So, while it isn't Alabama vs Western Kentucky it is at least Alabama vs. Kentucky.
Chuck and Pray offense: Avg 350 ypg passing 60% winning percentage
Heavy Pass offense; Avg 300 ypg passing 70 ypg running. 65% winning percentage
Slight pass offense: Avg 270 ypg passing 110 ypg running 95% winning percentage
Balanced Offense: Avg 200 ypg passing 150 ypg running 95% winning percentage
To me, this is what I would expect if 1) the secondary was the best part of the weaker team or 2) the other team was across the board weaker, but not by 10 points across the board. I'm not sure the chuck and pray offense should ever work for better then 30% completion, which is actually what is happening. What also is happening is that my defense is getting significantly tired in the heavy pass and chuck and pray gameplans, which is to be expected as well. There are alot of things that are happening that appear good, but ratings do not seem to be as important as they should be. The biggest thing? The range of results is far too varied. I mean, a team capable of beating another team 40-0 should not lose 40-12. That is a 68 point range of victory variance. This has never changed, and I suspect a similar thing would happen if you were to have the test game function in 2.0. To me, this is the fundamental flaw of 2.0. If you could eliminate 65-75% of the randomness, tweak the passing game some, that would lay a really good foundation for 3.0 from 2.0. Particularly with the new gameplan features.