Currently running a Dynasty with a QB who has decent throwing stats, high agility but low running ability, and terrible throw-on-run. This means he loves to run around in the pocket, but the second he decides to run around, he becomes the worst athlete on the field.

This might be the last snap he ever takes

Prefacing this by saying I'm bad at the game. I play on varsity, don't have time to learn the playbooks and use coach suggestions when I play.

There are a lot of times I use coach suggestions it gives me exclusively rpos that I'm not going to read right and suck with. Are there playbooks that don't use a lot of rpos so they won't show up in my suggestions or is there a setting I can change to get fewer of these?

This is a follow-up to my earlier CFB 27 XP-slider test. The first post asked which broad XP setting best preserved a healthy long-term roster. This follow-up looks more closely at what happens to elite players during offseason turnover and whether position-specific tuning is likely to help.

This is a player-and-AI collaboration. I ran the Dynasties, selected the settings, and preserved the saves. AI helped organize the read-only exports, compare rosters, test alternative explanations, and keep the conclusions tied to the data. I am stating that plainly because the analysis would have taken me an unreasonable amount of time to complete alone.

The short version

The best broad setting we tested was still 250% XP for non-specialists, with kickers and punters at 100%. It brought the Year-5 90+ population close to the Current Roster without obvious Year-10 runaway inflation.

But 250% did not recreate the Current Roster's 95+ tier, senior depth, physical profile, or position balance. The new evidence also suggests that the missing elite-player problem is not only an XP-progression problem.

Across five year-to-year transitions, some 90+ players disappeared from the next visible preseason roster while still existing in the raw save. Six of the missing 95+ players were still present as unassigned juniors. Their ratings did not collapse. We do not yet know whether that unassigned state represents an unsuccessful portal outcome, a temporary offseason state, a roster-processing issue, or another departure path.

What the earlier XP comparison showed

Current Roster means the live/default roster extracted at the beginning of Dynasty Year 1. It is our comparison target, not proof of a perfect long-term design target.

The practical result is that 250% helped preserve the 90+ tier. It did not restore the 95+ tier. That is why I would describe it as the best broad compromise we tested, not as a complete solution.

The physical-rating finding is more specific than “physical collapse”

Matched returning players generally improved. Awareness gained roughly 7 to 9 points per year, while speed gained about 0.3 to 0.4, strength about 0.6, and acceleration about 0.4 to 0.5.

At the league level, the generated roster moved below the Current Roster early and then mostly plateaued. In the 250% test, strength was 67.40 at Year 5 and 67.32 at Year 10. Acceleration was 79.58 at Year 5 and 79.62 at Year 10.

So the data does not show that returning players broadly lose their physical ratings. The better-supported explanation is turnover plus weak physical progression: older players leave, younger replacements enter with a lower physical profile, and the small physical gains of returning players do not fully offset that replacement cycle.

New finding: elite players can remain in the save without a team

Across five consecutive preseason transitions from 2026 through 2031:

• 403 players rated 90+ were absent from the next visible preseason roster.
• 93 of those 403 players, or 23.1%, were still present in the next raw Player table but assigned to no actual team.
• 15 players rated 95+ were absent from the next visible preseason roster.
• Six of those 15 players, or 40%, were still present in the raw save without a team assignment.
• All six unassigned 95+ players were juniors.

The six unassigned 95+ players included Leonard Moore, Jeremiah Smith, Dante Moore, Malachi Toney, TK Keys, and Shakir Moffett. Their stored overall ratings remained high or increased. For example, Jeremiah Smith stayed at 99, Leonard Moore moved from 97 to 98, and Malachi Toney moved from 98 to 99.

This is important because it separates two questions that are easy to combine accidentally:

1. Did the player develop enough? 2. Did the player remain attached to an active team roster?

For these six players, the raw data says the ratings remained high. It does not tell us why the players were not assigned to teams.

What this proves, and what it does not

The data supports an elite-player attrition or placement signal in addition to the progression findings. It does not prove that every missing player entered the transfer portal, that NIL demands caused the issue, that a dealbreaker caused it, or that the CPU ran out of roster space.

The nine other missing 95+ players cannot be classified from preseason snapshots alone. They may reflect early pro departures, another removal path, or an offseason state that requires more detailed checkpoint data.

The same caution applies to community reports. Other players have described highly rated portal prospects receiving no interest and disappearing. That is a useful reason to test the hypothesis, but it is not proof of the mechanism in these saves.

The next useful test

The next useful test is not another blind five-year flat-slider run aimed only at producing another overall number. A focused offseason capture at 100% and 250% XP would answer more important questions first.

At each stage, track every 90+ and 95+ player and capture:

• Postseason roster and player data
• Players Leaving data
• Portal recruiting and resolution data
• The next preseason roster and raw Player table

The goal would be to classify each missing elite player as a confirmed pro departure, confirmed transfer, unassigned player, or unresolved removal. That evidence should come before choosing between a transfer-setting change, a roster-management change, or a position-specific XP adjustment.

For now, the evidence supports 250% for non-specialists and 100% for kickers and punters as the best broad setting tested. It is best described as a practical compromise, not a proven perfect slider set.

Thanks to the community members who raised related transfer-portal concerns and made this branch of testing worth pursuing. The research would not have been possible without the CFB Offline extraction tool and the developer/community work behind it.

Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gIVf3Rq06BkmLL_994eEfgYrvjc6NeybVIhA1f2TqFM/edit?usp=sharing

Year is 2033. 6 max transfers per team, 25% transfer chance.

Trying to get a BCS era feel for rosters where teams actually could stack talent and the top of the sport was really hard to crack. It's led to some interesting results with some teams establishing clear identities. Interestingly, Washington has the exact opposite spread with 96 Offense and 84 Defense.

Am I crazy? Why do I have to fiddle with friggin sliders after every patch. Its not little tweaks.

Across all my dynasties I’ve fallen into the habit of using the same player type for every position, especially on offense. Dual Threat QB, East/West Playmaker RB, Speedster WR, Vertical Threat TE, and so on.

The other day I used my first pure blocker TE that wasn’t just a lineman that I moved over. He had 80 speed and ELITE dev and was actually pretty fun to use. It got me thinking what other Player types have I been neglecting. Does anyone actually use a Gritty Possession WR or TE? Does a North/South Blocker have any value outside of moving them to FB?

What’s your favorite niche type on offense or defense and how do you use them?

As always, it is completely fleshed out, and ready to go right out of the box. Been through about 40-50 hours of testing & tweaking, and watched at least 15 full games on Slow-Sim.

FULL GUIDE : MUSKET

If you’re looking for a fun challenge give this a try!

Rules:
● No NIL allowed to be spent on recruits or roster
● Heisman difficulty
● No redshirting
● Navy Base Option playbook
● No transfers in
● Transfer out set to zero as well (Navy typically has very few transfers out)
● Max 8 transfers out for other teams to keep overall ratings from dropping too much
● No Platinum coach staff/facilities (too overpowered)
● Base sliders
● Casual coach progression

Year 1: 66 OVR — 8-5 record

Year 2: 64 OVR — 11-3 record. Choked away the conference title game and missed out on getting into the playoff. Heisman winner: HB Navy Radden.

Year 3: 69 OVR — 16-1 — NATIONAL CHAMPS! 🏆
Beat Ohio State in the final.Had a dream playoff draw where we didn’t face a team over 82 OVR until the final.

Year 4: 76 OVR — 10-3. Missed the playoffs. The new patch this year made the outside run game significantly harder.

Year 5: 82 OVR — 11-3. Lost @ Oklahoma in the first round of the CFP.

Year 6: 82 Ovr- 16-0 NATIONAL CHAMPS! 🏆 beat LSU in the final. Heisman Winner-(HB-Navy Flinn)-2,740 rushing yards, 1,941 receiving yards, 7 kick return TD’s. 68 total TD’s. Platinum sidestep is unstoppable!

Year 7: 80 ovr- 15-1 lost CFP Final to Ohio State. Heisman winner- (HB-Navy Nwosu)-1,779 rushing, 1215 receiving. 34 total td’s

Year 8: 82 Ovr 16-1 NATTY CHAMPS! 🏆 Went for two with 30 seconds left to take down LSU 32-31. Heisman Winner- (WR- Navy Page) 2,651 rec yards 26 td’s

Year 9: 82 Ovr 16-0 NATTY CHAMPS! 🏆 Beat Oklahoma in the final. Heisman winner- (WR-Navy Page) 2,628 rec yards 39 total td’s

Year 10: 84 Ovr 16-0 NATTY CHAMPS! 🏆 Beat Kansas State in the final. Heisman winner- (Wr-Navy Page) 3,189 rec yards 46 total td’s

The Dynasty is complete 5 titles in 10 years! no NIL spent

I'm in year 4, and my team has gotten pretty stacked and I'm successfully recruiting pretty much whoever I want. This season I targeted any 5* that was interested, plus a handful that weren't but were gems so I pushed for them anyway, and the rest were all 4 star gems (confession: I did some save scumming during scouting just to find gems). I'm in like week 10 I think, and I've already got 8 signings and like a dozen or so more players that I'm leading comfortably on, and I'm at the point where I'm maxing out hours on every guy I want, and there is time left over. Should I just, and leave the time on the board? Or should I find more players? Last season I recruited like 33 or something, and when it got to cut downs I regretted not being able to cut some Freshmen. So should I just stop at like 22 or so?

I am on cfb26 btw. I bought it last year for my wife's system but didn't get an opportunity to play it until now.

To preface: I consistently played Dynasty on PS3 NCAAF 2014 for a decade and I’m still getting plenty of mileage on the 2025 game.

I’m thinking of grabbing a used copy of either 2026/27 and I don’t play online.

Thoughts on the upsides to each? I enjoy getting deep into customization.

All right boys lets hear it! I’m embarrassed but I’ll say it year 2 with UTSA somehow I’m 87 overall was ranked #8 with a 8-1 record and I lost 23-20 to a 1-8 72 overall team. In my defense I’ve had trouble moving the ball on offense all year but this was something else

For some reason the image doesn't post unless I include it twice, but it's the same in both.

No AI was used in the creation of this set.

V4.0 is out

Please read before using the sliders.

This Set is intended for users that play in a "Sim" manner. If you are exploiting the CPU with money plays or some of their known issues, obviously you won't get great results.

Post box scores to backup any complaints, the gameplay varies heavily with this game. A weird, bad quarter can happen. But over the course of a game(s) things should feel good.

Sliders are also heavily dependent on the user and their playstyle. If Running is too easy, lower run blocking. QBs getting sacked too often, raise Pass blocking etc.

These are the values that are working for me, adjust to fit your game.

Below are some explanations for the values and how they help reach the goals of the set, and some answers to common questions.

The Passing Game

I want to see 60-70% completion rates for "good" passers, 70-75% occasionally from great passers, and down into the 50%s for poor passers.

This has been accomplished by the following slider changes:

A lower QB Accuracy slider allows for a few more miss thrown balls, even by the more accurate passers.

The Pass blocking has been increased to reward higher rated Offensive lines. Bad lines still get beat often by better defenders, but teams with good lines can actually give their QBs some extra time. Games where each side has 5+ sacks are more rare, but can still happen. 1-3 is much more common.

WR Catching has been slightly decreased, a previous patch actually made this less necessary, but the goal is to have a few drops, and to help defenders break up some more passes than the default gameplay. This might be placebo, but I also feel like I see a few more bad throws with WR Catching lowered, like the suction that balls have to receivers is lessened or something, idk lol, I don't want unrealistic animations where the guy gets nailed over the middle and comes up with the catch to happen very often.

Pass coverage is still varied, defenders will fight to break up balls, this might be changed in a future update, the patch severely affected man coverage and I'm still dialing in the values.

DPI has been increased slightly so that it can be called more often, but not too high to take away the defenders ability to fight for the ball

The Run Game

While it is a massive improvement over last year's gameplay, the run game on default is still a little too easy for the User to win on offense and defense.

A more balanced run game is achieved through the following changes:

I reworked the Run Game with 2.0 to try and give a more realistic experience for both the User and CPU and that work has continued into 4.0.

For the User, Run Block has been lowered to allow the more passive cpu defense to have a greater change of making plays, but to still allow plays. The User run game varies greatly based on play style and the CPU defensive play calling. If you are seeing unrealistic results, you can lower this as far down as 28-30. The User also "autobreaks" significantly more tackles than the CPU, and is (in most cases) better at finding lanes and out maneuvering defenders, so the CPU Tackling slider at a higher value the the User's to help balance out the running back's ability to make plays.

In 1.0, the CPU was getting realistic stats in the run game, but it was doing so in an unrealistic way. Run blocking was too high, resulting in too many long runs. But, when the CPU ball carrier met a defender, the tackle was usually successful. By lowering tackling we can lower CPU run blocking back down to a value that makes it so that a great front seven can hold their ground better while still allowing realistic stats by the running back based on the match up. In 4.0, I've raised this a little, to avoid plays where a running back or receiver break 5+ tackles, especially against bad defenders. The CPU is still at an advantage, to help balance out their stats, but it is more manageable for the user.

Explanations of Other Settings and FAQs

Speed Threshold - 44

In previous games. I raised this because Speed was too overpowered of an attribute, so raising it helped balance things out. With the changes this year, Slower players have some greater advantages vs Speed, and a raised value leads to TEs, Power Backs, and big receivers being too overpowered. Slightly lowering this helps to reward players for being fast.

Difficulty - All American

This set is designed for maximum realism. I have tested both AA and Heisman difficulties, I have made test sets for both in the process of making this set. To me, Heisman does not feel right. The AI on Heisman feels like they are tuned to force every game to be close. Obviously, you can have blowouts, but it's way more rare than on AA. Bad teams don't give maximum effort on every play in real life. They just want to get through the game. So this set is designed to be very challenging in unequal matchups for the lower rated team. A fair challenge for nearly even rated teams, and should be a little easier for you to beat up on bad opponents. But you can absolutely still be upset if you don't play well, and/or the other team gets some turnover luck.

Wear and Tear
Removed because I've given up on the testing. I don't think there is a way to salvage the system to make it function how it should. You can use whatever values you want for this. Turning the system off will disable injuries, so I just lower the impact ones a little.

Classic Passing and Timing based Catching - OFF
I want the most Ratings based results in my gameplay so I don't want my skills to override what happens on the field. Classic Passing makes it so your players ratings control how accurately the ball is thrown. And I of course do not want WRs to make insanely unrealistic catches because I "Greened" a meter.

"Why is my QB missing wide open throws?"
Because QBs miss wide open throws in real life. If you don't want that to happen, raise the QBA, Blocking, Catching values, or just play on Freshman, just don't complain when you are winning every game by multiple TDs. I'm chasing realistic gameplay, that means the good and the bad. QB's throw incompletions roughly 40% of the time. A large percentage of those are bad throws. If anything I wish we could get more of those vs the number of drops. but it is what it is.

PC player Mod recommendations
I recommend using the CPU Game Management Overhaul mod by Deer. It can be found on the modding discord. It helps the CPU make more analytic based decisions. I am going to test Canes's playbook and decision tree mods (which i think was adapted from Deer's) and will report back.

Final Notes - Sim all Special Teams plays, sliders do little to nothing to help with long punts and FGs.
If importing these from main menu, double check values (DPI/BiB Penalty, Pass Coverage)

OS thread - https://forums.operationsports.com/forums/forum/football/ea-sports-college-football-and-ncaa-football/ea-sports-college-football-sliders/26923842-cfb27-the-ratings-matter-slider-project

Discord - https://discord.gg/ZaffAQRPqq

I have my auto subs set so my guys are usually pretty fresh at all times but, there are alot of CPU no huddle teams and I see my players sub in and out all the time same with the CPU, defeating one of the purposes of using no huddle

I’m considering starting up a dynasty run playing just coach mode, but I’m scared to put all the effort into it just to not enjoy coach mode. I’m really weird and if I start something a certain way I have to either finish it that way or just stop doing it all together.

Convince me whether to play coach mode or not please!

350 yards on 3 completions. The great passing WR in the history of college football. Just gotta cut out those 2 interceptions that came along with my 3 TDs.

Keep up the good work EA!

Why does there not seem to be any progression when it comes to weaker teams becoming better in big conference?

PAC-12 for example

Like i was hoping some teams would randomly become good but most stay in the 70s.

All I see in the CFB playoffs are BYU Ohio Tennessee USC constantly

I’ve had fun playing corner this year. Wondering which team he ends up landing on after the draft? #LSU

This is a player-and-AI collaboration. I ran the Dynasties and preserved the saves; AI
helped organize the read-only exports, compare the rosters, test alternative
explanations, and keep the conclusions tied to the data.

I am being explicit about that because I do not want to imply that I personally
performed every part of the analysis or take credit for work AI helped make possible.
The amount of data would have taken me an unreasonable amount of time to work through
alone, while the process has also helped me learn how to use AI in a practical way for
my job. For me, it is a win-win: I contributed the testing, saves, decisions, and
judgment, and AI made the deeper analysis feasible.

## The short version

If you want one practical XP setting from this test, 250% for non-specialists with
kickers and punters left at 100% was the best broad compromise we tested.

It brought the number of 90+ overall players much closer to the Current Roster than
default 100% XP did. It did not recreate the Current Roster's 95+ tier, senior depth,
physical profile, or position balance.

The bigger takeaway is that XP sliders are only one part of the story. The generated
Dynasty settles into a younger league, awareness grows much more than physical ratings,
and some highly rated players disappear during offseason turnover while still existing
in the save without a team assignment.

## What “Current Roster” means

Throughout this post, **Current Roster** means the live/default roster extracted at the
beginning of Dynasty Year 1. It is our comparison target. It does not mean we proved
that the Year-1 roster is a perfect long-term design target.

The other terms are:

- **100% Control:** default XP settings.
- **Flat 250%:** 250% XP for non-specialists, with K/P at 100%.
- **Targeted XP:** a separate diagnostic run with different XP settings by position. It was used to test positional tuning, not assumed to be the correct final setting.
- **Elite development:** the game's potential label. Elite development does not automatically mean a player is 95+ overall.

## What we tested

We created new post-update Dynasties and stopped them at consistent preseason
checkpoints. The saves were extracted without modifying the original saves.

The main comparison included the Current Roster, a 100% control, flat 250% tests at
Years 5 and 10, and an annual Targeted XP series from the starting preseason through
Year 5. Each roster contained 11,730 players across 138 teams.

## Main results

250% helped preserve the 90+ tier without showing clear runaway inflation by Year 10. It
did not restore the 95+ tier.

## Physical ratings did not collapse player by player

The league averages moved below the Current Roster early, then mostly plateaued. In the
flat 250% test, strength was 67.40 at Year 5 and 67.32 at Year 10. Acceleration was
79.58 at Year 5 and 79.62 at Year 10.

When we matched returning players across annual checkpoints, they generally improved.
Awareness gained roughly 7 to 9 points per year, while speed gained about 0.3 to 0.4,
strength about 0.6, and acceleration about 0.4 to 0.5.

So “physical collapse” is not an accurate description of what we can prove. The better
description is a **league-level physical decline caused by turnover and weak physical
progression**. Returning players usually did not lose speed or strength, but their small
physical gains were not enough to offset the departure of older players and their
replacement by a younger population with a lower physical profile.

## The league becomes younger

The total roster count stayed at 11,730. The composition changed instead.

This explains part of the change in league averages. It does not explain everything,
because class-standardized comparisons still found lower strength, acceleration, and
jumping in the generated league.

## A second possible source of elite-player loss

While reviewing the annual Targeted XP saves, we tracked players who were 90+ overall
and checked whether they appeared in the following preseason roster. This revealed a
separate signal from the progression results.

Across five year-to-year transitions:

- 403 players rated 90+ disappeared from the next visible preseason roster.
- 15 players rated 95+ disappeared from the next visible preseason roster.
- Six of those 15 95+ players were still present in the next save's raw Player table but had no actual team assignment.
- All six of those unassigned 95+ players were juniors.
- Several of them retained or increased their overall rating, including Jeremiah Smith (99 to 99), Leonard Moore (97 to 98), and Malachi Toney (98 to 99).

This matters because it means the lack of elite players cannot automatically be
described as an XP progression problem. Some players may be developing normally and then
being lost during the offseason departure, transfer, or replacement process.

However, this is where we need to be precise. We have **not** proven that these players
entered the transfer portal, were rejected because of NIL demands or dealbreakers, or
were removed by a specific roster rule. The other nine 95+ absences were not
classifiable from preseason saves alone. They could involve pro departures or another
removal path.

This question was partly prompted by a report from **catcatcat1** on the EA Forums
describing highly rated College Football 27 transfer-portal players receiving no
interest and disappearing. That report helped identify a worthwhile branch to test, but
it is community evidence, not proof of what happened in our saves: [EA Forums: Transfer
Portal Logic
Bugs](https://forums.ea.com/discussions/college-football-27-discussion-en/transfer-portal-logic-bugs/13532245)

## Position balance is a separate problem

Position-specific XP changes did not restore the Current Roster's positional ratios. The
generated league had materially different position supply, including fewer tight ends,
centers, defensive tackles, and free safeties, and substantially more LOLBs in the
Targeted XP series.

XP sliders can change progression. They cannot directly control how many players the
game generates at each position. That means there may not be one slider setting that
makes every position match the Current Roster.

## What other post-patch testing is finding

After this project, I compared our results with several recent community tests. The
details differ, but the broad pattern is similar: testers are finding that flat XP
settings do not affect every position equally.

One recent position-by-position study described 100% as too slow for some groups and
200% or 300% as too aggressive for others. Its proposed settings were lower for QB, HB,
WR, and CB, and higher for TE, interior offensive line, edge, defensive tackle, and
linebacker groups. Another recent test used 200% as a starting point, then pushed
slower-developing positions such as TE, C, Edge, MLB, FS, and SS higher while keeping WR
and some other positions lower.

These are community experiments, not controlled confirmations. Some measured team
overall or visible 90+ players rather than the full player-level distributions we
measured. They are still useful because they independently point toward the same next
question: position-specific tuning may be more sensible than applying one flat number
everywhere.

The patch date matters. Pre-patch CFB 27 recommendations should not be treated as
directly comparable to post-patch tests. The most useful outside comparisons are the
recent post-patch studies, especially those that simmed multiple seasons and reported
their targets instead of presenting a slider set as a universal answer.

## What we can and cannot conclude

The data supports these conclusions:

- Default 100% XP produces too few 90+ players by Year 5 compared with the Current Roster.
- Flat 250% is the best broad setting tested for maintaining the 90+ population.
- The physical difference appears early and then largely stabilizes instead of declining forever.
- Awareness improves much faster than physical ratings for matched returning players.
- The generated league becomes younger and has fewer seniors.
- Position supply and player attrition are separate from XP progression.
- Some missing elite players remain in the raw save without a team assignment.

The data does not yet support these claims:

- The game is definitely bugged.
- The CPU definitely favors cheap awareness upgrades.
- Every missing elite player entered the transfer portal.
- NIL, dealbreakers, or board limits definitely caused the unassigned players.
- The Current Roster is or is not intentionally curated to be more exciting.

## What remains to test

The next useful test is not another blind five-year sim. It is a focused one-offseason
capture at both 100% and 250% XP, followed by one carefully chosen position-specific
test based on the community ranges and our own position-level results.

We need saves at Postseason, Players Leaving, portal resolution, and the next Preseason.
At each point, we would track every 90+ and 95+ player and export the raw player,
leaving-process, recruiting-board, and portal-interaction data. That should separate
confirmed pro departures, confirmed transfers, unassigned players, and unresolved
removals.

Until that is done, the responsible conclusion is that we found an elite-player
attrition signal, not that we solved the transfer portal.

The practical next step is therefore not to declare one community slider set “correct.”
It is to test whether a conservative position-specific set can improve the weak groups
without creating runaway 90+ inflation in the positions that already progress well. The
most important comparison is not just total 90+ players; it is 90+/95+ counts by
position, class mix, physical ratings, and the number of players who remain unassigned
in the raw save.

Thanks to the community members who raised related transfer-portal concerns and gave us
a direction worth testing. This project started with community questions, and the goal
is to make the data useful for anyone else trying to reproduce or challenge it.

Link to Google Drive File with additional info: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WImmo3FWve3NPANd02n92z3gxObJ_6if/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=112552570073949931682&rtpof=true&sd=true

Besides the buggy gameplay, wide open receiver’s dropping balls, and RBs running into clogged running lanes I’ve also noticed if you fumble or throw an INT but there’s a penalty it still counts. What a joke.

At the start of year 6 in my Dynasty, Ohio State is spending 7,735 points on roster NIL. What’s the most you’ve seen a school spend on NIL?

So was wanting to do a Off-Line dynasty play through with one of the service academies. Now with play through with other G6 school its been difficult to keep players due to NIL. Now for service academy players they dont get to just leave school for one and two they arent getting paid. Seen how people have solved the players leaving for NIL problem by turning players leaving chance for user teams to zero. Players on CPU teams can still leave.

So obviously the service academies dont use the portal so thats another easy house rule to follow. And they dont go after anyone over 3 stars. And the players they go after would have to asking for zero NIL, that includes QBs which rarely do you find a 3 star QB wanting zero NIL.

What Im looking for are some more house rules to possibly use, whether its weight restrictions on OL and DL, QB can't ever have more than 90 throw power, no fully scouted players, required playbooks, player type i.e. Blocking TEs only, no speedster WR.

I was also planing to make it difficult that any CPU game where its a ranked opponent vs non-ranked that the ranked team would get a forced win. Just so that its more difficult to get ranked as one of the service schools.

Ranking difficulty of the job Air Force seems the hardest due to being in the MWC where Army and Navy being in the American seem to have the easiest shot towards CFP for highest ranking G6. Only because it seems like the game favors the AAC ad the top G6 conference and best conference Prestige grade.

Edit: Auto progression turned on for players, so no way to prevent the CPU from spending skill pts on dumb upgrades.