NEW REBUILD LEAGUE 🔥🔥🔥🔥
🏈 ULTRA COMP REBUILD LEAGUE — CFB 27 🏈 🔥 NEW ONLINE DYNASTY — NOW RECRUITING 🔥 Tired of dynasties where everyone grabs a powerhouse? THIS LEAGUE IS DIFFERENT. ⭐ 2.5-STAR PROGRAMS & BELOW ONLY 👥 42 USER TEAMS 🏆 6 CONFERENCES 🎮 7 USERS PER CONFERENCE ⚖️ Conferences balanced by starting team strength 🔨 NO BLUE BLOODS — BUILD YOUR OWN POWERHOUSE 📈 Recruiting, development & coaching actually matter 🏆 Conference Championships + CFP Race 💬 Organized & Active Discord 🎮 Competitive Long-Term Dynasty CONFERENCES: 🏈 ACC 🏈 BIG TEN 🏈 BIG 12 🏈 SEC 🏈 PAC-12 🏈 AMERICAN THE MISSION: Take a struggling program. Recruit. Develop. Compete. BUILD A POWERHOUSE. 🏆 Every user starts with a program that is 2.5★ prestige OR LOWER. Stronger starting teams are grouped together to keep conferences competitive and balanced. We want ACTIVE USERS who are looking for a long-term dynasty — not users who disappear after one loss. 🔥 BUILD YOUR PROGRAM 🔥 CREATE RIVALRIES 🔥 WIN YOUR CONFERENCE 🔥 MAKE THE CFP 🔥 TURN YOUR REBUILD INTO A DYNASTY Interested? COMMENT “IN” OR DM ME FOR THE DISCORD! 🏆 ULTRA COMP REBUILD 🏆 NO POWERHOUSES. NO EASY ROAD. BUILD YOUR OWN. 🔥Dynasty Bug: Players Losing Redshirt Years & Seniors Disappearing
There appears to be a major Dynasty eligibility bug happening specifically during the Players Leaving stage of the offseason. It is extremely noticeable once you get to that screen. Players are being advanced incorrectly and appear to be losing entire years of eligibility. For example, players who were true freshmen last season and redshirted should be entering the next season as Redshirt Freshmen. Instead, they are showing up as Redshirt Sophomores. That means they are effectively losing an entire season of eligibility. In some cases, it appears players may be losing even more than one year depending on how their class progression is being processed. I noticed the incorrect classifications during Players Leaving, but initially assumed it was just a display issue and would correct itself once the offseason was completed. It did not. The incorrect eligibility/class progression carries forward. There is also another major issue happening at the same time: Senior players are disappearing. Players who should still have eligibility remaining are no longer appearing on the roster after the Players Leaving/offseason progression. This creates a serious problem for Dynasty roster management because redshirts and eligibility directly impact: Recruiting needs Scholarship management Depth-chart planning Position changes Encourage Transfers decisions Long-term roster construction If a true freshman redshirts, he should not suddenly become a Redshirt Sophomore the following season. That defeats the entire purpose of the redshirt system and can shorten a player's career by a full season. Easy way to reproduce/check it Before advancing through Players Leaving, take screenshots of: Your freshmen who redshirted. Their current class/year. Seniors who should still have eligibility remaining. Your roster before advancing. Then compare everything after advancing through Players Leaving and into the next season. The class-year changes are very noticeable. I initially thought the game would correct itself once the offseason finished, which is why I didn't immediately assume it was a major issue. Unfortunately, the incorrect eligibility appears to remain. If anyone else is seeing this, please post examples so we can get more visibility on it. EA, please investigate the eligibility/redshirt progression logic during Players Leaving, as well as senior players unexpectedly disappearing during this stage. This can fundamentally alter a multi-year Dynasty. Attachments below. Kight played as a true freshman. Stumps was a freshman that should be a Redshirt freshman. One is a junior now and the other is a redshirt sophomore
Feature Request: Persuade Players to Follow You to New Job
If you take another head coaching job, it'd be great if you could select players from your previous school's roster to follow you to your new job. This step could happen during the "Players Leaving" week. How I see this working: You have a set limit of players that you can bring with you depending on your coach level / prestige. This could range from 10-20 players for a relatively low-level coach going to a slightly better school, up to the entire roster if you're more highly rated. This could be structured like persuasions where you'd have a better chance of bringing players with you based on NIL, dealbreakers, and coach prestige. Every player on the roster should be targetable for chance to follow you to the new school. If the player accepts, they are automatically added as "committed" to your recruiting board and your needs list updates accordingly. I think this would mirror real life much better and add an additional dynamic element to rebuilding at a new school. Too often I'll take a new job and want to bring a bunch of my star players with me, but only like max 7-8 players from my old team enter the portal – many of which I don't really need or want, or are locked out of due to dealbreakers. Look at the massive roster plunders from North Texas to Oklahoma State or Iowa State to Penn State this past offseason. Many of these teams are now turning over entire rosters in a single offseason, and I'd love to get that type of scenario in CFB. Additionally, the "max transfers" setting of 30 should be bumped way up and probably include the entire roster max of 85, or more if rosters are expanded in the next game.No Difference!!
I USED to love playing Dynasty Mode but now I'm really getting frustrated playing it this season. 1st, doing a rebuild is dang-near out of the question because you can't seem to get anyone unless you mortgage your future on 2-3 recruits! Then, I've noticed that there is NO DIFFERENCE when it comes to players SPEED or OVERALL ABILITIES! You could be playing an inferior team with inferior speed and they can block better than you can, stay with your receivers even with poor awareness and speed, & somehow come up with catches that get picked off when you do the same. I'm not understanding how this is possible if your team is a 90+ OVR and you are playing a 60+ team who somehow is making consistent plays on your offense and defense as if the overalls are reversed. It seems that you have to do all of the work when you call defense and cannot rely on the computer to drop into coverages like they do against you. I am EXTREMELY frustrated with College Football 27! Does anyone feel the same?Almost no East/west playmaker running back recruits
I've mentioned this before but wanted to bring it up again. When recruiting running backs, there are almost zero east west play makers. The very few that do generate are usually grossly undersized. But overall, they are super rare to find. One could also say the same about power rusher edges and defensive tackles, although these pop up slightly more than east west running backs.Dynasty suggestions
Pipeline vs. NIL Money Imbalance Non-pipeline programs (e.g., Indiana) can match a rival’s NIL offer dollar-for-dollar and still lose the recruit purely because of the pipeline multiplier. Two possible fixes: reduce how much the pipeline multiplier swings head-to-head battles without killing its importance entirely, OR raise the NIL ceiling per player (~1.5x current cap, $250K to $400K) so outspending is a real lever, with a real tradeoff since maxing a five-star early limits what you can offer or retain later. Pipelines Should Be Dynamic, Not Permanent Let programs build pipelines through sustained winning/recruiting in a region over time, and let established pipelines decay with losing seasons or transfer portal losses. No team should hold a “golden pipeline” forever. NIL Retention Should Never Hit Zero A player’s retention value can currently drop to $0 the year after signing, which is unrealistic. It should have a floor and decrease gradually/variably (e.g., $250K to $200K), forcing real budget management instead of a free reset. Recruiting Rank Should React More to Performance Prestige shifts quickly (good), but recruiting rank doesn’t punish bad seasons enough. A losing team with no playoff appearance can still finish top-2 nationally in recruiting. Tie the recruiting ceiling more to recent win/loss record and attrition, not just brand. Recruiting Battles Feel Too Uniform Most contested recruits end with every program just maxing their offer, leaving little real strategy around whether a guy is worth maxing out. Open question: is the AD budget/expectations system tuned right, or is it part of why everyone maxes out? Speed Progression Is Too Generous (Roster Inflation) Speed is too easy to develop. Every class bringing in guys who grow to 97-99 speed means 40-50 elite burners after 3 seasons, way more than real CFB has at any given time. Real burners like Reggie Bush, Percy Harvin, and DeSean Jackson were already fast as freshmen, not developed over 4 years. Suggested changes: recruit speed should reflect the ceiling at arrival (a CB shouldn’t come in at 85 and progress to 95+, so scale incoming classes to current roster baselines); cut speed progression gains significantly, roughly 2x the difficulty, treating it like a 40-point investment instead of 20; shift progression emphasis to traits that actually develop irl, like awareness, route running, catching, and hand technique for WRs, or strength, block shedding, and power for DL; and apply the same static-attribute logic used for QB arm strength to QB speed, since dual-threats shouldn’t morph into a different runner archetype over a career. Depth Chart Awareness, Playing Time & Coach “Promise” System Players should react realistically to depth chart position, especially at QB/RB, and opening day starter designation should carry real weight for satisfaction/transfer decisions. Track playing time by percentage of team snaps, not raw counts, since usage varies too much by scheme/game script for raw numbers to be fair. For QB battles, if a mid-season switch happens, the benched QB’s transfer likelihood should rise sharply unless there’s a clear path back to starting, otherwise it should cost real NIL money to retain them. Depth chart “battles” should only trigger dissatisfaction when players are genuinely close in OVR (~4-5 points, adjustable), not when a clear starter is way ahead, and class year should factor in too. Finally, add a coach “Promise” trust meter tied to recruiting pitches like “you’ll start Year 1” — breaking promises should erode credibility and make future promise-based pitches harder to land, while keeping them should build trust and boost pitch effectiveness.