Posted by coach_deen on 6/21/2013 11:01:00 AM (view original):
Two teams and I've yet to lose to a SIM . One of the biggest complaints I read, over and over, about 2.0 was coaches losing to SIMS and the game/game planning not meaning anything. I'll ask the same question now that I did then. If this is true, why do the same coaches win game after game, year after year?
I'm not a newbie. I've played through multiple iterations of GD, and won over 1000 games. My career winning percentage is north of .700. I also have two NCs on the Beta platform. Unless your resume looks a whole lot better, I'm thinking I may know a little more about the game than your post might suggest.
There are better coaches than I am, but they study the game a lot more and harder than I do. I'm not a stat freak or a computer nerd. What I can understand, though, is that an OL with a close to 10 point advantage should steamroll the DL. And that WRs with a huge speed edge should get open more, particulalrly on deep throws. Those things make sense to me. Not being able to take advantage of those mismatches is the hallmark of 2.0. With normalizing player attributes and dumbed down formations, it was built specifically to give new players and less talented teams a better opportunity to win.
When a SIM won the D1A championship in 2.0, over human competition, it became obvious that talent and gameplanning meant nothing. Because of the whining, there's now a stink of normalization in 3.0 too. Great teams can't be great. Good recruiting and talent advantages have gone back to being unimportant. Which is why I left GD in the first place.
If Fox wants GD to be the equivalent of a roulette wheel or a throw of the dice and artifically rigged to let lesser teams compete, I'm out.