NCAA Football 12 Blog - Coach Carousel

[Dbrentonbuck]

Quote: Originally Posted by poopoop

I disagree that playcalling is covered. Like I pointed out, they basically have the same playbooks and have the same offensive philosophies in NCAA 11 so they essentially had the same playcalling. It's even more apparent if you look at defenses where there's only 3-4 playbooks. Maybe something has changed this year, point it out if so because I'd be happy if that were the case. If there's a substantial in game difference between playing against a poor coach and a good one then I have no issues with this. It's not a gamebreaker you're right. Anyone who says it is is wrong. Just disappointed that EA seems to have made a coaching carousel first, then will establish why coaches matter second. To me it should be the other way around.

Right. I think the only way we are going to be able to make the coaches seem different is to mess with the coaching philosophies and I don't know how well that will even work.

[DR_Drake_Ramore]

Quote: Originally Posted by poopoop

In that case let's compare to real life. Look at NCAA 11. Compare EMU's coach to Bama's. They have offensive playbooks that are very similar, both use one back schemes that contain a lot of the same formations. They have very nearly the exact same offensive philosophies (run/pass ratio, aggressiveness, etc.) Applying NCAA 12's CC to these coaches, the only difference between the two would be presitge. So, the only difference would be recruiting pitches, and how much the players advance. On the field, in-game they are nearly exactly the same. That's a problem. There needs to be ratings to further differentiate these two coaches. And if not ratings, the playbooks should be more unique and/or they need more in depth philosophy sliders.

Well, other differences are the Program prestige/tradition, conference prestige, pro potential, and championship contender which all are factors on whether your team gets scrubs or elites. The CC addresses the coaches influences on the recruiting process but it is not overpowering. Let's face it, in college football unlike other sports elite players may commit regardless of the coach due to the rich tradition of college football.

So when comparing Alambama and EMU, you need to remember that there are other things that differenciate those programs besides the coach. and due to all those differences Bama gets better players and on the field they play much better than EMU due to their quality of players. Beyond that the only other way that the user coach has an impact is player progression, and the skill of the human controlling the coach, that would be you Muchacho!

[poopoop]

Quote: Originally Posted by DR_Drake_Ramore

Well, other differences are the Program prestige/tradition, conference prestige, pro potential, and championship contender which all are factors on whether your team gets scrubs or elites. The CC addresses the coaches influences on the recruiting process but it is not overpowering. Let's face it, in college football unlike other sports elite players may commit regardless of the coach due to the rich tradition of college football. So when comparing Alambama and EMU, you need to remember that there are other things that differenciate those programs besides the coach. and due to all those differences Bama gets better players and on the field they play much better than EMU due to their quality of players. Beyond that the only other way that the user coach has an impact is player progression, and the skill of the human controlling the coach, that would be you Muchacho!

I'm not talking about what differentiates the programs, I'm talking about the coaches. And I'm not talking about human coaches, but computer controlled ones. It's one of the reasons I prefer OD to offline because there actually is a difference from coach to coach.

I'm also not just saying this to bash, I was saying the exact same thing on here a while ago before EA even announced their CC.

[DR_Drake_Ramore]

Quote: Originally Posted by Bullet Sponge

The difference between Alabama and EMU is mostly the quality of players. Stick Nick Saban at EMU this year and Ron English at Bama and see how they do. The main influence of the coaches is in recruiting and playcalling, and those are both covered in the game. I could see perhaps some awareness bump based on OC, DC, and HC stats, but it's hardly a game breaker IMO.

Excellent point. Saban would maybe impact EMU's record by maybe 2 games, and English may win just as many games as Saban would have at Bama.

I think the dissenters assume that some coaches should be able to turn a 2-star recruit into a starter better than other coaches. But I say what is more based in reality is that a 2-star player would only become marginally better. Sure you can teach them technique and mechanics, but other than that most of the upward improvements are up to the player.

It is up to the player to weight train, to have determination and dedication. Why would a coach determine whether your catching ability is better or not. I am pretty sure, that at the college level all coaches can teach someone how to catch. The player's natural ability and unnatural ability they attain on their own determines their upward improvement. If they do eventually tie coaches to individual player ratings they should only tie it to maybe a technique rating, and not awareness, or skill categories, because those ratings are not controllable by coaches. Urban Meyer did not make Tebow aware of his surroundings or make his frame big, or make him tougher than other players. Tebow did all that. All Urban did was lure him to his program with his record and personallity, and teach him the x's and o's of the game so he got better during his playing years (hmmm... sounds like coach prestige and player progression to me.)

[ryanMcEZ]

did not relize that the military schools have not always been tradional option teams, just becoming familar with the schools recently, so i take back my comment, i suppose it would be just a change that could happen in real life as well

also, i read these forums EVERYDAY, never post, but i remember before any info about dynasty or even the game was out, evryone was saying, oh if there is no CC im not buying or it will be a great dissapointment

now that we have the details about the CC and junk, everyone is b**ching anyways, it ridiculous, settle people, its a great addition

[canes21]

Okay, finally on my computer so I can type what I really want to say.

So far what we have seen from EA's CC is that coaches have one dominant rating and that is it. That rating is prestige. What that affects is how much players progress under them, how well a team performs in simulated games, and one pitch in the recruiting phase. The thing is, we don't know how big of a difference players progress under an A+ coach and a C- coach. Do they always get at least 4 points improvement under the A+ coach or is there more of a possibility to see the "Max Improvement" that has been in the game for some time? Under the C- coach do they sometimes not progress, or only progress up to 3 points a year at the very best? We don't know how much impact they really have.

EA needs to come out and give us the details. What exactly is the differences in progression under coaches with different ratings? What exactly is the difference when simming games with an A coach and a C coach? Just a higher probability of a win with the better coach?

The other thing I have seen new for the CC is coach loyalty. I don't completely know how this works. From my thinking it isn't exactly a pitch, but just a variable there. A coach with higher loyalty gets a bonus when recruiting because the players know he'll be there throughout their careers. I may be wrong, and if so, please someone correct me.

My problems with EA's CC is that we don't know the specifics. For all we know players really don't progress that much better under coaches, and going by last year, recruits don't care much about the Coach Prestige and that can be completely avoided and made useless. So if that is how it really is, then like I have said, the only difference we will see is schemes changing through the years.

Now if EA comes out and tells us players will progress under an A coach twice as good every year over a C coach, then coaches will obviously have a very big impact on the game. Right now though, it is all speculation and I believe the differences won't be enough to truly separate the coaches.

What I want to see EA do with the Coach Carousel is add individual ratings and the ability to pick your coordinators. We don't need 20 ratings for a coach. We can have very basic ones like other games have done. By having something like 6 ratings in the game, but making them have very strong influences will easily separate coaches.

In real life we have all kinds of coaches. For example...

Gary Pinkel and Frank Beamer: Two coaches who don't get the best recruits out there, but they're teaching of the game has their players playing constantly to their potential. So even though these guys get a majority of 3 stars, they easily compete with the better teams that get the top 25 recruiting classes with their 4 and 5 stars.

Lane Kiffin: This guy can persuade anyone, including Tennessee fans, to come to his program. Who knows what it is, but this guy just knows how to recruit. His catch? He isn't the best X's and O's coach. So he draws in the top talent and they do progress under him, but come game time, he isn't the best person to have in charge.

Randy Shannon: Once again another great recruiter. This guy brought in a #1 ranking class several years ago according to ESPN. The thing is, the players never showed that they had progressed under him and they played very inconsistent on the field. Great recruiter and defensive coordinator, but that is it.

Nick Saban: This guy is the best of the best. He can recruit as well as anyone, he can teach as well as anyone, he knows the game as well as anyone, he is just one of the best in every category. This guy is a mastermind that can take any program and easily win with them.

So what does EA need to do? Simple, add ratings. We need basic ratings or areas.

Recruiting: Simple, the higher it is the more points you rack up in a phone call. Have A+ or 95+ in this category, then recruits are going to buy into everything you sell them. Have a terrible rating and you better expect recruits to have their doubts about you.

Offense: If a coach is high in this area, then his offensive players will perform consistently and possibly get boosts to their attributes depending on how high his rating is.

Defense: The same thing as offense.

Teaching: This rating dictates how well players progress under your watch. If you have an A+ or 95+ rating, the players are going to consistently grow 4-5 points per year at the very least. If you are average in this category, then some player might have big jumps while others stay the same or possibly get worse.

Those are simply basic ratings and might not seem like a lot, but if done right they can easily have major impacts on the game. Say Alabama struggles after Saban retires, so they hire a coach that is A- in recruiting, but everything else is B- or lower. So he'll bring in top notch talent every year, but players will never progress under him and their on the field performances will be inconsistent and they may have their attributes decrease if he is bad enough.

On the other hand, North Carolina could be sick and tired of getting no more than 7 wins a season for 6 straight years, so they hire a new guy. He is no greater than a B+ in any rating, but is no worse than a B-. So he is able to get attract some quality recruits, have them progress, and also have them play well on the field. He ends up improving them and gets them to 9-10 wins a year, but no better. So either he has reached his potential and never gets better as a coach and UNC either makes the decision to keep him or try and find a better coach that will be able to build on to what is there and possibly make a BCS Title run.

Situations like that just add so much to dynasty mode.

Ratings do not need to end with Head Coaches. Coordinators need them as well. Say Miami has a Head coach with B- Recruiting, A Defense, D+ offense, and B Teaching, then he needs to get a good offensive coordinator to make up for his terrible rating and he also needs to make sure either his OC or DC have a good recruiting rating. That also brings up a good point. When recruiting players, we should be able to pick whether we want the HC, OC, or DC to be the one talking to the kid. So in this case, we'll say the HC has that B- recruiting rating, the OC has a C+, but the DC has an A-. So when recruiting you will always use your DC because he'll sell the school. The downside is that a Coordinator with A+ will still not leave as big an impact on a recruit as a HC with an A+. That will help keep people from just progressing their coach to all defense or offense and then stacking up on coordinators who can recruit like crazy.

Also, if a HC has a B+ Teaching rating, but the OC has a C+, then the players on offense should either have the progression range of a C+ to B+, or they should progress like they're under all B or B- coaches since that is about the average. The same would happen for a defense. So it would also be important to make sure not only your HC can teach, but also the coordinators.

That will make getting the right coaches a nice chess game. Do you want to risk having bad teachers as coordinators and make your HC a great one, or do you make sure your coordinators are average teachers at least, but maybe not so great on their respective side.

Something like Having the HC ratings be A Rec, A Def, C- Off, C Tea. Then having to choose between an OC with B, D, B+, C- or you can choose the one that is B-, D, B-, A. That just adds another strategy element to the mode that really makes the game that much more fun.

Now I know this sounds like a lot and it is, but I think this is the direction EA needs to go. You do not need a lot of ratings to separate coaches. If you have basic ones like I have listed, then you can just make those have great impacts on the game. Possibly exaggerating those affects would really make the game that much more fun and make coaches really matter. They need to find the perfect balance.

I hope you guys finally see what I am saying. I am not an EA *****, I don't think they are lazy, or anything like that. I just don't like what the current CC is set up like. I know it is year one and stepping back for a second, maybe I was being too harsh, but I do feel this is entirely realistic to have in NCAA 13 and I think if it was, a lot of people would be very happy, or at least I would be.

[DR_Drake_Ramore]

Quote: Originally Posted by canes21

Okay, finally on my computer so I can type what I really want to say. My problems with EA's CC is that we don't know the specifics. For all we know players really don't progress that much better under coaches, and going by last year, recruits don't care much about the Coach Prestige and that can be completely avoided and made useless. So if that is how it really is, then like I have said, the only difference we will see is schemes changing through the years.

I guess it IS true. You can't fix stupid. Now your complaint is because they didn't give specifics on how much of a progression boost the coach has on the players, you're discounting that part of the CC feature alltogether, WTF. And because you THINK Coach prestige pitch was never high on recruits likes (which is flat wrong btw) you are discounting this part of the CC feature as well. And since you are so hard of hearing, let me reinterate that loyalty is the second pitch that CC has an effect on for recruiting. Maybe you should read your posts out loud to yourself before pressing the submit reply button. Here you are again discounting facts or minimizing them as if they don't matter to come up with your complaint.

WEAK.

I'm done with this thread. No no colonel Sanders Something's wrong with YOUR madula amblingata!

[canes21]

Quote: Originally Posted by DR_Drake_Ramore

I guess it IS true. You can't fix stupid. Now your complaint is because they didn't give specifics on how much of a progression boost the coach has on the players, you're discounting that part of the CC feature alltogether, WTF. And because you THINK Coach prestige pitch was never high on recruits likes (which is flat wrong btw) you are discounting this part of the CC feature as well. And since you are so hard of hearing, let me reinterate that loyalty is the second pitch that CC has an effect on for recruiting. Maybe you should read your posts out loud to yourself before pressing the submit reply button. Here you are again discounting facts or minimizing them as if they don't matter to come up with your complaint. WEAK. I'm done with this thread. No no colonel Sanders Something's wrong with YOUR madula amblingata!

Maybe you should read my entire posts and not only quote parts of it so it doesn't "twist" what I say. I get that you're going to disagree with me on probably everything because you are very happy with the new Coach Carousel and I am not, but you need to take your advice and read my posts as well.

I never said my only problems were the lack of info, I just said they're a part of it. Right now I know as much as you when it comes to how big of an impact a coach has. Neither of us know if it is a 5 point difference per year in progression between an A coach and a C coach. It could only be a 1 point difference. Neither of us knows. Thats why I am saying it is a big possibility coaches won't differ much.

In the whole post, if you had quoted it all, then you would have seen that I said if coaches had very large impacts on progression and recruiting then it wouldn't be so bad. If an A coach had players progress at least 7 points a year and a C coach never had his player progress more than 4 points a year, then they would be obviously different and impact schools very heavily. That would be exaggerated though, but its just an example. But if it is what I am fearing and there is a very small difference, then yea, coaches will hardly be different from one another.

Also, had you read my entire post, then you would have seen I did mention the other part of recruiting. The whole Coach Loyalty thing was mentioned in my post. I said I didn't believe the Loyalty was actually a pitch, but just a variable in a way. If it is a pitch, then I stand corrected. That would be my misunderstanding.

And when talking about recruiting, I use last year as an example because that is all we have to go by. We have no new info on recruits. For all we know the recruiting pitches are the same as last year and recruits will hardly care a lick about coach prestige. Or it could be re-tuned and every recruit has at least Above Average interest in Coach Prestige. If that is the case, then again, coaches have a bigger impact.

Right now we are all speculating on the CC still. We know what coaches have with the prestige rating and we know what those affect, but we don't know to what extent. If it is hardly noticeable at all, then I would think I was right in saying coaches are hardly different from one another outside of playbook. If coaches have large impacts in those area and it is easy to see why an A is a lot better than that C, then I will be wrong.

Before you accuse me of being wrong some more, you should read the paragraph above this. We're all going off speculation right now, so no one is really wrong or right yet.