a 3* starting 2012 (I took over end of 2011 when they had already gone 5-7). I eventually got them up to a 6* team and some of the guys I recruited those first two years ended up getting passed over by younger recruits. I ended up with FR and SO at all the key positions. The only recruit that I actually built up to become a starter was my QB, who came in at 68 and started as a JR over a better rated SO because he fit the offense better.

I think the only way 85 man rosters make sense is if there is some sort of competition between experienced players and incoming youth. Or something that allows one player's skill set to stand out over another. That just doesn't exist now.

[silver281gt]

Re: Why Not Having 85 Man Rosters Severely Hinders the Realism of NCAA Football

Until depth charts are updated to more properly reflect the offense and defense you use and until there is more variety in individual player ratings, 85 man rosters are not necessary. It is hard enough to get 2nd and 3rd string guys in the game, especially at defense.

What good will being able to have a couple more WR's and a couple more LB's/DB's do when the depth chart is designed in a way that you just can't get these guys in. Not only that but when there is no variety in recruits and player skill set, what's the point? Maybe if height/weight mattered or certain skill sets were more useful in certain formations/game situations, having 85 guys would be nice. But right now, I already have more guys than I use and end up with people buried in the depth chart for years.

What would be nice though is being able to offer certain recruits a preferred walk on role that doesn't apply to the 70 scholarship limit. So if you are a 6* school but see a 3* guy that you might want on your team but don't want to waste an offer/scholarship limit on you could offer him a preferred walk on spot to him.

Its pretty easy for me to get my Defensive players in and out, even the oline players. I put my entire Def and O-Line injury sliders on 0.

On Def i have guys going in and out all the time. Just like my Real life Huskers. Some of them even disappear like my real life huskers.

[Gap Integrity]

Re: Why Not Having 85 Man Rosters Severely Hinders the Realism of NCAA Football

I think 85 man rosters are essential to the college experience. I agree with all the posts, If you have to oversign and cut players each year thats just dumb. Even if you have to redshirt over 25 guys a year. I'd like to see player development become more relevant in dynasty mode.

[Lodeus]

Re: Why Not Having 85 Man Rosters Severely Hinders the Realism of NCAA Football

After playing Skyrim, I'm not buying the "lack of disc space" excuse.

Lol, indeed.

[mackattack14]

Re: Why Not Having 85 Man Rosters Severely Hinders the Realism of NCAA Football

You don't really need an 85 man roster because you only play 25-27 players in a game at a time. No need for more benchwarmers.

[jarato]

You don't really need an 85 man roster because you only play 25-27 players in a game at a time. No need for more benchwarmers.

Wow at that logic , wow.

[blkrptnt819]

Except I don't necessarily find that to be the case. In OD's where I am building up, by the time that 68 rated true freshman is game ready, I am recruiting well enough where a younger guy is more capable to replace him. This year especially, I've had very few players develop from a mediocre freshman into a capable starter a few years later.

With 70 player rosters, I have never felt compelled to cut players I knew would make a difference. Either I'm not a good enough team to overrecruit to the point where I have to cut or I'm a good enough team to reload every year and not worry about developing a high 60's type guy into a starter because I'll recruit a low 80's guy one of those years to replace him.

Using my last season at Clemson as an example, which was 2015 and I developed them from a 3* starting 2012 (I took over end of 2011 when they had already gone 5-7). I eventually got them up to a 6* team and some of the guys I recruited those first two years ended up getting passed over by younger recruits. I ended up with FR and SO at all the key positions. The only recruit that I actually built up to become a starter was my QB, who came in at 68 and started as a JR over a better rated SO because he fit the offense better.

I think the only way 85 man rosters make sense is if there is some sort of competition between experienced players and incoming youth. Or something that allows one player's skill set to stand out over another. That just doesn't exist now.

I think that when they do 85 man rosters they will have recruits progress at different rates. That way there are diamonds in the rough with lots of potential but not ready to play up front.

[blkrptnt819]

You don't really need an 85 man roster because you only play 25-27 players in a game at a time. No need for more benchwarmers.

I honestly think the lack of bust, transfers and injuries all have to due with the lack of an 85 man roster. Ppl have to understand that were a small minority of fans. Most ppl dont want there star player to go down or their qb to be out a couple games.