Changes for Year 2

Collapse

Recommended Videos

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • rkwittem
    MVP
    • Jun 2011
    • 2265

    #1

    Changes for Year 2

    The time has come to discuss any changes in the league that you want you put into effect. I'm going to group into 3 categories.


    1. Sliders - How can we make the gameplay better for the league. I personally felt defense was too easy at times this year against some good teams and running the ball was too hard against some bad teams whereas passing was generally too easy.


    2. Sim Discussion - I took a look at the end-of-year stats and award winners to get a look at what sort of end-of-year statistics people were getting for slider research and I saw a lot of ridiculous end-of-year stat totals, both for teams and for individual players. I'm not going to call individuals out but I will give a simple list of stat totals I found to be intolerably high as they were beyond unrealistic.


    - Over 10,000 total yards of offense. The top offensive team of the last 10 years, 2011 Houston, had about 8,400 yards of offense- over 600 YPG.
    - Keep your scoring around the 55 PPG that 2006 Hawaii averaged. That's the high end. Considering the ease with which someone can use the chew clock feature, it should be easy to shorten games that are out-of-hand. There really is no excuse for not using this.
    - Multiple players threatening Terrell Suggs' single-year NCAA record for sacks. We even had CB with double-digit sacks. That screams cheese to me and will not be tolerated. Balance out your depth charts. I don't care if you have a shutout going. Mass subs are your friend. Stat-chasing of any kind will not be tolerated. If this gets to be a serious issue, I will either shorten quarters, put a "soft" cap on plays per game, or impose other sanctions as I see fit to discourage this behavior.


    As I stated in the original rules for this league, the idea of "playing true" to your team's style, as well as your own holds here. "Sim" does not merely mean punting or kicking FGs on 4th down. To me, it holds a much greater meaning- to play within the framework of the video game to create a simulation of the real-life, on-field product we see on TV during the fall. I take this part seriously and it's a large source of the enjoyment I derive from these games.


    3. Conference Realignment
    No, the Big XII will not be expanded or getting a CCG unless a credible news source reports that they will expand within the next 24 hours or so.
    I'm more curious as to whether or not folks care if a teambuilder team is added to the league next year that is not typically in the game (I'm thinking Georgia Southern specifically here) and what team they might replace.
    If this doesn't matter to you or you are aware of any glitches this may cause, I need to know about that right away because I'm not going to waste my time looking up Georgia Southern's projected 2015-16 football roster, depth chart, growth/development, and creating them with NCAA teambuilder if none of you care.
    Last edited by rkwittem; 12-10-2014, 04:09 AM.
  • OrangeOKPoke
    Rookie
    • Jul 2014
    • 36

    #2
    Re: Changes for Year 2

    1. I agree with your conclusions here. One thing I would add, and I know it is something we discussed early in the season, but the number of wide open drops by CPU WRs. I can see the argument that it is realistic to college but I think the biggest problem is the inequity with the USER.

    2. I know I am being referenced here in at last one part. That said, I would gladly welcome stricter enforcement of stat padding and running up the score penalties. I want to be able to play a sim-style Big 12 offense though. Average PPG in the upper 40s is on par with the conference leaders the past five years, as is 7000-8000 in total offense. So long as constraints aren't going to suffocate like-styled teams below those thresholds, I am behind you 120%.

    As far as correcting this point, I believe some adjustment to the sliders, improving the opposing offense would greatly help this problem. We would see more games where each team scored in the 30s as opposed to one team scoring in the 50s.

    3. Though this one doesn't sound like its up for discussion. I agree. When/If the Big 12 format changes, we should address duplicating it; until then, leave it be.

    As to the second point, I am indifferent to adding Georgia Southern, or App State for that matter. If we do choose to do it, I believe the obvious choice to drop is UAB.

    Comment

    • rkwittem
      MVP
      • Jun 2011
      • 2265

      #3
      Re: Changes for Year 2

      Originally posted by OrangeOKPoke
      1. I agree with your conclusions here. One thing I would add, and I know it is something we discussed early in the season, but the number of wide open drops by CPU WRs. I can see the argument that it is realistic to college but I think the biggest problem is the inequity with the USER.

      2. I know I am being referenced here in at last one part. That said, I would gladly welcome stricter enforcement of stat padding and running up the score penalties. I want to be able to play a sim-style Big 12 offense though. Average PPG in the upper 40s is on par with the conference leaders the past five years, as is 7000-8000 in total offense. So long as constraints aren't going to suffocate like-styled teams below those thresholds, I am behind you 120%.

      As far as correcting this point, I believe some adjustment to the sliders, improving the opposing offense would greatly help this problem. We would see more games where each team scored in the 30s as opposed to one team scoring in the 50s.

      3. Though this one doesn't sound like its up for discussion. I agree. When/If the Big 12 format changes, we should address duplicating it; until then, leave it be.

      As to the second point, I am indifferent to adding Georgia Southern, or App State for that matter. If we do choose to do it, I believe the obvious choice to drop is UAB.


      I am more than willing to take slider suggestions. I rather like the set being used in Saturday Night Lights. Briggs and Palsy can speak to them as well.
      There are no qualms with sim-style Big XII offense. Don't treat this like a video game. I hope that makes sense. The thresholds you listed are perfectly in line with what I would approve of on the high end.
      It's not up for discussion as the real-life Big XII hasn't announced or been linked by anyone credible to a serious attempt at expansion. I've heard rumors like Cincinnati, Boise State, and BYU, but until it actually happens, it will not happen in this dynasty.
      I proposed Georgia Southern for a couple of reasons. For starters, they are rather good. I plan to rate them as a team somewhere around 75 OVR as a team, so a good Sun Belt team. The higher end mid-majors (to coin the basketball phrase) are all in the upper 70s. If this rating is okay and you trust my judgment with their other ratings (pro potential, prestige, tradition, TV exposure), I will glady create them. I'm not planning on giving them anything higher than a C to C+ in any rating category.
      I know most of us don't watch non-BCS conference teams but GSU is easily in the upper half of the FBS as a squad. They should've beaten NC State and Georgia Tech this year. And it didn't hurt that they won 9 games and went undefeated in the Sun Belt. It's a pity they won't be in a bowl this spring. They are a logical choice to replace UAB in terms of conference and geography. Great idea.


      Update: Guess it is not possible to do. Lame. Wish I had known that Bear Bryant's kid had been going after UAB hard so I could've added GSU in their stead. Point #3 is now a non-starter.
      Last edited by rkwittem; 12-10-2014, 03:33 PM.

      Comment

      • sycodmn
        Pro
        • Sep 2003
        • 805

        #4
        Re: Changes for Year 2

        Just to confirm, is my plan to move to a bone-based option attack within rules? I don't think it would be out of line for a tan with Oregon State's disadvantages.

        Comment

        • WildPotato
          Rookie
          • Feb 2012
          • 220

          #5
          Re: Changes for Year 2

          1.
          Originally posted by rkwittem
          I rather like the set being used in Saturday Night Lights. Briggs and Palsy can speak to them as well.
          I'm okay with any change in the slider sets, as long as it doesn't sacrifice player ratings. I realize its easy to beat the CPU, but I don't want to see poor offensive lines letting their HBs get 7 ypc, or WRs blocking as well as a lineman. Or poor quarterbacks throwing dots all day. CPU WR drops are definitely an issue though.

          2. I will certainly slow my roll with total offense, and will likely use chew clock most of the game considering I run no huddle in the first half.

          Hundley shouldn't mass as many total yards as he did before. Last year he was my only real playmaker on offense and everything went through him. Especially with my only speedy WR going down most of the year and no exceptional HBs. But I lost no starters on offense so it should be spread around more with everyone improving.

          I agree sack numbers should fall, the only problem is sometimes you get QBs that just keep scrambling into your D - line (usually the LE). It creates situations where you need to take out your starter as early as the first quarter. Then your 2nd and 3rd strings are going to end up with upwards of 8 -10 sacks a season, even if you only run dime coverage all game. While taking out starters isn't a problem with me, I just think its important to point out that some things are really not fixable. Sack numbers are always going to be high, that's just the nature of the game, unless you give the CPU unreal pass blocking sliders where you get no pressure.

          3. This category seems to be all figured out now, so that's that.

          Comment

          • rkwittem
            MVP
            • Jun 2011
            • 2265

            #6
            Re: Changes for Year 2

            Originally posted by sycodmn
            Just to confirm, is my plan to move to a bone-based option attack within rules? I don't think it would be out of line for a tan with Oregon State's disadvantages.


            What's wrong with the flexbone? I can't think of any problems that would arise from running that offense. (I assume you mean an offense like the one GT, Navy, Army or Georgia Southern run?)


            Bottom line: read the rules, run it realistically, and there won't be any problems.

            Comment

            • sycodmn
              Pro
              • Sep 2003
              • 805

              #7
              Re: Changes for Year 2

              Just your statements about staying realistic to the team. Wanted to make sure.

              Comment

              • rkwittem
                MVP
                • Jun 2011
                • 2265

                #8
                Re: Changes for Year 2

                Originally posted by WildPotato
                2. I will certainly slow my roll with total offense, and will likely use chew clock most of the game considering I run no huddle in the first half.

                Hundley shouldn't mass as many total yards as he did before. Last year he was my only real playmaker on offense and everything went through him. Especially with my only speedy WR going down most of the year and no exceptional HBs. But I lost no starters on offense so it should be spread around more with everyone improving.

                I agree sack numbers should fall, the only problem is sometimes you get QBs that just keep scrambling into your D - line (usually the LE). It creates situations where you need to take out your starter as early as the first quarter. Then your 2nd and 3rd strings are going to end up with upwards of 8 -10 sacks a season, even if you only run dime coverage all game. While taking out starters isn't a problem with me, I just think its important to point out that some things are really not fixable. Sack numbers are always going to be high, that's just the nature of the game, unless you give the CPU unreal pass blocking sliders where you get no pressure.
                My leading sacks guy had 6. In fairness, I was running a 3-4 but I still had a realtively easy time generating strong, sim-style defense. Maybe that's a knock on the sliders. My DBs after Cravens are not supremely talented, so it wasn't as though I had a couple of 90+ OVRs out there. Just call a good game and make sure your guys are in position. It's possible to run sim-style defense with generating huge amounts of sacks.

                Comment

                • rkwittem
                  MVP
                  • Jun 2011
                  • 2265

                  #9
                  Re: Changes for Year 2

                  Originally posted by sycodmn
                  Just your statements about staying realistic to the team. Wanted to make sure.


                  Well, if you're running the option and you run it well enough, you should be at around an 80:20 run-pass ratio. That's about where GT sits typically.

                  Comment

                  Working...