Idea for Substitution Fix

[DaHorra]

This would have to be in future iterations of the series, as it involves a re-vamp of the sub method and would probably need to include a change in the depth chart logic (more on this later).

Rather than have substitutions based on fatigue (not that I'm suggesting fatigue be eliminated, as it is an important part of college football and football/sports games in general), I think we should be able to decide how much playing time the backups at each position receive. So rather than having:

HB - Sub out 80/Sub in 95

We would do:

HB - 60/40 (The initial value being the percentage of the game the starter plays, the latter value being the backup's playing time)

So for every six plays the starter is on the field, the backup gets four. I think this would be beneficial, as it guarantees playing time for would-be bench warmers, and it also counteracts the fatigue issue, because the starter, for the most part, would not be on the field long enough to wear himself out (I realize this gets a little tricky if, say, the starter has a 50 yard run [this is under the assumption that fatigue is working properly] and has to come out of the game for a play or two. I'm not saying there aren't kinks).

I just get a little frustrated that my backups rarely see the field unless I'm blowing out my opponent and I get to send the second unit in for a drive or two to kill the clock. I think this method would be, at the very least, a step in the right direction.

It does, however, present depth chart dilemmas, at least where the current setup is concerned.

For instance, I've been running the 3-3-5 defense which, I'm sure all of you know, features two strong safeties. When I'm up by 30 in the 4th quarter against FCS SW or whatever and I send the second team in, the SS who's second on my depth chart, but also starts due to my defensive alignment, stays in the game. He's a starter, but because he's second on the depth chart he stays in with the second team defense. And it's the same with halfbacks if you run the flexbone offense.

I would suggest that instead of lumping all of a single position into one grouping, we have extra positions added to depth charts, depending on the offensive and defensive playbooks we set as our defaults (this is not unlike the offensive line, where instead of having every player lumped under the general category of OL, we have RT, LG, etc).

So instead of just SS, we get SS1 and SS2, or maybe even SS and ROV or SS and WS. And in the flex we would have AB1 (A-Back 1), AB2 and BB (having a B-Back position would also solve the Halfback to Fullback rating conversion problem). It could also extend to the spread formation where slotbacks like Rainey and Demps are often used in lieu of more traditional slot receivers.

Sorry if this is long-winded. Gimme thoughts.