Suggestion for a new affinity that would reward tough OOC schedules.
Big Game Affinity would be given to the top X (my suggestion is 10) teams in OOC schedule strength
]]>From @tsweezy
Related to the topic of recruiting class sizes.
I think a lot of discontent is being stirred by the fact that walkons were basically "forced" onto teams who didn't sign 25 players, and then when they have fewer than 25 scholarships available the next season it seems unfair that they could not turn those walkons down and "bank" the scholarships
In any case, I think setting scholarship amounts by departing players is overly complex and leads to some awkward incentives (and down the line dramatically different roster sizes between programs).
I think an easy, clean method with the transfer portal being introduced is that starting next season, programs are capped at 100 players on the roster. So you have 100 players on your roster for the season and are recruiting with 25 scholarships. At the end of the season some players graduate and are off the books, your incoming recruits are added, and then you have to cut players to get to 100. If you are over, you can't have any transfers in and/or AI will cut incoming freshman to keep you at 100 (who then enter the portal). I think this keeps all teams on a level playing field where if you just sign players and play them you'll never have to think about it, but redshirting / accepting incoming transfers requires you to either let players transfer out, or cut players. But ultimately roster management is all in the user's hands.
From @BabaYaga
Proposing that for those schools who can sign 24 players or less be able to cut walk-ons. I think having, say, 7 walk-ons and 15 scholarship spots will make teams imbalanced for the future if they have to keep those walk-ons. IRL, teams can choose if they keep walk-ons so I believe that we should here as well. Teams might have 5-8 dead spots on their team per class which can certainly imbalance a team if they had bad roll luck.
]]>Hi! It's me again with another suggestion 
lol
It would be cool if we had the option to "designate" a position that a player taking a redshirt could learn, so that coming off the shirt they would have that position (similar to playing it all season).
For example - I have a receiving RB - I could designate WR as the position they learn/practice. So after progressions they would have RB/WR as their new position (or however the OOP will look once they progress)
I think this will be a good roster building tool - if a freshman is recruited to play a specific OOP - they could learn that position during their redshirt instead of taking the redshirt and then playing a season OOP (or even 2 if they aren't starting). I think this is a realistic scenario - players will often take on a position swap during their redshirt year.
]]>I would like a run type preference selection (basically a mirror of how you can set a preferred pass type for a receiver) for the running distribution. I think it could be limited to the traditional run options (inside, outside, power)
It would give us the flexibility to really have a thunder/ lightning type of backfield. I think it would be an awesome addition and help to ensure slow strong FBs aren't asked to run outside runs.
]]>Now that we have formations that align with our offensive and defensive schemes - it would be awesome if we could also institute depth charts for those formations. I would envision, similar to the default settings for offense and defensive schemes, that it would be a setting that the user could turn off and on if they wish.
I play the 2-Gap defense and the LOLB does different things in the 3-4 Bronco vs. the Okie, and the Eagle. I'd love to be able to have a different LB play that LOLB position based on which formation I'm choosing.
]]>It would be a good addition if special teams tackles, FF, FRs were counted in the stats/ Box Score. Right now they are shown on the play by play, but not included in the stats.
Would be cool to see who is making an impact on special teams. Would allow us to add a special teams position to the pro bowl roster (like irl) and just adds more depth and intrigue to rosters/games.
]]>Another enhancement to play by play that would have the strongest effect in understanding game plans is to include who was in coverage for a given pass play. For example, when a pass is completed to a WR who is then tackled by a safety, I have no idea whether that safety was directly covering him and got beat, if the corner got beat and then the safety cleaned it up, or if he was uncovered and that’s just who got the tackle.
I would argue this has a very strong impact on whether teams can accurately assign issues to certain players, mismatches, or if a scheme is just inadequate and leaves certain positions uncovered or on bad matchups. If we can’t tell what happened, it’s hard to know what to do about it
]]>As it stands right now, the effects of stamina seem very opaque to users. I can’t tell when it has an effect on a player or anyway to interact with that. I also think it’s still a tad unrealistic that for most teams and most positions (barring blowouts) the starters play every snap of the year.
suggestion: in addition to whatever performance effects stamina has, include a player rotation aspect next year. If players have low stamina, they’re more likely to be subbed out when it gets below whatever threshold (so worse stamina = fewer snaps per game). Obviously position dependent, so many QBs play every snap and if they just have terrible stamina they get a bit worse on long drives and at the end of games but there’s not much difference between C and A stamina, while DTs have a much higher chance of being subbed out for 1-3 plays to recover stamina if they are below average.
could also include a gameplanning section for rotations where you can decide how early you want to rotate players: if you want fresh bodies, or if you want to run your starters until they’re absolutely trashed (and hopefully position specific but yes that’s a big lift)
]]>Suggestion: Output all players who are on the field each snap. Makes for easier debugging and especially on ST plays you can start to get a better sense for what supporting players are helping vs. hurting you.
]]>Right now Redshirt progressions are set at the lowest rate in the sim. It's a pretty frustrating experience in general for a redshirt Progression to always be pretty terrible. I feel it's also pretty unrealistic, there are many examples of (Fr) who came in and played extremely well.
I would like to propose that redshirt progressions are updated, so that their progression can fall anywhere on the progression scale (starter, special teams, bench, redshirt). There can be some weighting added so that the highest level progressions are less frequent, but I think the game would benefit from some variability in redshirt progression. It would enhance team building strategy, and give rebuilding teams more options in their approach to improving.
I'm open to other redshirt progression ideas - this topic can be a discussion around improving the mechanic
]]>I know there’s more that goes into this but I would love the opportunity to cut players. This is especially important if we are simultaneously forcing teams to get walkons and also restricting recruit classes. You could get saddled with 5 walkons one year then be limited the next year while those players have no real chance to ever see the field.
]]>