Conference / Replacement Preferences

Discussion in 'Thread Archive' started by Razcalking1978, May 7, 2009.

  1. Razcalking1978

    Razcalking1978 OFFL TeamBuilder Commish

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,830
    Conference / Replacement Preferences

    Okay folks, here's the thread for you to make conference / team replacement requests. From what I've read, your rivals will be the rivals of the team you replaced, so I've listed each teams'. There's at least 3 user rivalries that will happen, and possibly more depending on how the Sun Belt shakes out.

    User rivalries are in yellow.

    MWC
    Team Replaced Replacement Rivals
    New Mexico Colemanchu New Mexico State, UTEP
    San Diego State Razcalking UNLV, BYU, Fresno
    UNLV Recchem San Diego State, Nevada
    Wyoming Milehigh Hitman Colorado State, Utah State


    WAC
    Team Replaced Replacement Rivals
    Idaho PK55 Boise State, Washington State
    New Mexico State Basis UTEP, New Mexico
    San Jose State Fresno State
    Utah State Blitz Utah, Wyoming, BYU


    Sun Belt (all depends on which teams get voted out)
    Team Replaced Replacement Rivals
    Arkansas State cnic Troy, North Texas
    FIU MazzMan Florida Atlantic
    UL Lafayette UL Monroe, Louisiana Tech, Midd Tenn State
    UL Monroe UL Lafayette, Louisiana Tech
    Mid Tenn State UL Lafayette, Troy, Western Kentucky
    Western Kentucky Temple, Mid Tenn State



    EDIT: Penciled in some requests and some nice fits.
     
  2. Razcalking1978

    Razcalking1978 OFFL TeamBuilder Commish

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,830
    I personally would like to replace San Diego State in the MWC.
     
  3. I would like to replace Wyoming and then I can be based in CO. Fire away Raz. LOL
     
  4. Juggernautblitz

    Juggernautblitz Carbon glutton

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    2,157
    I would prefer Utah State for the good rivalry teams.
     
  5. Colemanchu

    Colemanchu GOAT SPLITTER

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    7,707
    I'd like to be with the big boys in the MWC. Give me New mexico, hopefully I can be rivals with UTEP and TCU.
     
  6. Razcalking1978

    Razcalking1978 OFFL TeamBuilder Commish

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,830
    It'd be nice if they let us pick our rivals, but that's not the word on the street.
     
  7. recchem2000

    recchem2000 UCLA > WSU

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    14,534
    With Northern Arizona, I'd be willing to set up shop in either the WAC or MWC, what ever works best for your set-up. I'd like to have a human user rival if possible :)
     
  8. Razcalking1978

    Razcalking1978 OFFL TeamBuilder Commish

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,830
    Sweet - I'm going to put you in the MWC with me as your rival. I think I remember other people mentioning the WAC, so we'll leave that open for now.
     
  9. Basis4aDay56

    Basis4aDay56 Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    5,421
    Since the MWC is full I will replace any WAC team that sets up the best user rivalries. Or whatever works, it really doesn't matter to me.
     
  10. Razcalking1978

    Razcalking1978 OFFL TeamBuilder Commish

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,830
    Alright man, that would be New Mexico State, which will give you a rivalry with Blitz.
     
  11. Archie Griffin

    Archie Griffin Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,738
    This is just a suggestion, but we have some midwest guys playing. Would the MAC make for a good experience?

    I know there's the extra champ game and all, but I'd really like a midwest option. I think a few of us might.

    I was thinking of ressurrecting Youngstown State (or some fictional midwestern team) and maybe replacing somebody like Eastern or Akron or Kent or whoever.

    Just asking. Don't mean to shake things up. I just thougth it might be something fun to look at.

    If it doesn't work out, I'll just play wherever, and create a western team.
     
  12. Razcalking1978

    Razcalking1978 OFFL TeamBuilder Commish

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,830
    We could definetly look at it, Blitz brought up the same idea.

    I'll throw up a poll if the forum will let me.
     
  13. Colemanchu

    Colemanchu GOAT SPLITTER

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    7,707

    That's too bad I would like to have more than two rivals if not just for recruiting purposes.
     
  14. Big Suge Knight

    Big Suge Knight Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    Messages:
    6,237
    Featured Threads:
    1
    I like the MAC idea also. I think I would create Buffalo State for a little cross town rivalry with Univ at Buffalo.
     
  15. Razcalking1978

    Razcalking1978 OFFL TeamBuilder Commish

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,830
    Here's the main issue with the MAC - if we start at 3-prestige as planned, you will instantly dominate the conference. There's not a decent team in there.

    WAC, MWC, and C-USA could handle it.

    Or we could drop the starting prestige to 2-star, but be aware that we'll never be BCS contenders in 6 years.
     
  16. Basis4aDay56

    Basis4aDay56 Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    5,421
    Unless we ALL went into the MAC, for the reasons that Raz outlined I don't think it will work.

    C-USA, MWC, and the WAC makes the most sense to me.
     
  17. Archie Griffin

    Archie Griffin Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,738
    I think many of us will win out with three star teams, at least we should do so in all CPU games. I'd happily take a young one-star team, take my lumps, and play in the MAC. I don't mind working my way up. Maybe we could let the guys who want to play better teams play in tougher conferences, and guys who want to start at the bottom play in the easier conferences. WAC, MWC for the tougher teams, Sun Belt and MAC for the one-stars. We could see who wants to play at what level, and then assign conferences.

    If four want to play at the bottom, 8 at two or three star level, the ones play in the MAC (or Sun Belt) and the twos and threes play in the WAC and MWC.

    I guess what I'm saying is, maybe we could construct the thing around the kinds of teams guys want to play. I would like to start as far down the ladder as possible, but I'd have no issue with a guy playing as a three star.

    Just thinking out loud,

    AG
     
  18. Razcalking1978

    Razcalking1978 OFFL TeamBuilder Commish

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,830
    Yep, that could work, as long as people were flexible about location or prestige. If you wanted a MAC-area team with 3-stars, you'd be out of luck, but we could accomodate a lot of people.

    What do others think of the idea of tailoring starting prestige to conference choice?
     
  19. Juggernautblitz

    Juggernautblitz Carbon glutton

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    2,157
    I would vote for just keeping it simple. All 3 star prestige teams, 3 conferences with no conference championship games.
     
  20. Archie Griffin

    Archie Griffin Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,738
    With three star teams, one of us will win the national championship in year one.

    If we're cool with that, then I'll go along. I just imagined a start-from-scratch kind of thing.

    But it's Raz's call all the way.
     
  21. Archie Griffin

    Archie Griffin Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,738
    With three star teams, one of us will win the national championship in year one.

    If we're cool with that, then I'll go along. I just imagined a start-from-scratch kind of thing.

    But it's Raz's call all the way.
     
  22. Razcalking1978

    Razcalking1978 OFFL TeamBuilder Commish

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,830
    Hmm, well, I wouldn't want that. We'll have to see what kind of teams it puts together for the various prestige levels. I don't want world-beaters out of the gate, but I want it to be possible to build a team up to that level within 5-6 seasons. Recruiting and player progression are going to be tougher on lower-prestige teams this year, and strength of schedule is going to mean more in the polls.

    So I'm torn between 2- and 3-star starts.
     
  23. Juggernautblitz

    Juggernautblitz Carbon glutton

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    2,157
    I for one am positive that I cannot win a national title with a 3 star prestige team. First off because I don't blow out the CPU every time and secondly because starting out as lowly rated as we would, it would be very unlikely we could climb that high in the polls even if someone did go undefeated. Doesn't matter to me though. 2 or 3 star would be fine.
     
  24. Archie Griffin

    Archie Griffin Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,738
    With a three star team, I could create a stud HB, QB, and at least one WR. I could do the same on D - three studs, and a bunch af average guys.

    I could also make them all young. With this setup, and a little injury luck (which I could influence with ratings as well) and I could challenge. I'm sure there will be anumber of three-star 80+ teams. That might be all some of us need to run the table.

    Now, if we start at one or two, in twom seasons, we would be at three or four, and able to pull good classes. If we get through four seasons, guys will have six star teams. If we start at three, they'll be at five in two. That's good enough to win big.

    It just depends on how fast we want to get good. If we really crank up the sliders, I could see starting at three, but the majority of the teams in these conferences are two or below. If we come in at three, all but two or three teams will be below us in prestige. On a conference level, we'd be starting on top. Three star teams are the bottom tier of BCS conferences, and near the top of the Mid-Majors. New teams entering D-I typically struggle for a bit. We won't.

    I'm just saying we'll be pretty good right from the start. It's up to the group just how much building they want to do, but I'd rather start bad (maybe bad, but young) and work from there. But that's just me.

    AG
     
  25. Razcalking1978

    Razcalking1978 OFFL TeamBuilder Commish

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,830
    Okay, but the idea is that the CPU will be able to create whole teams based on a given pretige level, just as it has in previous CAS incarnations. As long as we don't edit those, it should be balanced. If we must create them player by player, expect a hell of a lot of restrictions, like only one skill position over 80, etc, etc.

    You're also assuming that recruiting will be as easy as it has been for low-prestige teams. From what I've read, it will be much harder, as the recruits now care far more about prestige than location.
     

Share This Page