Improvements for HS Recruits and Player Roster 27
Player Dev Trait Progression - I would like to see a "Progression Goal" of how a player can achieve Dev Upgrade. Right now in 26, it's hard to figure out if you play and earn enough stats for a player. Do I have enough Solo Tackles for a "Impact" LB to get "Star"? Can I pull a minimum-to-use a low volume for a RB? Is 5 Ints enough for my CB or Safety to earn a Dev Trait Upgrade? - Because I feel like trying to hard to get a "Positional Award/Hesiman" for Player isn't enough or fully earn your player an upgrade. Heck, would making All-American or All-Conference Team be enough? It be nice to have a list of goals for your player to get the dev upgrade. More In-State (with better talent to find) Players based on school location and Previous Record and Accomplishments. - Sometimes, I like to play that Low-Medium NIL Schools like a Wyoming or Missouri for Gameplay Challenge-wise. But it sucks that if I want the best players 4-5 Star Rating Players, I'm force to target HS Prospects in Powerhouse Southern States: Alabama, Georgia Louisiana, Florida or it's second best, the Western States or Midwest: California, Washington, Arizona, Oregon, Ohio, Michigan. - However, if I don't have the Correct Pipeline or ability to upgrade my own, I have no chance because other schools have the better. - I would like it where if you achieve a winning record with a Bowl/Playoff/National Championship appearance, the following season, you will see a bigger pool of quality In-State players that want to join your school. It's how local players would like to stay In-State more and compete with their State University. Ability to earn and equip Mental Abilities - Every HS Recruit is built and thinks differently in real life, and that's true and understandable. However, every coach wants their player to be at the top of their game in-game and off and field. Honestly right now from 25 and in 26, I estimate about 70% of the players we try to recruit in-game will always come out with zero mental abilities or low-tier mentals. And then the 1-5% has the gold-plat mentals, but they're low rated, normal-impact dev trait players. - Like Road to Glory, if we achieve a milestone, we get to earn a mental ability for a player or equip or upgrade a players' mental ability.We need more player archetypes
The main ones of the top of my head are Hybrid OLBs (Micah Parsons, Zach Baun, K'Lavon Chaisson, Isaiah Simmons) and Power Runner QBs (Cam Newton, Tim Tebow, , Sam Ehlinger). Also some of the current archetypes need to be reworked, like Physical Route Runner TE. The PRR TE is missing all of the run blocking attributes.Online dynasty not counting total stats affecting playing style for users
We have a 5 man online dynasty, we have noticed that one of the players all of his playstyle stays are in the low C's for WRs in which they have over 340 receptions as a team as of current. The stats for his my school only show 174 for the total essentially halfing thier stats. This bug is harming all users of the dynasty as we cannot keep WR on roster that are looking for play style no matter how much we throw. Is there a fix for this?CALLING ALL DADS
Serious but fun dynasty still going strong, any interested players wanting to join a fun dad league, married folks welcome too. we are mature working individuals who love getting together in a league to play our dynasty games. we advance every other night and do our communicating on discord. simple rules and good comp. PS5 - ACEMAB1914 XBOX - DJACEMAB1914 DISCORD - https://discord.gg/m7YsWw4vProposal: Simplify Archetypes (Less Clutter, More Gameplay)
Proposal: Simplify Archetypes (Less Clutter, More Gameplay) Quick context (related post): Before this, I posted another proposal about simplifying roster management while keeping the depth chart stable. The point was: The roster should put players into position families without assigning them to a specific side, and the depth chart should be the main “identity layer” for the game engine, and the game shouldn’t push people into constant formation subs and endless shuffling just to make things work. Less menu work = more time playing, scheming, and actually learning matchups. This archetype proposal goes with that same philosophy: cut clutter, improve clarity, and let players develop naturally. The problem: Archetypes have gotten bloated. A lot of them overlap and feel like “labels for the sake of labels.” Recruiting becomes sorting tags instead of scouting players. Modern college/NFL football isn’t full of one-dimensional specialists. Most starters have to do more than one thing. A kid can come out of high school as a “run defender” and still have the capacity to develop pass rush moves or coverage skills in college depending on coaching, scheme, and reps. Right now the game leans too hard into: “You are this label forever.” That’s outdated. The goal: Fewer archetypes that actually mean something on the field. Less UI clutter in recruiting More emphasis on body type, traits, and scheme fit Archetypes should bias development, not lock development Defensive Line: Interior DL should only have 2 archetypes. We don’t need separate “power rusher” and “speed rusher” archetypes at DT. That’s style, and it should be expressed through body type, ratings, and traits, not separate labels. IDL Archetypes (2) Anchor (Space Eater / NT type) Eats doubles Holds point Forces cutbacks Compresses the pocket with power Defined by: STR / BSH / AWR-PRC / TAK / traits that help vs doubles Disruptor (3-Tech / Penetrator / “whatever name sounds best”) Shoots gaps Creates negative plays Collapses pocket Can win with either finesse or power moves Disrupts run fits Defined by: ACC / AGI / FMV-PMV / PUR / get-off traits Power vs speed should come from: weight/body type STR vs ACC/AGI pass rush ratings trait package Not separate archetypes. Edge should only have 2 archetypes: Same thing here. “Power vs speed rusher” is a style difference, not an identity difference. Edge Archetypes (2) 1) Edge Threat (Pass Rush Specialist) Wins rushes with finesse or power Forces quick throws Closes on QB Defined by: ACC / COD / FMV-PMV / PUR / AWR-PRC / rush traits 2) Edge Setter (Anchor / Contain) Sets the edge Maintains leverage Spills runs inside Defined by: STR / BSH / TAK / PUR / AWR-PRC discipline traits Unicorns should be rare (not a third archetype) The “do-it-all” guys should exist, but they should be rare and earned. Your Aaron Donald / Von Miller / JJ Watt types should show up as elite rating spreads + elite traits, not an archetype you can just shop for every year. Cornerbacks CB should only have 2 archetypes: Physical or Nimble Modern defense requires versatility. “Man-only” or “zone-only” corners aren’t the norm at the top level. 1) Physical CB Wins with press and contact timing Plays the catch point Disrupts releases Defined by: press/strength + jam/catch-point traits Quickness is still needed to be serviceable or elite. 2) Nimble CB Wins with quickness and leverage Mirrors routes better Recovers faster Defined by: COD/ACC/AGI/SPD + mirror/play-ball traits Field/Boundary shouldn’t be archetypes; If you want to keep them, make them alignment preferences or coaching tendencies. But as archetypes it’s mostly window dressing unless it actually changes behavior and development in a clear way. Halfback: HB also has too many labels. Keep it simple: 1) Elusive Playmaker (space, cuts, explosives) 2) Elusive Bruiser (breaks tackles but still creates) 3) Contact Seeker (downhill, falls forward, wears defenses out) 4) All-Purpose (run + receive + align anywhere) “All-Purpose” can come in different flavors (lighter or bigger) based on body type and ratings. No need to split it into 10 sub-archetypes. One can argue that all purpose backs should be rare, similar to the do it all defensive lineman. But, there are average all purpose backs and there are great all purpose backs. I only propose changes to archetypes for positions that make sense for the moment. I’m content with the archetypes at other positions but if you think they need refinement please make changes using my ideas in this article as the guideline. The most important change: archetypes should bias, not lock: Archetypes should represent what a player is best at right now and what they’re most likely to develop into. But development should still be driven by: coaching/scheme reps/usage offseason focus dev traits facilities So a “run defense” kid can develop pass rush and coverage skills as well to adapt. That’s modern football. What this improves Recruiting becomes scouting again (body type + traits + scheme fit) Less clutter, less menu time, more gameplay Player growth feels more realistic Roles are clearer: “what job does this guy do on the field?” Pairs well with my roster and depth chart stability proposal (less shuffling, more consistency) If EA wants “modern football,” the design needs to reflect it: versatility, role clarity, and development based on coaching + usage — not label overload.Proposal: Simplify ROSTER Positions, Keep Depth Chart Positions
Proposal: Simplify ROSTER positions, keep DEPTH CHART positions (for stability + better lineup logic) I think EA would improve both roster clarity and engine stability if they separated two things that are currently tied together: Roster Position (plain / broad) Depth Chart Role (nuanced / scheme-specific) The core idea Make roster positions plain (RB, OT, OG, C, DT, EDGE, LB, CB, S, etc.), but keep the depth chart exactly how it is today (LT/LG/C/RG/RT, SAM/MIKE/WILL, FS/SS, etc.). Right now, it feels like EA’s engine can get “locked” into rigid roster labels (LT vs RT, SAM vs WILL) in ways that cause weirdness with sorting, auto-fill logic, and role assignment. If the roster positions were broad, EA could treat players as part of a position family first, then let the depth chart + attribute weighting decide where they actually fit best. What this would fix (why it’s more stable) • The engine wouldn’t be forced to assign roles/sides based on a rigid roster title. • Users and CPU teams could naturally get the best 11 on the field because players aren’t “tied to a side” by a roster label. • The depth chart remains the place where the nuance lives (LT vs RT, SAM vs WILL, etc.), but the roster stays clean. Important guardrail (my biggest concern) If EA did this with no restrictions, I could see the engine doing something stupid like: • the same OT is “best” at both LT and RT and starts at both. So this system must include duplicate restrictions for both user teams and CPU teams: No player can be assigned as the starter at two parallel positions (or any two positions that appear on the field at the same time). If a player is already slotted at one spot, he should be blocked/greyed out from being slotted into the parallel spot. Ratings should drive “left vs right” once placed on the depth chart Even if the roster says OT, the moment you highlight a player for LT vs RT, the game should evaluate him differently (attribute weights / archetype fit) and show a projected OVR for that depth-chart role, like it does now. I also think overall shouldn’t show on the roster screen On the roster list, I’d rather see attributes only (or at least hide the overall by default). Overall should be contextual and role-based: the projection should show up when you’re placing a player into a depth chart role (LT, RT, SAM, etc.), because that’s where the weighting actually matters. Proposed plain roster positions (with depth chart staying the same) RB • Covers HB + FB types. You place them at HB/FB on the depth chart based on skill set. OT • Can be placed at LT or RT. If he’s bad at both tackle roles, you might move him to OG during offseason position changes. OG • Can be placed at LG or RG. C • Same as now. DT • Can be a penetrator or NT type. Depth chart can still have DT/NT slots; attributes/body type decide where he fits best. EDGE • Can be 3–4 OLB type or 4–3 DE type. Coverage ratings should matter more for the 3–4 edge types. LB • Can play MIKE/SAM/WILL. Archetype + attributes determine who fits where (ex: Thumper = SAM, Signal Caller = MIKE, Lurker = WILL). CB • Outside CB or NB. S • Can play FS or SS In hybrid defenses like 4–2–5 and 3–3–5, you effectively have two Strong Safeties on the field: • SS1 = STAR (the nickel/overhang safety who plays over slots, fits the run, and is involved in coverage adjustments) • SS2 = WS/Rover (the second “box safety” role on the opposite side, depending on the playbook/formation) I actually like the current system, but EA should clarify this in the UI so casual players understand what they’re investing in when they recruit/develop safeties. A lot of people don’t realize that in these hybrid looks, you aren’t just building “one SS and one FS” — you’re often building two SS-type roles with different jobs, and your roster resources need to reflect that. DB • True utility secondary player (likely ATH types) that can play anywhere in the secondary. (Other positions that aren’t “parallel” can stay basically the same.) Optional: depth chart roles could be refined even more (only if feasible) If EA can handle it cleanly: • Make DE / DT / NT / EDGE real depth-chart roles with different weighting. • Consider SAM as the hybrid edge type for base 3–4. • Make DE the hybrid 5-tech that can play strongside in 4–3 and 5/4i in 3-4. • Make EDGE the main pass rusher archetype (speed/power). If that’s too complicated to implement reliably, then keep the current depth chart system—but the roster simplification + duplicate restrictions is still the main stability win.when in recruiting my controller buttons just stop working
On my PS5 when I'm in recruiting my controller buttons just stop working randomly I have to back out and go back in recruiting to get my controller buttons to work.I thought I would post this because this started after a couple update ago I thought it would have been fixed by now. I just have this problem on this game
College Football 27 Wish List
Teambuilder: A. Offline mode for Teambuilder. B. Customizable Stadiums. C. Customizable Entrances for any stadium. D. I am ok with replacing teams but add ability to ALSO ADD teams. E. Endzone Print for bowl games. F. BRING BACK EDITING TEAMBUILDER PLAYERS!!! Customization: A. Create A Player for online/offline dynasty. There is NO REASON we should not be able to create our own players outside RTG and Teambuilder as a BUYER of the game. We did not create the game. Or as stated above B. BRING BACK EDITING TEAMBUILDER PLAYERS. Removing this was ridiculous!!! They are not real players!! C. Editing recruits in dynasty mode. Note: I get it. NIL is in full effect but there is no reason customization should be this bad! EA cannot be sued for what I do in the comfort of my own home!! Presentation: A. Some sort of College Gameday. B. Better halftime show. C. Celebration on the field after breaking a record. D. Field storming. E. Senior Day on the last home game of the season. F. Senior Game and Spring Game. There are tons others. Those are just my MAIN ones!Recruiting - Expansion and Walk ons
Only being able to recruiting 35 players should be eliminated. Expand the list to a much larger number, enable walk ons for the guys who don’t have scholarship offers, expand the rosters. Limited scholarships is realistic but you should be allowed to scout a much larger number. When guys transfer out you should have the ability to elevate a walk on who could be a developing diamond in the rough.