nice use of 3rd person there

sure seble did a good job from what i can tell. but i have my own vision of what this game should/can be and i disagree with girt's analysis in this particular instance. it's worth discussing...even tho none of these sentiments are based in concrete fact.

Posted by jetwildcat on 3/2/2011 11:49:00 AM (view original):
nice use of 3rd person there

sure seble did a good job from what i can tell. but i have my own vision of what this game should/can be and i disagree with girt's analysis in this particular instance. it's worth discussing...even tho none of these sentiments are based in concrete fact.

jet- you posted at the same time as I did, my posts was meant for girt's attention as I feel like he is throwing his weight around on this post rebutting and refuting other opinions, which he is most capable of doing, and does it quite well.

most of what you posted I agree with, sorry if you felt I was dissing your opiniion, which I tend to agree with more than not in this case, sorry if my writing style offends you, I do not think I go into the third person very often, and felt it was appropriate for the context in which it was written - as it was meant to descibe the notion that just because girt is girt the champion or I am oldresorter, the used to be champion and still pretty good, that does not make our opinion gold - nobody is questioning your ability to form and articulate your own opinion - my comments just were not directed at you

Probably should state upfront that I'm on girt's side on this.

I think the problem is that we are picking and choosing what is "realistic" and "best for the game".  The following are my thoughts that may be off target but the perception I've seen in the forum over time.

1. I believe a majority of users prefer having the ability to use a 7-8 man rotation with little to no penalty.
2. I believe a majority of users prefer there to be no injuries to players.  And an even larger number would prefer that there be no serious injuries where a player would miss most of the season.
3. I believe a number of users, but perhaps less than a majority, prefer that grades / study hall not factor into the game.
4. I believe 99.9% of users prefer that dilemmas never be a part of the game again.

I realize that there isn't complete uniformity to having "consistent" views to the points above, but a number of us want a system where we can play the vast majority of our minutes with a "core" 6-8 man rotation.  And we don't want them to get injured, we don't want them to be at risk for grades, and we don't want to lose a player because he was arrested.

I personally wouldn't at all have a problem if it was ok to run a rotation with shorter numbers as long as there is an associated risk in doing so.  But I think a number of us want that option but want nothing to do with the risk of losing a player.  We want to be able to use all of our players for all 30-odd games and at 100% health.

For me, that's a bit much but even that wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.  The advantages to having a consistent flow of upperclassmen that have good IQ's can be a nice counter to a team that is super shallow in their rotation.  What makes it go to far is what girt notes in that you perversely are rewarded for this type of strategy by getting extra recruiting dollars for the scholarships you don't fill.

I don't want dilemmas but I'd be for a system that allows a 7-8 man rotation knowing that if I run that there is a risk that I might lose a player to a serious injury.  And if I don't fill my scholarships, I don't get any extra money the next season to allow me to throw all my extra resources toward a select one or two players.

Realism in the sim works really nice as long as it only grabs the parts of reality you want to keep.

Does stamina also impact recovery rate?  So if a guy w/ 90 stamina and a guy with 60 stamina both go out of the game at the same time @ a fatigue level of tired, will the guy w/ 90 ST recover to 'fairly fresh' in the amount of time it takes the 60 ST guy to get back to 'getting tired', or does everyone recover at a base rate?

Common sense would assume stamina impacts that recovery rate, but didn't know if anyone had tracked it before.

Posted by oldresorter on 3/2/2011 12:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jetwildcat on 3/2/2011 11:49:00 AM (view original):
nice use of 3rd person there

sure seble did a good job from what i can tell. but i have my own vision of what this game should/can be and i disagree with girt's analysis in this particular instance. it's worth discussing...even tho none of these sentiments are based in concrete fact.

jet- you posted at the same time as I did, my posts was meant for girt's attention as I feel like he is throwing his weight around on this post rebutting and refuting other opinions, which he is most capable of doing, and does it quite well.

most of what you posted I agree with, sorry if you felt I was dissing your opiniion, which I tend to agree with more than not in this case, sorry if my writing style offends you, I do not think I go into the third person very often, and felt it was appropriate for the context in which it was written - as it was meant to descibe the notion that just because girt is girt the champion or I am oldresorter, the used to be champion and still pretty good, that does not make our opinion gold - nobody is questioning your ability to form and articulate your own opinion - my comments just were not directed at you

i think you misread the tone in my post. i didnt mean to say it defiantly or anything like that. and i wasnt sure if you were talking to me or not lol. it's all good.

Quote post by oldresorter on 2/27/2011 7:32:00 PM:

   "I also like the team building more in the new game, as you have multiple paths to success, rather than just one..."

OR, I'm curious what you mean by this, because I'm finding the exact opposite.  Before this latest update I could play 12 deep, make stamina a priority and wear down a team that played only 8 or 9 guys (or 10 with mediocre stamina).  Now that either doesn't happen, or it barely happens -- not enough to make much difference.  So it seems to be taking away another avenue for winning, rather than granting one.

It really seems to me that this change is only going to cause even further stratification -- much like the original recruit change, which you were (I think, rightly) so against.  Even if there are slightly better 2nd tier recruits, they're only going to go to teams from the big conferences with all the money -- especially if those teams only need to worry about filling 9 scholarships minimum.

I believe that depth still matters - althogh not to the degree that it did before the recent change. It is somewhat subtle, but it matters and I think there are penalties for having say an 8 man rotation and a weak last 4 on the bench

Posted by drsnell on 3/8/2011 1:17:00 AM (view original):
Quote post by oldresorter on 2/27/2011 7:32:00 PM:

   "I also like the team building more in the new game, as you have multiple paths to success, rather than just one..."

OR, I'm curious what you mean by this, because I'm finding the exact opposite.  Before this latest update I could play 12 deep, make stamina a priority and wear down a team that played only 8 or 9 guys (or 10 with mediocre stamina).  Now that either doesn't happen, or it barely happens -- not enough to make much difference.  So it seems to be taking away another avenue for winning, rather than granting one.

It really seems to me that this change is only going to cause even further stratification -- much like the original recruit change, which you were (I think, rightly) so against.  Even if there are slightly better 2nd tier recruits, they're only going to go to teams from the big conferences with all the money -- especially if those teams only need to worry about filling 9 scholarships minimum.

Very well put. I think that's exactly right.

The ability for starters to easily play 30+ mpg plays right into the hands of the big boys.

Posted by girt25 on 3/8/2011 8:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by drsnell on 3/8/2011 1:17:00 AM (view original):
Quote post by oldresorter on 2/27/2011 7:32:00 PM:

   "I also like the team building more in the new game, as you have multiple paths to success, rather than just one..."

OR, I'm curious what you mean by this, because I'm finding the exact opposite.  Before this latest update I could play 12 deep, make stamina a priority and wear down a team that played only 8 or 9 guys (or 10 with mediocre stamina).  Now that either doesn't happen, or it barely happens -- not enough to make much difference.  So it seems to be taking away another avenue for winning, rather than granting one.

It really seems to me that this change is only going to cause even further stratification -- much like the original recruit change, which you were (I think, rightly) so against.  Even if there are slightly better 2nd tier recruits, they're only going to go to teams from the big conferences with all the money -- especially if those teams only need to worry about filling 9 scholarships minimum.

Very well put. I think that's exactly right.

The ability for starters to easily play 30+ mpg plays right into the hands of the big boys.

It serves to effectively  embiggen the press again as well, returning it to its place of dominance perhaps? I wish I'd figured out how it worked...

Posted by metsmax on 3/8/2011 2:33:00 AM (view original):
I believe that depth still matters - althogh not to the degree that it did before the recent change. It is somewhat subtle, but it matters and I think there are penalties for having say an 8 man rotation and a weak last 4 on the bench

that is an interesting opinion mets. Do you have an opinion on what those effects might be? Are those penalties (whatever they may be) enough to offset the advantages of 2-3 extra scholarships worth of recruiting cash every season? 

dac, I don't think the press is even remotely approaching how good it was in its heyday. Right now I think the defenses are more-or-less equal; back in the day, using press was like playing with the court tilted in one direction.

Posted by drsnell on 3/8/2011 1:17:00 AM (view original):
Quote post by oldresorter on 2/27/2011 7:32:00 PM:

   "I also like the team building more in the new game, as you have multiple paths to success, rather than just one..."

OR, I'm curious what you mean by this, because I'm finding the exact opposite.  Before this latest update I could play 12 deep, make stamina a priority and wear down a team that played only 8 or 9 guys (or 10 with mediocre stamina).  Now that either doesn't happen, or it barely happens -- not enough to make much difference.  So it seems to be taking away another avenue for winning, rather than granting one.

It really seems to me that this change is only going to cause even further stratification -- much like the original recruit change, which you were (I think, rightly) so against.  Even if there are slightly better 2nd tier recruits, they're only going to go to teams from the big conferences with all the money -- especially if those teams only need to worry about filling 9 scholarships minimum.

Agree 100%

Guys - I seldom look on the forums anymore, don't mean to ignore - simply put I repeat I like the new fatigue, as repeat again I have found multiple paths to winning, in the past, I repeat I found the only way to win was with 11 or 12 man rosters, now I see at least the possibility of winning with 8.

don't kid yourselves thinking the only teams to benefit from 8 or 9 man rosters will be the big boys, everyone benefits, and given the quality of recruits, I have found no indication that the guys lacking 11 and 12 man rosters are the big boys, rather, it is the human coached middle guys who are playing short, so I simply do notr agree

I have the right to my opinion.  In the past, my opinion has been as good as any about how change affects this game - I simply reject the notion that this one is anything other than a footnote.

Plus, I have seen no proof, that big boys are playing 8 man rotations and killing other big boys playing 10 or 11 or 12 man rotations & in the example mully quoted, when I +/-'s the actual results, the team was awful as it got tired.

OR, I think a good example is Northwestern in Allen, just made the E8 with only eight scholarship players. They beat perennial powers like MSU, IL, Iowa, etc during the season and Va Tech and OK in the NT.

And I'm not sure why you are citing 11- and 12-man rosters, when coaches very seldom employ more than a 10-man rotation anyway.

Is it possible that others aside from the big boys benefit? Sure. Perhaps. But imho the big boys benefit by far the most, especially now with fewer top tier recruits available, this change lessens that impact and makes it much easier for the big boys to rely on a smaller group of stud players that the non-big boys simply can't compete with.

Posted by girt25 on 3/8/2011 11:54:00 AM (view original):
OR, I think a good example is Northwestern in Allen, just made the E8 with only eight scholarship players. They beat perennial powers like MSU, IL, Iowa, etc during the season and Va Tech and OK in the NT.

And I'm not sure why you are citing 11- and 12-man rosters, when coaches very seldom employ more than a 10-man rotation anyway.

Is it possible that others aside from the big boys benefit? Sure. Perhaps. But imho the big boys benefit by far the most, especially now with fewer top tier recruits available, this change lessens that impact and makes it much easier for the big boys to rely on a smaller group of stud players that the non-big boys simply can't compete with.

Maybe - but you have no proof - you are making things up - the big boys are winning because of the ratings generation fix, I have seen no shift since 2/3, I am near 100% positive neither have you