16 point different. And a lot of it is useless stats for positions that it had no effect for. Of course against SIMs we should win. I was just pointing out my example. Take a look at the rosters individually and tell me my team is "16 points" better

I evaluate head to head matchups based on individual talent and not the ratings system. But when discussing a human team vs a long term SIM....it's much easier to evaluate based on the team trading numbers in nearly every case.

The more deserted the worlds, the better the Sims will be..

My brother has a top 20  team in DIA (WVU) in 1 world and he was just telling me about how a longtime sim team beat his squad by 3 points in overtime.  The sim team was also barely in the top 100 in guess ratings (my brother again was in top 20)
He laughed it off but is still ******/fed up w/ the engine and said when his seasons are up that he's quitting GD completely (i think he's down to 2 teams from 4).
Granted neither of us have the time to really gameplan and are by no means great coaches but theres just no way a longtime sim should ever beat a top 15 team that's been human coached for damn near every season of the worlds existence.

I've said it somewhere before....these "buckets" of talent that the engine operates on are making the playing field more "level", IMO.  I asked about these "buckets" in the last developer chat, but still don't understand it.  It appears that if the two teams fall within a "certain range" of each other, they basically get "normalized" within that range.....making the teams perform more equally.  I have not seen a completely terrible SIM beat a human coached team, but I think this certainly explains why some of the "decent" SIMs can win vs very good human coached teams.

I know that katzphang88 and some others really complained about that concept during beta.  

The "bucket theory" is the biggest problem right now as I see it. This concept is that for any player difference the result is randomly placed into a "bucket" or result for that play. In theory, as the ratings difference increases the probability of hitting a bucket with a greater advantage for the higher rated player increases. When I analyzed Norbert's game engine, no matter what the ratings difference was, you still had the probability of hitting the worst bucket or the best bucket. The possibiilty of hitting the best bucket with a very great advantage was not significantly different than if you had a very great disadvantage. This is why good OL/RB combos still get stuffed by inferior DL/LB. I still see that these player advantages aren't accurately conveyed during play of this engine. If they would tighten up the range of bucket possibilities and have results fall into a more narrow range I feel the player match-ups would fall more into line.

Seems like an issue that would be ideal to address within a beta test.  Oh, wait....

I think they (WIS) have stopped working on Bucket theory and have converted to String theory which evaluates multiple universes for each play, then uses results that aren't sucked into black holes. You may have missed it, but this change was released along with a bevy of air guitars during halftime of the super bowl.

moreron-LOL^^^^

I don't care if I lose to a sim or a talent-poorer team once in a while (well, I care some, but not to the point of quitting), but I'm finding it frustrating that I don't really even know what to fix when I lose.  I adjust settings, but it feels like whack-a-mole, with new issues popping up for every one I try to fix.

There are so many variables, and the play-by-play might be helpful or it might be gibberish. Maybe those same two DBs are somehow covering all three of my receivers at different depths, or maybe that's just confusing. Maybe I should run outside more. Or inside more. Pass shorter. Pass longer. Adjust my third-down settings. Maybe every single one of my opponents has this finely-tuned, carefully-calibrated, adjusted-specifically-to-my-team's-weaknesses game plan. Or maybe they don't and it just feels that way.

I have this theory that having a senior or redshirt-senior quarterback is the only factor that truly matters. 

I have this theory that having a senior or redshirt-senior quarterback is the only factor that truly matters.
+1000

Posted by rwings1927 on 2/21/2014 5:28:00 PM (view original):
I have this theory that having a senior or redshirt-senior quarterback is the only factor that truly matters.
+1000

Just won NC at D1AA with RS Freshman at the helm......of course, it was the strength of the defense that really was the key.

Posted by harriswb3 on 2/21/2014 6:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rwings1927 on 2/21/2014 5:28:00 PM (view original):
I have this theory that having a senior or redshirt-senior quarterback is the only factor that truly matters.
+1000

Just won NC at D1AA with RS Freshman at the helm......of course, it was the strength of the defense that really was the key.

I also won a NC with a true FR at QB. It can be done.

Okay. You guys are just confirming that I know nothing whatsoever about how this game works.

Although I'm guessing having the No. 1 roster in the GUESS ratings might help mitigate the effects of the younger QB.