ZoomSlowik

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Aug 9, 2011 -> 02:48 PM) Are any of these favorites being listed from the last 10 years of Simpson's episodes? I recognize most, which is telling and from before I gave up on them because they used to be great. There's pretty much nothing after season 14 (they're on season 23 apparently), and things start unraveling a bit before that.

The Simpsons as long as I can ignore 90% of the episodes after Season 10 or so. As a runner up, South Park doesn't have the same peak quality as the Simpsons but has fewer completely forgettable episodes.

My top 10 in no particular order (several mentioned already) -Homer the Great (Stonecutters) -Homer vs the 18th Ammendment (Beer Baron) -Homer at the Bat (softball) -The Cartridge Family (NRA) -Simpson Tide (Homer in the naval reserve) -King Size Homer (the one where Homer gains weight to get on disability) -Homer and Apu (Homer gets Apu fired) -Treehouse of Horror V (The Shining parody and the dimension-shifting toaster are awesome, could do without the cafeteria one) -A Star is Burns (film festival) -Trash of the Titans (the garbage man can!) Honorable Mention- Hungy, Hungry Homer (Albuquerque Isotopes, made more awesome by the fact that it's an actual team because of this episode)

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Aug 7, 2011 -> 10:24 PM) Ok, got the game today. So is thing going to materialize? I'll start checking up on how many people actually have the game today, though I'd guess we'll need to find a few more people,

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 03:08 PM) Haha, as long as it's not for my team, I love stuff like that, it's so ridiculous that it makes it interesting for me. That's the problem, I'd have to see that thing in person 15-20 times a year.

The all-purple one is painful.

QUOTE (flippedoutpunk @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 08:26 AM) Yeah except its impossible to get a good job offer outside of the school youre already at. I won 5 National titles in a row as Alabamas OC, then i won 3 in a row as Indianas HC, and in the offseason the only team to offer me a HC job was Buffalo, (Chris Carter Voice) Cmon Man!!!!!! I cant play this game until a patch gets released and I saw on the operation sports forums that the Super Linebackers are going to get patched FINALLY! I hate that the only reason the defense is tougher in this years version is because the computer cheats more with super linebackers and psychic DB's that run your receivers routes before your receiver does. That s*** does drive me nuts. I don't have a problem throwing picks if I do something stupid, but I get annoyed when guys in zone coverage jump 6 feet in the air to grab passes intender for receivers at least 5 yards past them or guys that are behind and outside a receiver on a post suddenly end up in perfect position when the ball is in the air. I've gotten to the point where I can throw one INT most games on 30-40 attempts, but still get abused by the coverage every now and then.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 10:21 PM) 1) Ok. 2) Sig. 3) Probably not. At least Mizzou makes geographic sense. 4) I'm still on the fence on buying the game. LOL, I am blind.

QUOTE (chimpy2121 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 09:41 PM) I'm definitely in. My PSN is drunkchimp and I have the game already. I'll take Mich. Just want to throw it out there that I'll be in LA from July 23rd to Aug 1st for the X Games. During that period I will try to keep up on the Dynasty website. We'll see if we're even up and running by then. I'd guess at worst you end up simming a couple of out of conference games and try to recruit from the website.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 10:44 AM) You bastard. If you want in, we could always have you guys play a game online to determine who gets the Buckeyes.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 02:31 AM) Missouri and Northwestern among the first few gone? Sheesh. Good thing I hated the NCAA 12 demo or I'd be pissed. As for the conference thing, can't you move teams as you like within conferences? Wow, can't believe I forgot about that feature. Yeah, I can edit the conference, though I'll only do it in groups of 2 and I'd rather not bring in teams that make zero sense geographically.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jul 14, 2011 -> 11:57 PM) I'd be down, as Missouri, assuming we can't use TeamBuilder teams. Couple of things... 1) At some point, I'll be downloading a roster set. No teambuilder. 2) PSN ID? 3) Any chance you'd take a Big Ten team? I'd like to get as many as possible in conference since it'd require us coming up with some kind of rules on how many human opponents teams from other conferences have to play to make it more fair/fun.

Figured I'd start something seperate from the main video game thread so it's easier to find (yeah, I know it's more of a contest board thing, but no one will see it there). Feel free to discuss any settings in here. I'm kind of a noob to the online league, so I don't know how we want to set things up (difficulty, quarter length, ect). Here's the roster so far with info from the other thread. I'll only move people to the "confirmed" category when everything is filled in. We'll see how this goes, probably need 8 at a minimum to make it interesting. Confirmed Board ID/PSN ID/Have game?/team ZoomSlowik/ZoomSlowik/yes/Northwestern Chimpy/drunkchimp/yes/Michigan Tentative participants SoxBadger/SoxBadger/?/Wisconsin Steve9347/Steve9347/?/NIU? SexiAlexei/Beernut84/?/OSU Quinarvy/Quinarvy_Ethil/?/Missouri? RockRaines/?/?/Minnesota

It seems like the improved the ball awareness in NCAA. I'm throwing WAY more picks than I'm used to.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Jul 11, 2011 -> 01:48 PM) Have you read anything regarding how time consuming and in depth recruiting is in this game? I have always enjoyed the recruiting aspect of these games but in the last couple it has almost been too time consuming during the season. I'd assume it's similar to last year's recruiting since no one has mentioned any major changes. One plus is that with an online league you can do recruiting from a computer, so you can get your recruiting done ahead of time and then just jump on the console to play the actual game.

Also, amazon apparently has a $20 bonus card offer when you order NCAA 12 or Madden 12, and you get a free "starter guide" as well. An even better reason to pick it up so I can kick all your asses online .

QUOTE (SnB @ Jul 11, 2011 -> 11:04 AM) What are the main new features in ncaa/madden this year? Not sure about Madden (the only thing I can find on a quick scan is dynamic player ratings), but NCAA has a few tweaks (keep in mind this is all from what I've read). One is that they added more customized traditions to the game, stuff like Chief Osceola throwing his spear in the turf and Mike the Tiger sitting there on the sidelines. Another is that they seem to have added a ton of customization to the dynasty mode. You can customize the conferences (number of teams, divisions, bowl tie-ins, ect) and they added a coaching carousel feature that lets you play as just a coordinator. Besides just recruiting, you can also sim games against the CPU and advance the week in online dynasties now. The Road to Glory mode is also supposedly beefier. I never really played it in the past, but supposedly you start in high school now and build your reputation. As for gameplay, supposedly the defensive AI is a bit better and receivers actually drop balls instead of snaring everything in their zip code. The reviews seem to say that it's mostly the same experience though. The one thing that changes things greatly is you can build a completely customized playbook.

Any of the PS3 people getting NCAA 12? I'd really love to get into a decent online dynasty. I figured given the leanings of this board, maybe we could fill the Big Ten+2 and have a bunch of online showdowns in conference play. If it happens, obviously I'm in and I'd take Northwestern.

Figure I'll post this before someone else does: Bill Simmons Fixes the Lockout He makes some decent points, but his free agent tier idea is horribly convoluted (though the problem he tries to adress with it is a big one) and he recycled his end of season tournament idea. I REALLY do wish they'd drop the four least-viable franchises from the league, but I doubt they will.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jul 8, 2011 -> 03:19 PM) I was thinking along the lines of the two-way dominant centers you could build your franchise around. Seems like those days are long gone. Part of that is based on the age of most of this board. I'd assume we all started watching the league while guys like Shaq, Hakeem and Duncan were winning titles and Patrick Ewing and David Robinson were dominant as well. But that was also one of the strongest stretches of big men ever. You had four guys that were considered franchise centers in five drafts (Sampson, Olajuwon, Ewing and Robinson, obviously with Sampson getting hurt. Daugherty wasn't a complete bust the other year either.), then you had Shaq while those guys were still at their peak and Duncan at the tail end. That's three top-20 players, two more top-50 and two All-Stars. If you go back and compare it to the era that came post-Russell/Wilt and pre-Hakeem/Ewing, you didn't have a ton of elite "real centers" either. Kareem was WAY better than everyone else. Sure, there were some other big men. Bob Lanier was good, though his teams didn't win much. Bill Walton was a player when he was healthy (468 games in 12 years, yikes). Robert Parish was decent towards the end of that stretch. Outside of them, you had a bunch of guys that didn't have ideal size/bulk to be considered a true center (Moses Malone at 6'10" 215, Cowens at 6'9" 230, Willis Reed at 6'9" 235, Bob McAdoo at 6'9" 210, ect). I think that last part also contributes to our perceptions a bit. Before the 80's or so, someone like Kevin Garnett or Pau Gasol would have been a center no questions asked. Heck, a number of those guys are smaller than Josh Smith. Those kind of elite centers that can dominate on both ends are usually in short supply. Combine that with injury issues for guys like Bynum and Oden that had huge potential, and you get a shallow pool of elite centers. I'd imagine we'll see a strong cycle again at some point in the future.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Jul 8, 2011 -> 02:12 PM) There isn't a single great center prospect in college basketball right now and that include the 2011 class. And while it is obviously very early there doesn't appear to be the next big thing at the center position in either the 2012 or 2013 HS classes either. I guess it depends on how you define "center". Is it based on size? His ability to play through contact? His ability to play with his back to the basket? His ability to defend anyone and dominate the glass? Some combination of criteria? People use different definitions. Some consider Pau Gasol a center because he's frequently played there, while others don't. Tim Duncan has/had all of the typical attributes of a great center, but he's generally considered a PF because that's the lineup the Spurs have typically used. Dwight Howard is considered a center at 6'11" 265 while someone like Blake Griffin is strictly a power forward at 6'10" 251. I would tend to agree that they're aren't many good true centers. However, with the definition shifting as the league moves away from the lumbering brutes combined with with the difficulty in projecting young big men and I'd have a hard time concluding that there aren't any good ones on the horizon. Is Anthony Davis a center if he bulks up to like 250? What about Perry Jones III? He's probably more in the Kevin Garnett mold, but he's already listed at 6'11" 235. Clearly he has the height and length. What about Andre Drummond or Isaiah Austin? Those guys clearly have the tools to get there. It's just so hard to know with young big men, they usually take a while to develop. Plus it seems like a large part of the argument is the semantics of whether a guy is really a center or not. If you're looking for the next Shaq, yeah, it's going to be a while. But there are so many long, athletic big men that eventually you're going to find a few good ones.

I have a very hard time saying they're doing things "in the proper fashion" when they ponied up roughly $25 million a year to Corey Maggette, John Salmons and Drew Gooden last year. Granted other teams have done worse, but those are not smart contracts.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 27, 2011 -> 09:29 PM) Actually, dude who likes to quote and bold things, my point was that JR Smith is incredibly ineffective at putting the ball in the hoop. As nowhere near the focal point of an offense... ever... JR Smith has taken about as many shots as points scored over his career. Scoring 12 points on 10 shots isn't some sort of amazing lights out shooter just creating like Magic Johnson, that's just an inefficient ball player doing what I said he does, inefficiently chucking. Is he an upgrade from what the Bulls had in 10/11? Absolutely. Balta would be an upgrade. However, is JR Smith where the Bulls should aim if they want to win a championship? No way. You're being a bit ridiculous here. No one ever claimed that Smith is some superstar. However, he's extremely talented and may be the best option out of the people that the Bulls could realistcally get. Smith averaged 1.24 points per shot last year. That would have been third on the Bulls, better than Deng and Boozer and only .03 behind basketball god Derrick Rose (#1 is Noah, who doesn't exactly create his own shots). Yes, Rose shoots a lot more. However, not every shot is a good one for him. If he can remove some of those bad shots that he's forced to take right now, it would help his efficiency and in turn the team's offensive efficiency. Smith's ability to hit jumpers, especially from outside would greatly improve their floor spacing and make life easier for Rose. He wouldn't have to force up 25 shots as often and a few more of his passes to wide open shooters would result in assists. Smith also produces those points in relatively few minutes (25 MPG this year, and he averaged 15 when he was playing 28 MPG), so you can still get 20 minutes for your better defensive players. Is he the perfect answer? No, but if you're going to sit here waiting for Kevin Martin to fall into their laps, you're very likely to be disappointed.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 12:34 PM) 8 out of what, a couple of hundred? As I said in the post, I never claimed the odds were good.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 11:15 AM) Let alone what drove me crazy is using the bpa comment against the bulls, when clearly they weren't drafting on need. They didn't need a 7 ft forward, they needed a SG. And all these talks about drafting a sg in 20-32 that could contribute right away is crazy. He'd never see the floor. How many of those players have been great? Eddie Jones? The odds are not in the Bulls' favor, but a sampling of some quality guards that have gone 23rd or later since 2000... Monta Ellis (high school, so not totally fair) Michael Redd Gilbert Arenas Kevin Martin Tony Parker (though may not totally be fair since he was a foreigner) Josh Howard (guard/forward) Mo Williams Aaron Afflalo Whether or not anyone in this brutal draft turns out to be that good is an entirely different story.