Blocking has been one of the most controversial aspects of College Football 26. So much so that several different aspects of run blocking have had to be covered in extreme detail in order to sort of demystify it and make it more effective for players of all skill gaps. However, what if it blocking isn’t the issue? What if, instead of your offensive line not holding up the way it should, it’s the running pathing from the halfbacks that is the problem?
CFB 26 isn’t short of issues, be it with Archetypes or AI playcalling in crucial moments. But bad running back logic might be one of the more frustrating of all. It’s one thing if a running back doesn’t have the ability to make the necessary moves to break off a big run. It’s a whole other issue if they’re frequently sabotaging their own success through poor choices.
An Operation Sports veteran, canes21, has broken down the issues with running back logic in a very analytical way, and honestly, it’s a pretty bad state of affairs.
Running Back Pathing Isn’t Optimized In College Football 26
Just to make sure that the AI-controlled running back had every bit as much of an advantage over the opposition as possible, Cane used Notre Dame’s Jeremiyah Love — the highest-rated RB in the game — in the simulation we’re shown. On Heisman difficulty with the sliders for run blocking at nearly its max, Love is given a dream setup: A clean mesh point, dominant line play, and a wide-open gap straight up the middle. At the second level, blockers are peeling off to handle the linebackers. Everything that this play is designed to do from a blocking perspective has happened to perfection. Then, it happens.
Instead of attacking the hole up the middle and breaking off a run that is good for no less than 7+ yards, Love infuriatingly decides to go elsewhere — more specifically, his AI decides to go straight into the path of disengaged defenders to his right.
Before the AI-controlled Love can realize their puzzling mistake, he’s brought down for a loss of yards. A play that likely should’ve resulted in an easy first down has now resulted in negative yardage.
To make matters worse? This isn’t a case of a runner making a bad decision — it’s commonplace.
This lack of logic appears consistently, and it’s a big reason why the CPU running game can often feel broken. Even elite backs with sky-high attributes aren’t immune to this, making it all the more frustrating, especially for the sim community who want realistic results.
There are likely two main culprits behind this frustrating behavior. First, the CPU running backs don’t appear to prioritize hitting obvious gaps, especially on inside zone runs, even when the plays are designed to hit them. Second, the AI’s threat detection radius may be too wide, meaning it factors in defenders who aren’t realistically in a position to affect the play. This causes backs to essentially get scared of hitting gaps, despite there not being much in the way of a threat.
The “good” news is that this only seems to be affecting inside runs right now — outside runs or toss plays seem to be unaffected. But inside running is a huge part of football, and is a trademark of some collegiate programs out there. And if this system isn’t properly working in CFB 26, then that’s a major problem.
