PDA

View Full Version : NCAA Football 13 Dynasty Mode Recruiting Discussion Thread



cdj
07-12-2012, 07:53 AM
A new place for general recruiting talk, discussion, tips, questions, etc.

Jeremy
07-14-2012, 09:23 AM
This year if you're a small program it actually pays to have a large board and spread your time out because the more topics you spend on a recruit the more likely you are to actually start costing yourself points. I'm playing a dynasty with Middle Tennessee right now, and I pretty much just focus on the 2-3 pitches I have that aren't D's. A pitch with a D grade is going to net you minimal points at best.

Just my observation so far.

JeffHCross
07-14-2012, 12:00 PM
But a D combined with a Very High or Most can still get you some points that are useful. You're right though that focusing the non-D pitches is a good idea though.

jaymo76
07-14-2012, 12:47 PM
Okay, I did a taboo... with some of the credit I had left on PSN I used my 20% discount to buy "recruiting advisor" for $2.95. I hate buying something I consider should be free (and it should be free!!!) but I have to admit, it's a nice little addition. You get to see some "insider" info on from one to three people per week. It's not over powering and it's not a sure thing but it is a nice touch. Has anyone else purchased it?

jolson88
07-14-2012, 12:55 PM
I find that Prospect's Choice is good for small schools as well since it nets you bonus points that help offset the lower value of the D pitches. It definitely seems easier to sign a bunch of recruits in-season when you can choose the pitches this year. I recently signed around 20 recruits during the in-season recruiting (and could have gotten more if more were interested in my program).

I also love scouting. Several times now I've dropped a 3* to recruit a 2* as his stats were better, while the 3* was a best. The problem I'm having now is that I'm trying not to convince myself that the computer is "out against me" on a recruit when all my A/B/and most C pitches for me are "Low", "Very Low", or "Least" with the recruit. It's like the computer is saying "nope, no matter how hard you try, you are NOT getting this recruit." LOL, but I know that's not the case :P.

I usually start the reason with around 25 prospects on board, but due to scouting and "poor pitch matches", will get it down to 9-12 core recruits I'm going after by Week 2 or Week 3.

Note: I'm doing a dynasty with UTSA and have them up to a B-/B roster and a five-star prestige program :).

jolson88
07-14-2012, 12:59 PM
Okay, I did a taboo... with some of the credit I had left on PSN I used my 20% discount to buy "recruiting advisor" for $2.95. I hate buying something I consider should be free (and it should be free!!!) but I have to admit, it's a nice little addition. You get to see some "insider" info on from one to three people per week. It's not over powering and it's not a sure thing but it is a nice touch. Has anyone else purchased it?

I'm trying to explicitly stay away from the accelerators this year (like Max Training or Extra Pipeline Stsate as well). Even when I had Recruiting Advisor last year, I never found it all that useful. Since I keep my board focused (around 9-12 recruits focusing at a time), I don't get any value from it. I'm going to find out everything the recruiting advisor was going to tell me. The "interested recruits" one I find especially useless as last year it always showed me some 4 or 5 star guy where I was practically in last place in interest and the top schools were so far ahead there was no hope of signing him even if I wanted to.

souljahbill
07-14-2012, 02:23 PM
Okay, I did a taboo... with some of the credit I had left on PSN I used my 20% discount to buy "recruiting advisor" for $2.95. I hate buying something I consider should be free (and it should be free!!!) but I have to admit, it's a nice little addition. You get to see some "insider" info on from one to three people per week. It's not over powering and it's not a sure thing but it is a nice touch. Has anyone else purchased it?

I bought it too. I had it the last 2 years as a pre-order bonus from Wal-Mart. It's the only "helper" DLC I can justify to myself. It's most helpful in unlocking pitches and finding recruits. I've signed more then a few extra players that I had no idea was interested due to it so I'm probably on the hook for it from here until eternity.

GRolfes
07-15-2012, 09:55 AM
Are these addons only good for the dynasty you purchase them in? Can't find the info anywhere, but I would hope they would still be there if I wanted to start a new dynasty.

souljahbill
07-15-2012, 10:11 AM
Are these addons only good for the dynasty you purchase them in? Can't find the info anywhere, but I would hope they would still be there if I wanted to start a new dynasty.

They effect all dynasties once purchased.

JeffHCross
07-15-2012, 07:54 PM
Looks to me like the "bonuses" (X2 at least) still exist, but there's no visual cue that you've received one. During one of the calls I noticed I was getting a "Recruiting Advisor" bonus that was equal to the amount I was otherwise adding up ... clearly that's the X2 bonus. But there's no tell-tale X2 icon that shows any more.

jolson88
07-15-2012, 09:50 PM
Looks to me like the "bonuses" (X2 at least) still exist, but there's no visual cue that you've received one. During one of the calls I noticed I was getting a "Recruiting Advisor" bonus that was equal to the amount I was otherwise adding up ... clearly that's the X2 bonus. But there's no tell-tale X2 icon that shows any more.

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but my guess is that this is on purpose. I'm thinking that doing so (making it more "hidden") increases the value of buying that particular accelerator in the first place. Last year, it didn't seem all that great to me (then again, I make all the calls myself every week).

baseballplyrmvp
07-15-2012, 10:16 PM
Call me a conspiracy theorist, but my guess is that this is on purpose. I'm thinking that doing so (making it more "hidden") increases the value of buying that particular accelerator in the first place. Last year, it didn't seem all that great to me (then again, I make all the calls myself every week).

makes sense to me. you're probably right.

JeffHCross
07-15-2012, 10:36 PM
Call me a conspiracy theorist, but my guess is that this is on purpose.Oh, I absolutely think it's on purpose. I posted it here so people would be aware that it has seemed to disappear. I don't think it's a bug/glitch at all :D

jaymo76
07-15-2012, 10:39 PM
Looks to me like the "bonuses" (X2 at least) still exist, but there's no visual cue that you've received one. During one of the calls I noticed I was getting a "Recruiting Advisor" bonus that was equal to the amount I was otherwise adding up ... clearly that's the X2 bonus. But there's no tell-tale X2 icon that shows any more.

With the recruit advisor I see the X2 to the right of the player BEFORE I speak with him. I don't know if you only see it with recruit advisor or not though. Either way, it is very small and well hidden.

JeffHCross
07-15-2012, 10:46 PM
I'll keep an eye out, Jaymo. I didn't think to look until I noticed the bonus, so maybe that's the key.

JeffHCross
07-17-2012, 10:07 PM
Looks to me like the "bonuses" (X2 at least) still exist, but there's no visual cue that you've received one. During one of the calls I noticed I was getting a "Recruiting Advisor" bonus that was equal to the amount I was otherwise adding up ... clearly that's the X2 bonus. But there's no tell-tale X2 icon that shows any more.Pretty sure that the visual cues are totally gone, unless you have the Accelerator. If this year's system kept all of the bonuses (and the system of giving you one per week) from last year's game, I should have had a "Pink Diamond" this week, but could not find any Pink Diamond recruit in the list. I would imagine that he was there, I just couldn't see. Would love to be proven wrong though.

buckeye02
07-24-2012, 01:23 AM
Recruiting is way too easy for top programs. Even on Heisman difficulty. I try to be realistic as possible and not over sign the amount of seniors and potential early entry juniors i have on my roster.

I wanted to go through a dynasty not having to cut scholarship players. The scouting really helps with this because you basically know what you're getting before you offer a schollie. Just something i follow to make it more challenging for top level programs.

jaymo76
07-24-2012, 12:12 PM
I am really struggling with the GEM/BUST concept. I am recruiting a 4 star who was rated at 78 but after scouting he is considered a BUST as he fell to 69. However, I am also scouting a gem at the same position who is a two star but now rated as a 61. Even though the higher ranked guy is considered a bust he is still higher than the two star and I suspect will progress more over four years. Now if the 4 star drops in rating during his career that's a different story but in dynasty mode players only progress, not regress.

JeffHCross
07-24-2012, 11:51 PM
The GEM/BUST is relative to their original estimated rating. I don't believe it's anything more than that. So the fact that a :2star: is anywhere close to :4star: does fit the concept. It's not designed to say that a GEM is always worth more than a BUST.

souljahbill
07-25-2012, 05:43 AM
The Gem/Busts system is what makes recruiting kinda easy this year. The CPU stays away from high busts, making it easy for a small school to swoop in and grab 'em.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

gschwendt
07-25-2012, 09:07 AM
Gem/Bust should be labeled underrated/overrated instead.

SmoothPancakes
07-25-2012, 09:16 AM
Gem/Bust should be labeled underrated/overrated instead.

Yep. I will take a 69 OVR 4-star "bust" over a 61 OVR 2-star "Gem" any day of the week.

souljahbill
07-25-2012, 09:17 AM
Gem/Bust should be labeled underrated/overrated instead.

Yeah, I remember saying that too when it was first discussed but it was too late to change the labels.

thirtydaZe
07-25-2012, 09:59 AM
I have a 4 star G, after scouting 100% he's lost, i believe 8 points, and has fallen into the 60's OVR. I don't really need him on my team, but am going to keep him on my board and just throw a couple hours at him per week, since i'm #1 on his list of schools.

Am i to believe that his rating has taken all the hit it's going to ever if he winds up on my team, or is the bust part of the equation, he'll never progress, progress slow, or even regress?

gschwendt
07-25-2012, 10:09 AM
I have a 4 star G, after scouting 100% he's lost, i believe 8 points, and has fallen into the 60's OVR. I don't really need him on my team, but am going to keep him on my board and just throw a couple hours at him per week, since i'm #1 on his list of schools.

Am i to believe that his rating has taken all the hit it's going to ever if he winds up on my team, or is the bust part of the equation, he'll never progress, progress slow, or even regress?
Pretty much just the OVR drop determines the bust portion. He'll still progress as usual, it's just that he comes onto campus lower rated that initially projected.

jolson88
07-25-2012, 02:49 PM
The Gem/Busts system is what makes recruiting kinda easy this year. The CPU stays away from high busts, making it easy for a small school to swoop in and grab 'em.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Clever, I hadn't thought about taking advantage of that before.

Lohusker
07-25-2012, 03:46 PM
I'm enjoying the new recruiting so far, definitely more time consuming though. I wish they let you choose which attributes you would like to scout, but maybe that would make it to easy. I really messed up my first pre-season as I didn't know how much of the initial scouting time allotment to use - I wasn't sure if it gave you more time each week, or if that original 20 hours (or whatever it was) was it. I left a lot of hours on the table and it took me a good 7 or 8 weeks to catch up and get everyone on my board scouted a decent %.

I'm still not done my first season. I assume the recruiting rankings are based on their original overall/star-rank and not the scouted amount? Might be cool if they did a post-ranking once recruiting season is over based on the corrected values (kind of like when Rivals updates their rankings one last time when the season starts based on commits that actually qualified and made it to campus, etc.).

jaymo76
07-25-2012, 07:23 PM
Yeah that 69 QB bust... he was NEVER offered a scholarship by me or the cpu. throughout the entire season. I have looked for him on other teams but have not found him yet. Maybe he wasn't signed?

JeffHCross
07-26-2012, 10:36 PM
The Gem/Busts system is what makes recruiting kinda easy this year. The CPU stays away from high busts, making it easy for a small school to swoop in and grab 'em.Haven't proven it quite yet, but I'm definitely operating under the suspicion that the CPU stays away from busts, period.

AustinWolv
07-27-2012, 10:38 AM
I appreciate the CPU staying away from the #2 ranked C in the land because he was considered a "bust" with a 75 overall rating. :)

gschwendt
07-27-2012, 10:42 AM
Yeah... it's a problem. The #2 player in the country, #1 G is a -7 after scouting (coming in at 82 OVR), is only being recruited by two user teams. Wisconsin, his home state team, isn't even giving him the time of day.

morsdraconis
07-27-2012, 10:43 AM
:smh:

JeffHCross
07-27-2012, 06:42 PM
Yep. Not surprised.

Unfortunately, that probably means that the players I'm going after right now that the CPU has left untouched are going to all be busts. And they didn't start high enough to afford to be busts :D

jaymo76
07-27-2012, 08:01 PM
I don't think the cpu is offering enough scholarships for cpu controlled teams. I was just looking at a number of 5 stars and while most have 10 interested teams, on average there are only 1-2 teams offering scholarships. These FIVE STAR STUDS should have a half a dozen scholarship offers at minimum.

JeffHCross
07-27-2012, 08:16 PM
The CPU has always been extremely conservative about its scholarship offers, versus the number of players it keeps on its board. You can see this on your own team if you leave Recruiting Assistance on. I think part of the reason is because of the problem we've had in years past where the CPU will offer scholarships to five QBs and sign them all. That's my guess, anyway.

JeffHCross
07-27-2012, 11:09 PM
There must be a limit to how many points can be gained in a given week. It's the only explanation for some of the results I'm seeing.

Example: In Week 5 I gained 514 points on my call, and negative recruited the #2 team for -97. I also brought the recruit in for a visit and received a A+ rating. Going into the week I trailed by 20. After the week, I was up by 40. The other possibility is that going from 0 to +1 takes a lot more than 1 point, which is actually in line with the results I saw in previous games (seems like "0" is the new "-1").

JeffHCross
07-27-2012, 11:28 PM
Is anybody else having any success with Swaying pitches this year? I'm 0-fer.

gschwendt
07-28-2012, 07:01 AM
Is anybody else having any success with Swaying pitches this year? I'm 0-fer.
Yes. I'd say about in line with results from previous years.

souljahbill
07-28-2012, 07:47 AM
Is anybody else having any success with Swaying pitches this year? I'm 0-fer.

When I had my "practice dynasty" I had the usual amount of success. These kids are stubborn though and when you do finally sway, I don't think you get enough points for it.

AustinWolv
07-28-2012, 02:01 PM
Sways are working for me, on par or at least not much less than previous versions.


There must be a limit to how many points can be gained in a given week. It's the only explanation for some of the results I'm seeing.
Explain what you mean a different way please.

baseballplyrmvp
07-28-2012, 05:13 PM
edit....meh...forget it.

psusnoop
07-28-2012, 05:29 PM
Have you guys noticed that when recruiting from the console and you make a promise you get the integrity points included in your overall call total but when recruiting from web you do not get those points?

Someone else try this please and tell me I'm not crazy lolol.

gschwendt
07-28-2012, 05:34 PM
Have you guys noticed that when recruiting from the console and you make a promise you get the integrity points included in your overall call total but when recruiting from web you do not get those points?

Someone else try this please and tell me I'm not crazy lolol.I'm fairly certain you still get the integrity points from the web. I've only recruited from the web this year and I'm fairly sure I'm still getting all of the same points.

JeffHCross
07-28-2012, 06:08 PM
Sways are working for me, on par or at least not much less than previous versions.Glad to hear it. I just be hitting a cold streak then (or there's some other factor at play, like low integrity or something like that.) I haven't seen a single Sway succeed this year.

Explain what you mean a different way please.Well, without knowing exactly how many points the CPU is getting in a week, it would be utterly impossible to prove (and since we're playing Heisman recruiting, it's possible that the CPU is getting more points per call than usual, I don't have a clue how that works). But if I get 800 points in a call, plus -200 on the #2 team, I should have a net gain of 1000 points over the #2 team, minus whatever they gained on their own in the week. I don't think I'm getting credit for all 1000, regardless of how much the #2 is earning in that week.

There are obviously other factors, like the bonus points you may (or may not, it could have changed) get for a player being on your board. Points for a successful visit. Etc, etc.

Suffice to say, I think I'm hitting some maximum-per-week and getting short changed.

jaymo76
07-28-2012, 06:21 PM
Overall I am pleased to say that the recuiting, perhaps a little easier this year, has for the most part been enjoyable. I was worried that scouting built into recruiting would make things too LONG but overall I have been pleased with the balance. I am also very happy that I purchased (though I still hate myself for it :D ) the recruiting advisor as he has helped provide insight into a few things I may have missed.

JeffHCross
08-05-2012, 12:44 AM
Has anyone figured out where to view your Coach Integrity, other than the point value given when you make a promise? In previous years you could tell by how many promises you had available, and I think on the Promises screen itself.

baseballplyrmvp
08-05-2012, 02:26 PM
its way too easy to break into a top recruit's top 10. i know they focused on making it easier this year, but c'mon, it shouldnt take only 2 weeks before i'm one of the top schools for a 5* wr, especially if i'm playing as 2* :hawaii:. the top recruits in the country also need to be sought after way harder by the best programs. it makes ZERO sense for the top recruits, year in and year out, to only be getting 0-4 scholarship offers. the top recruits need to be getting at least 5-10 scholarship offers right off the bat, within the first 3 weeks of the season. this would make it harder to hoard the top talent year in and year out in dynasties, and would help the cpu remain a competitor. :nod:

this might just be me, but staying with the idea of getting the cpu to be more competitive, they should lower the number of recruits that are shown in the recruiting database to around 2000 instead of near 2600. this would make the cpu fight for recruits more amongst themselves, but it'd also make better use of the entire recruiting database. the game generates walk-on players anyways, so there are ways to get cpu teams to continually stay at a 60-70 man roster. they just wont always get a full class of players with a star rating. an additional benefit of lowering the number of recruits available, would be that it would severely lower the ability for human players to oversign and signing a full 25 man class every year- even when they dont need to. :troll:

i love the scouting feature, but it wasnt done right. instead of having a completely random listing of grades, and then scouting them to find out their actual ratings, the non measurable ratings should have been hidden from you and then have to be scouted to find out what they were. i'd like to be able to pick which individual ratings i'd like to scout on ncaa14, maybe even making it so you had to scout a rating several times before you got to his actual number at that rating.

gems and busts also are not slapped on a player during his recruiting process. gems and busts only refer to how well/bad the recruit has progressed in his career while at your school. you dont find out if he's a gem or bust when he hasnt even completed his senior year of high school yet. :eyeroll:

ctk989
09-14-2012, 02:57 PM
I like the improvements over last year, however I would like to see teams not always given 25 scholarships every year. I think the rosters should expand to the real life # of 85 and teams have to manage that rolling # instead of being given 25 scholarships and having to cut people. Thoughts?

gigemaggs99
09-16-2012, 10:07 AM
I like the improvements over last year, however I would like to see teams not always given 25 scholarships every year. I think the rosters should expand to the real life # of 85 and teams have to manage that rolling # instead of being given 25 scholarships and having to cut people. Thoughts?

I've never understood how the AI does recruiting it will fill up the board with 35/35. I usually only have around 18-20, I give them all a scholarship and within a year or 2 of being at the program I don't need to cut players anymore. I really don't see the point of spending hours and weeks recruiting a 40ish rated player only to cut him in the off-season b/c I have 3 other players at that position with MUCH higher ratings.

jaymo76
09-16-2012, 12:31 PM
I've never understood how the AI does recruiting it will fill up the board with 35/35. I usually only have around 18-20, I give them all a scholarship and within a year or 2 of being at the program I don't need to cut players anymore. I really don't see the point of spending hours and weeks recruiting a 40ish rated player only to cut him in the off-season b/c I have 3 other players at that position with MUCH higher ratings.

With only having 70 roster spots recruiting up to 25 players a few years in is just a waste. All you end up doing is cutting decent players and having a stacked team. Plus the players you cut are then erased from existence. They should appear on other teams. Recruiting has made some huge strides but do to roster limitations, after about five seasons with a programme I just let the cpu take over.

baseballplyrmvp
09-16-2012, 01:14 PM
part of the problem with cpu recruiting, is that it doesnt effectively manage their team needs. if they need a fullback, for example, they'll target 3 fullbacks, which isnt bad, but after one of those fullbacks sign, the cpu either wont remove them from their board or will continue to recruit the other 2 fullbacks. this is why we get stories every year of seeing teams with 9 quarterbacks on their team, or 7 total offensive linemen, 4 kickers, etc.

they also wont remove players that have committed to other teams from their recruiting baord; and since they fill up their recruiting board with 35 players in the preseason/week 1, its impossible for them to go after new targets. the cpu teams also dont give out scholarships early enough or fast enough, based on all american recruiting. i continue to see the top recruits in the country not getting scholarship offers from top programs 10 or more weeks into the season. there's no "philosophy" or "mentality" with the cpu to get as many points as possible; it doesnt treat recruiting like the point race that it is. its just a combination of poor recruit management and poor recognition to get points by the cpu.

JeffHCross
09-18-2012, 06:35 PM
part of the problem with cpu recruiting, is that it doesnt effectively manage their team needs. if they need a fullback, for example, they'll target 3 fullbacks, which isnt bad, but after one of those fullbacks sign, the cpu either wont remove them from their board or will continue to recruit the other 2 fullbacks. this is why we get stories every year of seeing teams with 9 quarterbacks on their team, or 7 total offensive linemen, 4 kickers, etc.
+1.

I will disagree about removing signed players from the board. They do that (but they may not do it efficiently). They definitely remove signed players at some point though.

(Disclaimer: Based on NCAA 11. Haven't had enough time with NCAA 13 to confirm/deny)

I will also disagree, slightly, about the scholarship offers not resembling real life. I agree that they do not. But, as far as I'm aware, in real life there is no harm in Central Missouri State sending a scholarship offer to DGB. (They didn't, but, y'know). Beckham could get 20 offers, and probably the majority of those coaches thought there was at least a chance, maybe a snowball's chance, but a chance nevertheless, that they could sign him. In real-life, it only takes one good phone call, one good visit, or whatever, to convince someone to take a job offer. I imagine it's largely the same with recruiting. Obviously that type of circumstance is rare ... but I think if 20 CPU teams offered the #1 WR in NCAA 13, then at least 10, probably 15 or more of those teams would be wasting a scholarship offer.


I've never understood how the AI does recruiting it will fill up the board with 35/35. I usually only have around 18-20The AI might have 35 on their board, but they're not actively recruiting all of them. A decent amount are just extra guys on the board.

baseballplyrmvp
09-18-2012, 09:06 PM
I will disagree about removing signed players from the board. They do that (but they may not do it efficiently). They definitely remove signed players at some point though.

if they do remove them, its definitely not immediately after they commit to a school. i'll have to test it again, but i thought i checked this at one point on '12, and i saw a committed player to another school stay on my board for 4 weeks after he committed.


I will also disagree, slightly, about the scholarship offers not resembling real life. I agree that they do not. But, as far as I'm aware, in real life there is no harm in Central Missouri State sending a scholarship offer to DGB. (They didn't, but, y'know). Beckham could get 20 offers, and probably the majority of those coaches thought there was at least a chance, maybe a snowball's chance, but a chance nevertheless, that they could sign him. In real-life, it only takes one good phone call, one good visit, or whatever, to convince someone to take a job offer. I imagine it's largely the same with recruiting. Obviously that type of circumstance is rare ... but I think if 20 CPU teams offered the #1 WR in NCAA 13, then at least 10, probably 15 or more of those teams would be wasting a scholarship offer.

i understand, but its just absolutely retarded to be seeing so many 4 and 5* players not getting scholarships at all. when was the last time you heard of a 5* wr getting ZERO schollie offers going into week 14 of the season? i'm not saying that the recruit should have 50 offers, but i think every 5* player should be getting at least 5 schollie offers (whether they're from the little sisters of the poor or from the top schools in the country.)

i know i made a big deal about it last year, but i still think that a recruit's hidden potential is given too much weight in how he's ranked. i shouldn't be seeing 5* wr's with C+ speed, even if he has jerry rice's hands. there needs to be a way bigger emphasis on the talent of each player (especially speed, acceleration, agility), when it comes to how they're ranked. potential should barely account for anything in the player's star caliber.


The AI might have 35 on their board, but they're not actively recruiting all of them. A decent amount are just extra guys on the board.

iirc, from the recruiting advisor reports, the top schools only talk to about 12-15 players per week (based on ncaa11). i thought that they spent an hour on their top 5, and then 40-50 minutes for the remainder of the time.

IBI
09-19-2012, 11:17 AM
Can anyone explain the differences in recruiting difficulties? Are there fewer promises available? Fewer points per pitch? or does the cpu just smarter at higher levels? Ideas.

JeffHCross
09-19-2012, 07:21 PM
i understand, but its just absolutely retarded to be seeing so many 4 and 5* players not getting scholarships at all.Agreed. This problem was exacerbated in NCAA 13, because of the GEM/BUST feature, because now the CPU basically ignores any bust, regardless of OVR. At least that's what it seemed like. I think the simplest answer there is that the CPU is privy to information we're not, and they're basing their assessment of the player on that information. That's my read of it at least.


there needs to be a way bigger emphasis on the talent of each player (especially speed, acceleration, agility), when it comes to how they're ranked. potential should barely account for anything in the player's star caliber.Agreed.

iirc, from the recruiting advisor reports, the top schools only talk to about 12-15 players per week (based on ncaa11). i thought that they spent an hour on their top 5, and then 40-50 minutes for the remainder of the time.Sounds about right to me, based on what I've seen (including one or two Advisor Reports).


Can anyone explain the differences in recruiting difficulties? Are there fewer promises available? Fewer points per pitch? or does the cpu just smarter at higher levels? Ideas.On NCAA 11 / NCAA 12: There were more "Change Topic" choices available per call, and this number decreased as the difficulty went up. The point value ranges for a given topic / My School rating may have fluctuated a little as well. I think, in general, it was harder to gain points as the difficulty level went up, and the CPU seemed to gain points faster as the difficulty level went up.

For NCAA 13? Dunno. We started at Heisman, and I didn't play a single week at anything else. I can tell you that the CPU is very competitive on Heisman, and if they go after a player with all 60 minutes, you're likely to lose, even if you go after him with 60 as well. I'd guess that the primary difference on NCAA 13 is that the CPU point totals go up as the difficulty increases. Not much else that I can think of that would modify.

Escobar
09-19-2012, 10:33 PM
iirc, from the recruiting advisor reports, the top schools only talk to about 12-15 players per week (based on ncaa11). i thought that they spent an hour on their top 5, and then 40-50 minutes for the remainder of the time.

Sounds about right to me, based on what I've seen (including one or two Advisor Reports).

I'm not sure about this judging from how my recruits look when I let the CPU recruit them. My top recruits were getting almost no time, while lower level recruits who were also farther down my board were getting alot of time. It seems the CPU tries to stay away from recruits it doesn't think it has a chance of getting, and also stays away from some players who are labeled as busts.

psusnoop
09-20-2012, 08:16 AM
part of the problem with cpu recruiting, is that it doesnt effectively manage their team needs. if they need a fullback, for example, they'll target 3 fullbacks, which isnt bad, but after one of those fullbacks sign, the cpu either wont remove them from their board or will continue to recruit the other 2 fullbacks. this is why we get stories every year of seeing teams with 9 quarterbacks on their team, or 7 total offensive linemen, 4 kickers, etc.

MVP, I think if you look through your rosters for dynasties that are over a year long you'll see what I have in regards to the teams signing more then they should at any one position.

I've gone through 50% of the teams roughly in the one dynasty I'm in and I'm clearly not seeing the issues with oversigning that your implying here. I have seen 2 Freshman Kickers signed on 1 team, I did see 1 team with 5 QB's (2 were SR's, 1 SO, 1 RS FR, 2 FR) but nothing as bad as your saying here.

I think this has been discussed with the DEV team at EA quite a bit, but maybe someone else can chime in on that a little better then I could.

IBI
09-20-2012, 11:10 AM
On NCAA 11 / NCAA 12: There were more "Change Topic" choices available per call, and this number decreased as the difficulty went up. The point value ranges for a given topic / My School rating may have fluctuated a little as well. I think, in general, it was harder to gain points as the difficulty level went up, and the CPU seemed to gain points faster as the difficulty level went up.

For NCAA 13? Dunno. We started at Heisman, and I didn't play a single week at anything else. I can tell you that the CPU is very competitive on Heisman, and if they go after a player with all 60 minutes, you're likely to lose, even if you go after him with 60 as well. I'd guess that the primary difference on NCAA 13 is that the CPU point totals go up as the difficulty increases. Not much else that I can think of that would modify.
Thanks for the reply. I haven't played on Heisman at all. I'm running a build your team from nothing dynasty that we carried over from NCAA12. We're all 3* programs with 1 or 2*talent. Recruiting is currently set to varsity, and I'm getting a little bit of push back about increasing the difficulty. It's week 15 and I have one scholarship remaining, and most of my commits weren't offered by the CPU at all, or, at least not until I had a commanding lead. I was hoping that the increase in difficulty would make the CPU a little smarter about who they offer, and not just more competitive when going head to head. I don't have any busts, and I probably have 15+ gems, and the #3 recruiting class in the country. That's too easy, IMO, but if the CPU isn't any smarter with who they offer, then there's no reason for me to upset the Nancy's that want to keep the difficulty level at varsity.

JeffHCross
09-21-2012, 04:57 PM
As far as I know, IBI, it doesn't change how smart the CPU is ... but I could be wrong. That would be almost impossible for me to judge without having access to the code or comparing two dynasties with the same set of recruits, one on Varsity and one on Heisman.


I think this has been discussed with the DEV team at EA quite a bit, but maybe someone else can chime in on that a little better then I could.It's been discussed for years, and AFAIK, it has improved. There are still issues, like what MVP is talking about, but I don't (personally) think they were as prevalent in NCAA 12 or NCAA 13 as they were in the past.

baseballplyrmvp
10-06-2012, 01:30 PM
The Gem/Busts system is what makes recruiting kinda easy this year. The CPU stays away from high busts, making it easy for a small school to swoop in and grab 'em.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i'm not sure this is always true. i'm going after the #1 ranked tackle right now in an od, and the guy is a projected 75 ovr (-8), yet 6 cpu schools have offered him a scholarship.

souljahbill
10-06-2012, 02:01 PM
i'm not sure this is always true. i'm going after the #1 ranked tackle right now in an od, and the guy is a projected 75 ovr (-8), yet 6 cpu schools have offered him a scholarship.

It may not be 100% true but if you scout the high-star recruits who aren't getting any love, most will be busts.

baseballplyrmvp
10-06-2012, 04:13 PM
It may not be 100% true but if you scout the high-star recruits who aren't getting any love, most will be busts.

i think that thats mostly because the majority of 4 and 5* recruits are intentionally overrated, whereas a bunch of the 2 and 3*'s are underrated. i wouldnt think that gems and busts are randomly applied, but that they designed the elite players to be in the red a lot more. i doubt they'd want it occuring where an elite recruit somehow gets labelled as a gem and turns into a 90+ ovr true frosh.

JeffHCross
10-06-2012, 04:24 PM
The tackle may be the exception to the rule because OL is a common position of need. In the Powerhouse OD, we've observed a lot of players that went untouched by the CPU and were busts. Yet the OD players loved them. So we imagined that it was cause/effect. It may not be the reason (may just be a strange coincidence), and could also have been something that was tweaked with a patch or tuner.

baseballplyrmvp
10-07-2012, 04:30 PM
The tackle may be the exception to the rule because OL is a common position of need. In the Powerhouse OD, we've observed a lot of players that went untouched by the CPU and were busts. Yet the OD players loved them. So we imagined that it was cause/effect. It may not be the reason (may just be a strange coincidence), and could also have been something that was tweaked with a patch or tuner.

do you think that the cpu puts too much emphasis on whether the player will be a bust and not enough on existing talent?

JeffHCross
10-07-2012, 06:35 PM
do you think that the cpu puts too much emphasis on whether the player will be a bust and not enough on existing talent?Assuming we're right that the CPU avoids Busts, yes. They put an emphasis on the "Gem/Bust" factor and are not considering the final OVR. That's my read of it, at least. Personally, I care less about the Gem/Bust and more about the final OVR, and I would think the vast majority of us are the same. I'd rather a 75 OVR who was a -5 Bust versus a 70 OVR who was a +10 Gem.

jacoavlu
10-19-2012, 08:37 AM
a few questions about recruiting

playing an offline dynasty as Nebraska, just finished my second season. On signing day somehow I had two extra commits and wonder what the deal is.

During the season I focused on getting a top QB and signed a 5* 76(-4) guy. I promised not to sign another QB before he was on campus, and I didn't recruit any more QBs.

I didn't try to fill all 25 scholarship, by signing day I had 22 commits which I was cool with. But somehow when I progresses from offseason recruiting week 5 to signing day, I got two more commits from players I never offered a scholarship, never scouted, never even targeted. They were definitely not on my board. One was a 3* QB and the other a juco WR.

I wondered what was up so at signing day I looked at the top classes and it listed me at 24 commits. But then looking at my recruiting board it only showed 22 (what I thought I should have). I couldn't see details of those two other guys.

When I then progressed further in offseason and got to position changes, I discover this other QB is a 3* gem 80(+13). He shows 100% scouted. WTF? The juco WR was I think a 4*.

So I'm wondering what's up. I had all the recruit assistants off. No accelerators. All my team needs had been filled. I'm not gonna complain about getting an extra 80 FR QB but now I'm wondering, does this break the promise I made to the 5* QB I signed during the season? Is this always gonna happen if I don't try to fill all 25 scholarships?

Also, if I sign an ATH and end up putting him at QB, does that break the promise I made to the QB when I said I wouldn't sign another player at his position before he arrived on campus?

Thanks in advance for any insight.

JeffHCross
10-19-2012, 03:23 PM
It probably will break the promise. At least I would think it would.

Are you sure you had all recruit assistance off? I've heard one other report of this happening to another member on the forum in NCAA 13, but I haven't seen it myself. In past years, the only way for this to happen was for the CPU to offer a scholarship during the offseason, which was a result of the "CPU can offer scholarships" assistance setting.

As for the QB being 100% scouted, I believe the CPU uses un-used scouting time, if you don't have any un-scouted players on your Board, on non-Board players. So that could explain that. As far as I know, there's no recruit assistance setting that dictates that.

jacoavlu
10-19-2012, 04:43 PM
I've advanced now to preseason and the promise to the 5* QB I signed early is still listed as "pending". I will check again once I advance to start season.

I'm almost certain all assistance was off, I know I had turned all off deliberately and I certainly never turned any back on deliberately, I'm going to recheck the settings. I know for certain the CPU never offered any scholarships to players on my board during the season or offseason, it was only when I advanced to signing day that this happened.

For the sake of argument, if the assistance was on and the CPU was going to offer a scholarship, would the player still not show up on my recruiting board?

baseballplyrmvp
10-19-2012, 09:24 PM
It probably will break the promise. At least I would think it would.

Are you sure you had all recruit assistance off? I've heard one other report of this happening to another member on the forum in NCAA 13, but I haven't seen it myself. In past years, the only way for this to happen was for the CPU to offer a scholarship during the offseason, which was a result of the "CPU can offer scholarships" assistance setting.

As for the QB being 100% scouted, I believe the CPU uses un-used scouting time, if you don't have any un-scouted players on your Board, on non-Board players. So that could explain that. As far as I know, there's no recruit assistance setting that dictates that.

the only way to prevent the cpu from signing players for you in the offseason, is to sign your 25 scholarships every year. i had this happen to me in the 360 od, where i missed out on 2 5* players and a 4* in favor of a 58 ovr rb and a 61 ovr wr, and a 63 ovr cb. :down: i was pretty mad when this happened.

if you dont max out, you'll get at least a couple of players committing to you, whom you have never talked to, scouted, or have ever put on your board. this is the second year, i believe, that its been in the game too.

JeffHCross
10-20-2012, 12:54 AM
Ah. Well -- great.

souljahbill
10-20-2012, 08:36 AM
Yep, I've gotten many extra kids via recruiting that came outta nowhere after week 5/Signing Day with all assistance turned off. Most of the time, they're cutting fodder but I've also gotten kids that were better then the ones I recruited.

jacoavlu
10-20-2012, 08:47 AM
Thanks all for the replies.

And can anyone answer the promise question?

JeffHCross
10-20-2012, 11:53 AM
For the sake of argument, if the assistance was on and the CPU was going to offer a scholarship, would the player still not show up on my recruiting board?Yes. If you don't have the assistance for "CPU can edit recruiting board" (or whatever it's called), then nothing will show on the board, but the CPU can still call/offer/other stuff. It's weird, but yes.


And can anyone answer the promise question?Not with any certainty. I don't think anyone "knows" how the promises work. But my impression, from that promise, is that signing another QB in that class will be breaking that promise, even if it wasn't your fault. The promise will probably still be pending until the end of the QB's first freshman season.

jacoavlu
10-20-2012, 08:23 PM
I still wonder as well whether that promise is broken by signing an ATH that ends up at the same position as the guy that was promised. Probably won't be using that one much.

Another question on promises, when you're trying to talk a player out of transferring or leaving early for the NFL, sometimes you can't promise them anything, it says all promises used up. Is that the case because 3 promises were used on that player when he was recruited?

JeffHCross
10-20-2012, 09:18 PM
I still wonder as well whether that promise is broken by signing an ATH that ends up at the same position as the guy that was promised. Probably won't be using that one much.I don't think ATHs would count, but it's certainly possible. I try to avoid that one as well. Only time I've ever used it is when I sign a K/P, and I KNOW I'm not going to going after a K/P for years. There are few other positions where I will guarantee I won't be going after anybody else (unless, like, I already had 8 WRs and was just going after the #1 WR).


Another question on promises, when you're trying to talk a player out of transferring or leaving early for the NFL, sometimes you can't promise them anything, it says all promises used up. Is that the case because 3 promises were used on that player when he was recruited?Never saw that one. Sorry.

Hellisan
11-06-2012, 01:07 AM
Does anybody have any strategy on getting insta commits? I can put 20 guys on my board that have me #1, and not get any. I have a buddy that I'm not sh****ng you (is cussing allowed here?) gets 2-5 insta commits per year. There has to be some strategy to it...

souljahbill
11-06-2012, 05:55 AM
Does anybody have any strategy on getting insta commits? I can put 20 guys on my board that have me #1, and not get any. I have a buddy that I'm not sh****ng you (is cussing allowed here?) gets 2-5 insta commits per year. There has to be some strategy to it...

No. It's random luck.

Hellisan
11-06-2012, 10:39 AM
No. It's random luck.

How have you proven this to yourself? Just curious. or maybe better stated, how has the community, if that's what it is, come to that conclusion?

CLW
11-06-2012, 11:22 AM
How have you proven this to yourself? Just curious. or maybe better stated, how has the community, if that's what it is, come to that conclusion?

It would take a HUGE commitment from the community at large to get a LARGE sample size large enough to make any real solid conclusions. My hunch from my own playing through several seasons at several schools is that it does appear to be largely random/luck of the draw on the insta commit. It MIGHT increase SOME if your "on a roll" (i.e. winning allot for several years) at a particular program but not to anything that would be deemed "unfair"/unrealistic.

baseballplyrmvp
11-06-2012, 07:57 PM
when in an online dynasty, does anyone recruit a guy hard, and hold off on offering a scholarship? or do you always offer it right away?

gschwendt
11-06-2012, 09:35 PM
when in an online dynasty, does anyone recruit a guy hard, and hold off on offering a scholarship? or do you always offer it right away?
With Powerhouse teams, typically if I'm in the top 3 or so, I'll offer a scholarship. If I'm not in Top 3 but still in Top 10, then it will just depend on things but more than likely I'll offer him a scholarship early. For guys that I'm not in their Top 10, I'll try to hide in the grass so to speak until I can climb up his list of schools. After the first half of the season is done and my initial targets start to commit, then I'll start looking around for more players and as I slowly scout them, I'll decide whether to offer a scholarship or not. Also... always offer a scholarship if you're #1. Always a chance to get an instant commit.

For lower tier teams, I'll use the scholarship as a way to get instant interest... if he doesn't have any other scholarship offers, then that typically will at least put me in his Top 8 or so. From there I can slowly build up on him.

jacoavlu
11-06-2012, 09:49 PM
you can always un-offer the schol, just take them off your board then out them back on

baseballplyrmvp
11-06-2012, 10:02 PM
you can always un-offer the schol, just take them off your board then out them back on

but you wont get the points for the second scholarship offer.

JeffHCross
11-07-2012, 10:56 PM
How have you proven this to yourself? Just curious. or maybe better stated, how has the community, if that's what it is, come to that conclusion?Observation based over many dynasties over many years from many different users. You can load the same dynasty week over and over again, ad nauseam, and get different results, even with the same steps being followed. If it's not a pseudo-random (which, let's be honest, almost everything in this game is based on the same principles as a dice roll (i.e. it's pseudo-random), so why wouldn't this be?), then it's so close to it that I can't imagine there being a specific code path that would generate an instant commit.

I think there are factors that may make it more likely (which is why, late in the year, I seem to get more instants from 2*s that have been getting no attention from me, or anyone else), but at the beginning of the year? Week 1? Pretty sure it's random.

Also, the simple answer is that a random would be the easiest to code. So :: shrug ::.

Note I'm talking about instant-upon-offer. Instant-upon-call is a different thing, not random, and I'm not sure I've seen it in NCAA 13.


when in an online dynasty, does anyone recruit a guy hard, and hold off on offering a scholarship? or do you always offer it right away?I never offer until I'm #1, unless there are either: A) enough other offers, or B) the #1 school has offered and is far enough ahead that it's possible I'm going to be left behind. Basically, if I need to offer to guarantee I'll be in the Top 5 when the kid goes from Top 8 to Top 5, I'll offer. Or if I feel like I need to close the gap to the #1 school, I'll offer then. Otherwise, not until #1. There's no real benefit otherwise.

baseballplyrmvp
11-08-2012, 10:13 AM
do gems progress at a faster rate than busts? kinda hard to answer since it would take a minimum of 3-4 years multiple times to figure out.....

gschwendt
11-08-2012, 10:27 AM
do gems progress at a faster rate than busts? kinda hard to answer since it would take a minimum of 3-4 years multiple times to figure out.....
No... I don't think so. I think that's just simply to highlight whether they were scouted better than originally rated.

baseballplyrmvp
11-08-2012, 07:03 PM
No... I don't think so. I think that's just simply to highlight whether they were scouted better than originally rated.

i know the gem/bust label is more accurately reflected as over-rated/under-rated......i was kinda getting at when they get on campus, do the gems get higher offseason training results and the busts not get as much in offseason training?

JeffHCross
11-08-2012, 07:59 PM
i know the gem/bust label is more accurately reflected as over-rated/under-rated......i was kinda getting at when they get on campus, do the gems get higher offseason training results and the busts not get as much in offseason training?I think he got your original question ... and was saying that he didn't think the gem/bust label influenced offseason training at all. I agree with him.

baseballplyrmvp
11-08-2012, 11:42 PM
sigh......robert nkemdiche decommitted from clemson today and reopened his recruitment.

oh to have this in the game....

AKAbus
11-09-2012, 01:15 PM
Is there a place for someone new to go to find what everything means in recruiting and explain the points and when to offer and call strategy, when do have a recruit visit, etc?

JeffHCross
11-09-2012, 02:48 PM
AKAbus, you can checkout the NCAA 12 Recruiting Compendium (http://www.thegamingtailgate.com/forums/showthread.php?2661-NCAA-Football-12-Dynasty-Mode-Recruiting-Compendium). It had more discussion on the type of topics you're asking for. While the interface on NCAA 13 has changed, the strategies are largely unchanged.

If you have specific questions, feel free to ask them. I'm better with specific questions than broad ones :D

Welcome to the site!

prime9
11-13-2012, 09:12 PM
I'm in an online dynasty with 6 other users. We just started season 3, and my coach integrity has no changed at all despite me promising all of my 1st year signees 3 promises each and passing them all. Does anyone know how this could be? Other guys have maxed out integrity, or 3/4 the way full. Does the National Championship and Top 10 team promise not work this year? The reason I ask, is because I promised most of them those, whereas the other coaches promised simple things like no redshirt, good exposure, etc.

Any insight, would be appreciated.

ralphs
11-14-2012, 09:11 PM
Note I'm talking about instant-upon-offer. Instant-upon-call is a different thing, not random, and I'm not sure I've seen it in NCAA 13.

I've lucked into two instant-upon-call hard commits twice in my current Texas State dynasty (just the second year).

Interestingly, even though I allocated x minutes for the call, I wasn't charged the full x.



Now if only I could reliably find some 3* gems to go with my 4* busts!

baseballplyrmvp
11-14-2012, 09:21 PM
Interestingly, even though I allocated x minutes for the call, I wasn't charged the full x.

its always been like that. even with the scholarship offer commits. if you offer a scholly as your first 10 minutes of the phone call, and the recruit commits, the call will end right there; even if you wanted to talk to him for an hour, you'll only be charged for 10 minutes.

JeffHCross
11-14-2012, 10:44 PM
even if you wanted to talk to him for an hour, you'll only be charged for 10 minutes.Though I believe there was a bug with this in NCAA 13 that had to be patched post-release. But I believe that's the behavior now, yes.

baseballplyrmvp
11-18-2012, 11:40 PM
free and strong safeties should be combined into just one position in recruiting. it should be up to the user to figure out who to put at each position.

gschwendt
11-19-2012, 05:28 AM
free and strong safeties should be combined into just one position in recruiting. it should be up to the user to figure out who to put at each position.
Same case could be made for offensive lineman and linebackers... Maybe even defensive lineman.

souljahbill
11-19-2012, 09:28 AM
I'd like that as well. Every year in position changes, I'm turning RGs into LGs and LEs into REs and whatnot. If it were just a pool of Gs, Ts, DEs, OLBs, etc., that would make things so much easier.

baseballplyrmvp
11-19-2012, 09:42 AM
Same case could be made for offensive lineman and linebackers... Maybe even defensive lineman.

not so much. rivals and espn both list o-linemen as 3 groups....same with d-linemen (DE and DT) and linebackers (inside and outside). i'm not sure how scout groups players off the top of my head. safety is really the only position where they dont differentiate which position exactly they play as.

JeffHCross
11-19-2012, 06:48 PM
not so much. rivals and espn both list o-linemen as 3 groups....True, but that's because in real life there's a distinctive difference between a Left Tackle and a Center. Both in experience at the position (Center calls out blitzes and blocking protections for many teams) and in technique. Many safeties, particularly in high school, have to play both techniques because of rotation and not swapping.

But in the game there is no difference between a T and a C. Their OVR is calculated differently, but you can jump between the three easily in Position Changes. ATH recruits that could play all three used to be much more common, and really should be again. But the easier move would be to just reduce it to a single OL pool.

I don't agree with combining backers though. There's a big difference between the types of recruits you find at MLB and OLB, in the game. You could combine them, but I'd prefer to see them kept separate.


I'd like that as well. Every year in position changes, I'm turning RGs into LGs and LEs into REs and whatnot. If it were just a pool of Gs, Ts, DEs, OLBs, etc., that would make things so much easier.For recruiting it already is a pool of Gs, Ts, DEs, etc, isn't it? I don't think they're meaning that LGs go to just G in the Roster, just in Recruiting.

JeffHCross
11-19-2012, 08:08 PM
It was apparently not discussed previously in this thread, but thought I'd post this here anyway ...

I know some people have complained about the "Compare Schools" option showing (0 - 0), such as on a Most with an A+/D comparison. I've seen that a handful of times, and only once, that I can think of, did I actually receive 0 points on the comparison. Come to think of it, it might have been the one time I did recruiting from the Web that I got 0 points.

Anyway, the past two weeks I've had a guy that has Playing Style for Most. I'm A+, the #2 school is D, I believe. The pitch has shown (0 - 0). This week I got +188/-189. I think it shows 0-0 when the range is too big for the variable to count (I'm guessing).

baseballplyrmvp
11-19-2012, 09:48 PM
But in the game there is no difference between a T and a C. Their OVR is calculated differently, but you can jump between the three easily in Position Changes. ATH recruits that could play all three used to be much more common, and really should be again. But the easier move would be to just reduce it to a single OL pool.



if you combined the 3 positions, how would you go about giving an OL recruit a position when he signs? how would you know which position to give him? or would the game randomly assign that recruit to one of the 5 OL spots? or is this a case, as to where we would get the ability to recruit a player for a specific position? the light bulb isnt clicking on, cuz i'm not understanding why you want the o-line combined into a single group. :confused:

souljahbill
11-19-2012, 10:17 PM
For o-line (and any other position with L/R distinctions), I want 3 groups like during recruiting: T, G, and C. Once you get them, they turn into LG/RG, LT/RT, etc. They should just stay as G, for example, so it would be easier to set depth charts.

JeffHCross
11-19-2012, 10:25 PM
if you combined the 3 positions, how would you go about giving an OL recruit a position when he signs?Position Changes? The game could have a set position for him already (much like the game identifies whether a recruit is a LG or RG, instead of just "G"), just not shown on the recruit screen.

how would you know which position to give him?How do you know now? Besides AWR factoring in, there's no realistic difference between a C and a T. There are some players that are better fit to play T or G, but they might be recruited (in the game) as a C.

the light bulb isnt clicking on, cuz i'm not understanding why you want the o-line combined into a single group. :confused:Hey, it wasn't my idea ;) I just pointed out that real life and the game are different in this regard, and gave a reason to support G's suggestion that you could make the argument for OL. There's a reason there are Tackle and Center recruits in real life. In the game they're practically the same.


Your point, from what I can tell, was that Rivals and other sites don't differentiate between FS and SS. I would guess that's because there's little separation between a guy that plays FS and a guy that plays SS at the high school level. They probably do a decent amount of both Centerfield and Run Support. But in the game there's a clear separation of skills between a FS and SS. The FSes are, generally, better at Zone Coverage and have superior speed/agility ratings. The SSes are generally better at tackling and run support factors. So there's a reason to keep them separate as far as the game is concerned.

Rivals/Scout/247 aren't the best lead to follow, after all. 247 has separate rankings for Pro-style QB and Dual-style QB. No reason to emulate that, obviously. They also have WDE and SDE (Weak Defensive End and Strong Defensive End). I wouldn't like to see DE split into two either.

Anyway, to end a long bit of rambling, if the central question is "if they're combined, how would I separate them", then I could ask the same question for a combined Safety list. If it's left to the user to decide which fits best where, wouldn't that, again, be the same for a combined OL?

baseballplyrmvp
11-19-2012, 10:29 PM
For o-line (and any other position with L/R distinctions), I want 3 groups like during recruiting: T, G, and C. Once you get them, they turn into LG/RG, LT/RT, etc. They should just stay as G, for example, so it would be easier to set depth charts.

so then which side of the line does the #1 guard on the depth chart line up at?

baseballplyrmvp
11-19-2012, 10:46 PM
Anyway, to end a long bit of rambling, if the central question is "if they're combined, how would I separate them", then I could ask the same question for a combined Safety list. If it's left to the user to decide which fits best where, wouldn't that, again, be the same for a combined OL?

i didnt know the reasoning behind the idea, so sorry for any confusion if it came across as "me thinking the idea was stupid." it wasnt, i just didnt understand why they thought it should be changed.

as far as the question in this quote, ya, i guess it would be the same for the o-line. i would think that some of the blocking/footwork ratings for each position would need to be more/less important for every position (run/pass block footwork for tackles, run/pass block strength for guards and centers, awareness way more important for centers than guards/tackles).

maybe i'm just looking at it the wrong way, idk.

souljahbill
11-19-2012, 10:47 PM
so then which side of the line does the #1 guard on the depth chart line up at?

Wherever I choose to put him.

baseballplyrmvp
11-19-2012, 10:50 PM
Wherever I choose to put him.

i think i'm catching on.... but just to be clear, would you have an addition position on your team for unassigned o-linemen (like what the athletes position is) at the position changes screen?

souljahbill
11-20-2012, 04:35 AM
No, that's not necessary. Continuing to use Gs as an example, when doing position changes/depth chart, ALL the Gs on the roster are shown as opposed to LGs only showing on the LG screen and RGs only showing on the RG screen.

baseballplyrmvp
11-20-2012, 09:39 AM
guards and tackles can play the other side of the line without penalty, so correct me if i'm wrong, but all you're essentially doing is removing the letter of which side they play as? if thats the case, then i dont see the point of doing it. it doesnt seem like a step forward; more of a sidestep, imo. also seems like it'd screw up the cpu as well.

souljahbill
11-20-2012, 12:23 PM
guards and tackles can play the other side of the line without penalty, so correct me if i'm wrong, but all you're essentially doing is removing the letter of which side they play as? if thats the case, then i dont see the point of doing it. it doesnt seem like a step forward; more of a sidestep, imo. also seems like it'd screw up the cpu as well.

Isn't that the same as not having FS and SS but just S? As far as I can tell, we both just want to pool our players so that it'd be easier to compare and make personnel decisions.

prime9
11-20-2012, 06:40 PM
It was apparently not discussed previously in this thread, but thought I'd post this here anyway ...

I know some people have complained about the "Compare Schools" option showing (0 - 0), such as on a Most with an A+/D comparison. I've seen that a handful of times, and only once, that I can think of, did I actually receive 0 points on the comparison. Come to think of it, it might have been the one time I did recruiting from the Web that I got 0 points.

Anyway, the past two weeks I've had a guy that has Playing Style for Most. I'm A+, the #2 school is D, I believe. The pitch has shown (0 - 0). This week I got +188/-189. I think it shows 0-0 when the range is too big for the variable to count (I'm guessing).

I have had this happen to me countless times. In my online dynasty, I will be recruiting against a school with D- or D Coach Prestige (in comparison to my A+) and it will preview as a +180 points or whatever, but when I make the choice it gives me 0 points.

Curious as to if it's too big to write out, or if it doesn't go thru for some unknown reason.

prime9
11-20-2012, 06:44 PM
Isn't that the same as not having FS and SS but just S? As far as I can tell, we both just want to pool our players so that it'd be easier to compare and make personnel decisions.

It isn't the same as moving a FS to SS or vice versa because the is a decrease in awareness with those position switches.

souljahbill
11-20-2012, 08:52 PM
It isn't the same as moving a FS to SS or vice versa because the is a decrease in awareness with those position switches.

Yeah, that was always in the back of my mind as this discussion went on as typically, I think of SSs smaller, faster LBs while I consider FSs to be bigger stronger CBs. I wouldn't necessarily pool those positions together but I would Ts, Gs, DEs, and OLBs.

JeffHCross
11-20-2012, 09:16 PM
i didnt know the reasoning behind the idea, so sorry for any confusion if it came across as "me thinking the idea was stupid." it wasnt, i just didnt understand why they thought it should be changed.It was your idea to combine positions in the first place ;) :D

baseballplyrmvp
11-20-2012, 09:52 PM
only safeties. i didnt understand the reasoning for combining all of the o-line positions into one for recruiting purposes, to begin with.

combining o-line doesnt really make any changes though, as o-linemen are all basically interchangeable right now....unless they made some changes to what's important for each o-linemen. as of now, changing a T to a G, only drops him like 2 OVR points.

but combining safeties would create a hybrid safety model. he'd be slower than your typical free safety but faster than a strong safety, little worse in coverage than a FS but better than a SS, a better tackler than a FS but not as good as a SS, etc. obviously some safeties would be better suited as a FS and some as a SS, and some could play both. i think with a hybrid model, you'd see more variation between your elite recruits and the average recruits.

JeffHCross
11-20-2012, 11:02 PM
only drops him like 2 OVR points.Because of the AWR drop that comes from moving him from the position he was supposed to play to a position he's better suited for.

but combining safeties would create a hybrid safety model.Only if they went out of their way to create safety prospects that could be either one. You didn't suggest that (that I saw) previously -- only to combine the list.

There should be a lot more prospects that blur the lines -- but that's what ATH is for. There are definitely ATHs that fit both FS and SS. That's where you'll find the hybrids.

baseballplyrmvp
11-21-2012, 12:28 AM
Because of the AWR drop that comes from moving him from the position he was supposed to play to a position he's better suited for.
thats why i'm not in favor of combining the o-line. they could do it right now because there isnt a difference between the different o-line positions, however, once ea starts making major changes to how the OVR's are calculated between the different o-line spots, they'd have to change it right back to how it is now.


Only if they went out of their way to create safety prospects that could be either one. You didn't suggest that (that I saw) previously -- only to combine the list.

There should be a lot more prospects that blur the lines -- but that's what ATH is for. There are definitely ATHs that fit both FS and SS. That's where you'll find the hybrids.

they already have the hybrid safety model. and when i said combine the list, i assumed people would pick up on dropping the "free" and "strong" safety labels, and creating one safety classification, as could be seen on the rivals/scout/espn websites. when the recruits are randomly generated, there are naturally gonna be some who are better suited to play free safety, some who are better for strong safety, and some who can play either. its part of the deviation of the curve that they have to make sure that not all of the recruits are the same. this doesnt involve the athlete position group, as thats largely for recruits who can play offense and defense.

baseballplyrmvp
11-22-2012, 11:55 AM
It was apparently not discussed previously in this thread, but thought I'd post this here anyway ...

I know some people have complained about the "Compare Schools" option showing (0 - 0), such as on a Most with an A+/D comparison. I've seen that a handful of times, and only once, that I can think of, did I actually receive 0 points on the comparison. Come to think of it, it might have been the one time I did recruiting from the Web that I got 0 points.

Anyway, the past two weeks I've had a guy that has Playing Style for Most. I'm A+, the #2 school is D, I believe. The pitch has shown (0 - 0). This week I got +188/-189. I think it shows 0-0 when the range is too big for the variable to count (I'm guessing).

just ran into this bug again, in this site's 360 od. i'm playing as ASU, and was recruiting against iowa for a WR.

i used the playing style pitch as i was rated an A+ in it and the recruit had above average interest in it. iowa, on the other hand, was rated a D- in it. comparing the pitch showed (0-0), but i tried it anyway, and it returned a 0-0 interest gained/lost result.

JeffHCross
11-22-2012, 08:15 PM
Were you recruiting from the web or on the console? I've only seen it once, and I do almost all of my recruiting on the console.

baseballplyrmvp
11-22-2012, 08:35 PM
i always recruit from the console. i just dont want to take the chance of having the od website fail on me while i'm in a call.

jacoavlu
11-24-2012, 11:06 AM
I get the compare 0-0 thing a lot when theres a big discrepancy in school prestige, and it really does come through as 0-0 for me and I don't think it's a bug cause the recruit will also say something indicating he wasn't cool with you making that comparison. But I haven't studied it scientifically just what I've noticed. When I see that 0-0 now I avoid it

JeffHCross
11-24-2012, 04:24 PM
:dunno: Don't know what to tell you, guys, but it is interesting that you're actually getting the 0 total whereas I'm normally not.

FWIW, MVP, the majority of the guys in Powerhouse have done all of their recruiting from the website this year (from what I understand), and I haven't heard any of them say there was a problem. There's been more problems on the console (usually with scouting).

baseballplyrmvp
11-24-2012, 05:20 PM
its just weird jeff, because its so hit or miss. in one phone call, everything will work perfectly fine.....even comparing an A+/D pitch will work correctly. then, in the next phone call, the same pitch comparison will present a 0-0 visual, yet end up working against the same school. a couple of more phone calls later, and you'll actually get a 0 score for the comparison pitch. it doesnt make any sense to me because i've seen it happen on different pitches and against different schools.

my only solution, really, is to not compare at all. i will say though, that whenever an actual point comparison is shown (ie: 50-75 or something), it does work. the errors that we're seeing only occur when a (0-0) visual is shown.

jacoavlu
11-27-2012, 06:31 PM
I'm not sure it's an error. It only occurs for me A vs D, not A vs B or C, and think about it, it makes some sense that a kid might not be impressed when you compare your powerhouse against some lowly school.

When I get around to playing again I'm gonna pay more attention and will try to get a screen grab

JeffHCross
11-27-2012, 07:47 PM
That would be interesting, jacoavlu. While logical in the real world, it would be an interesting design decision within the world of the game.

baseballplyrmvp
11-27-2012, 08:54 PM
I'm not sure it's an error. It only occurs for me A vs D, not A vs B or C, and think about it, it makes some sense that a kid might not be impressed when you compare your powerhouse against some lowly school.

When I get around to playing again I'm gonna pay more attention and will try to get a screen grab

its most definitely a bug. i'm looking at a recruit right now, in which he has a low importance in playing style, which i'm rated A+ in. i'm currently in second place for this recruit (as arizona state) and oregon is in first place for him. oregon's playing style is rated as a D+ and is displaying a 0-0 interest in him. texas is rated as a D in playing style for him and its also showing 0-0 for them too. michigan is the same, even with their D- grade. however, USC and ohio state are 5 and 6 respectively, and their grades for playing style are C and C-.

i took a chance and compared anyway to oregon, and got +/- 45 points for/against.

ralphs
11-28-2012, 05:56 PM
That would be interesting, jacoavlu. While logical in the real world, it would be an interesting design decision within the world of the game.

If it's an interesting game design decision, it's a poor UI decision that doesn't communicate effectively what's going on.

JeffHCross
11-28-2012, 09:34 PM
If it's an interesting game design decision, it's a poor UI decision that doesn't communicate effectively what's going on.That too. I actually meant to mention that too :D

ralphs
11-29-2012, 11:11 PM
Hmm, recruiting might be a little too easy

http://i.imgur.com/sSjprl.jpg (http://imgur.com/sSjpr)

JeffHCross
11-29-2012, 11:53 PM
Hmm, recruiting might be a little too easyYou're a five star school in, what, Year 4? I imagine you've done very well to get Texas State up to a 5 star ranking. Once a user team hits 5 stars, yes, recruiting is incredibly easy.

Plus, it doesn't surprise me in the least that you're able to bring in a better group of freshman than the CPU. The CPU is very poor at planning long-term.

ralphs
11-30-2012, 12:21 AM
You're a five star school in, what, Year 4? I imagine you've done very well to get Texas State up to a 5 star ranking.

Yes, I'm remarking on the fact that a 1* school can be projected #1 within a handful of years. Then again I am on Varsity difficulty so maybe that's why it's easy.

gschwendt
11-30-2012, 09:37 AM
Yes, I'm remarking on the fact that a 1* school can be projected #1 within a handful of years. Then again I am on Varsity difficulty so maybe that's why it's easy.
It's already kinda easy on Heisman, can only imagine how easy it would be on Varsity.

JeffHCross
11-30-2012, 08:29 PM
Yes, I'm remarking on the fact that a 1* school can be projected #1 within a handful of years. Then again I am on Varsity difficulty so maybe that's why it's easy.Yep, that would do it. Even with Texas State.

baseballplyrmvp
12-11-2012, 10:28 PM
another instance on the comparing recruiting pitch bug. i'm pitching playing style to a recruit who lists it as very high. i'm currently in 3rd place on him, behind alabama who's play style is a B+ for him, and south carolina who's a C- for playing style.

i'm getting a (0-0) display for every school i'm comparing against. however, it did actually give me the points, when i went ahead and pitched it to him against alabama.

could the bug be related to displaying a (0-0) for pitches made, that could yield over 100 points? that kind of seems to be the one constant i'm running into. i'm always pitching a very high/most with an A-/A/A+ type of grade.

that cant be it, because on the very next recruit, i get a full display of points for pitching an A+/VH combo against alabama (#2 on recruit's list) who's coach prestige rating is a D+.

JeffHCross
12-11-2012, 10:46 PM
I think you're on the right track, MVP, but there's more layers than just the point value. I've had two players with the exact same importance and the exact same difference between School 1 & School 2. Yet one will show and one won't.

baseballplyrmvp
12-11-2012, 11:33 PM
I think you're on the right track, MVP, but there's more layers than just the point value. I've had two players with the exact same importance and the exact same difference between School 1 & School 2. Yet one will show and one won't.

thats weird, because (i may have mentioned this earlier) i've had it display a (0-0) point total for the second place school (i was in first) with like a D grade for a pitch, and then it'd display (0-0) for every other school in the recruit's list, even if they all had different grades.

JeffHCross
12-12-2012, 10:05 PM
Yep. seen that too

ralphs
12-17-2012, 01:16 AM
another instance on the comparing recruiting pitch bug. i'm pitching playing style to a recruit who lists it as very high. i'm currently in 3rd place on him, behind alabama who's play style is a B+ for him, and south carolina who's a C- for playing style.

i'm getting a (0-0) display for every school i'm comparing against. however, it did actually give me the points, when i went ahead and pitched it to him against alabama.

could the bug be related to displaying a (0-0) for pitches made, that could yield over 100 points? that kind of seems to be the one constant i'm running into. i'm always pitching a very high/most with an A-/A/A+ type of grade.

that cant be it, because on the very next recruit, i get a full display of points for pitching an A+/VH combo against alabama (#2 on recruit's list) who's coach prestige rating is a D+.

Yeah, just did this and got a 0/0 on compare. Frustrating.

Tako 715
12-18-2012, 06:06 PM
Could it be a "Playing Style" recruit comparison bug? Since the "Playing Style" fluctuates as the season progress, Your school could have been rated worse or the same as the other school at some point. For some reason, even though you are now rated higher you still see the 0/0 comparison? Maybe.

JeffHCross
12-18-2012, 07:31 PM
I don't believe I've noticed it on just one single pitch. But I'll keep an eye out.

ralphs
12-18-2012, 08:38 PM
Could it be a "Playing Style" recruit comparison bug? Since the "Playing Style" fluctuates as the season progress, Your school could have been rated worse or the same as the other school at some point. For some reason, even though you are now rated higher you still see the 0/0 comparison? Maybe.

Had it happen with Coach Prestige as well.

Schauwn
12-28-2012, 10:15 AM
I've mostly only seen this problem when comparing A+ to D-. It sucks because it forces you to have to just talk about it rather than get the "double" points for putting down the lower ranked school.

JeffHCross
01-03-2013, 10:06 PM
Playing Style is the most common to display (0-0), though it doesn't always register as 0-0. I just had one register as 0-0, as Schauwn said, it was A+ to D-. Then I had an A+ to C- on the very next call, it showed 0-0 but finished with a difference of +128, -99.

Schauwn
01-03-2013, 10:36 PM
Yeah, I've found two different scenarios. One where it shows that you will get 0-0 for the call and it still gives you points, this happens on any grade difference for whatever reason. And then there is the scenario that I mentioned before where you actually get 0 points, that I've only found happen on A+/D-

JeffHCross
01-03-2013, 11:06 PM
Lately I've been noticing it (the display of 0-0) on Playing Style and Coach Prestige. Those are the two pitches that are most likely to change from one week to the next. In fact, those might be the only ones (except Champ Contender) that can change in-season.

baseballplyrmvp
01-03-2013, 11:19 PM
playing time changes, but only after a recruit commits to you. i had a DE start the year at an A+ in playing time, had 2 other DE's commit during the season, and now that DE's playing time is at a C-

JeffHCross
01-03-2013, 11:22 PM
Playing Time can also change with scouting. A player with an 80 OVR rating may have a B in Playing Time, but when he drops to a 72 that may drop his Playing Time assessment.

baseballplyrmvp
02-12-2013, 09:51 AM
is there a "point cap"? or does every point matter in every phone call?

one of my recruits in this site's 360 OD is a kicker. last week i was in 4th place for this kicker and 320 points behind the 1st place school (i think texas tech). i ended up having a 930 point phone call with the kicker. this week, i find myself 1st place but only 120 points ahead of texas tech. thats a 440 point swing in my favor. but that still leaves me wondering about the other 500 points??? is it possible that texas tech got a 500 point phone call on this kicker?

otherwise, it seems that some of my points are being lost....or that every point earned in a phone call is not applied directly into what's shown in the recruit's top 10?

JeffHCross
02-12-2013, 09:38 PM
is there a "point cap"?I 10000% believe there is, but it would be highly difficult to prove. But I absolutely believe it.

There IS some point value for passing a school. That's not a true 1:1 jump. But it shouldn't be 500 points.

baseballplyrmvp
02-13-2013, 11:33 PM
I 10000% believe there is, but it would be highly difficult to prove. But I absolutely believe it.

There IS some point value for passing a school. That's not a true 1:1 jump. But it shouldn't be 500 points.

the recruiting point totals dont even make sense at all! in my recruiting spreadsheet, i keep track of the weekly increases/decreases in a lead or how far behind i am, and it doesnt even make sense at times.

for example, last week i had a 940 point lead over the second place school, called the recruit and had a 220 point phone call. i check the recruit this week, and i now have a 1260 point lead. so my lead jumped 320 points. i didnt negatively recruit against the second place school (michigan), so where did the extra 100 points come from?

JeffHCross
02-14-2013, 06:35 AM
You get credit for either having a player on your board or where he is on your board.

There's also some additional unknown I haven't figured out yet. We've all seen players who appear to not be getting recruited by anyone change their Top 10 over time. I also had a guy that I removed from my board, yet increased my lead on. I can't explain how either of those work.

I also track week to week, but I've pretty much given up on trying to explain it and just look at it as a indicator of trend.

Escobar
02-15-2013, 05:44 AM
I think there is alot of negative recruiting going on behind the scenes that we don't see. That's one of my explanations of why we don't see the point differences we are expecting. You don't know who is negative recruiting against who

baseballplyrmvp
02-23-2013, 09:33 PM
what's everyone think? WR, CB, or Safety?

http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn284/baseballplyrmvp/wally.jpg

gschwendt
02-23-2013, 09:42 PM
what's everyone think? WR, CB, or Safety?


CB... His CIT is too low for wr (for me) and his STR/TKL is too low for safety, unless he's a centerfielder in a 335/425.

baseballplyrmvp
02-23-2013, 10:07 PM
ya, idk....i'm gonna be loaded at wr and corner (both in numbers and quality), and have depth at safety (quality not so much). i do run the 335 so he would play centerfield. but with the db play being so bad in this game (especially the aggressive zone coverage bug), idk if putting him on defense is the right call, since he'll frequently be out of position.

got a few weeks to think on this one. i have some commits who i havent scouted yet, and depending on how they turn up, it might alter my choice, but i'm leading towards WR. the 6'5" 96 speed is too tempting....that and it'll piss off JB in trying to cover this guy. :D

JeffHCross
02-27-2013, 07:33 AM
He's the type I hate in this game. If you put him at safety, especially centerfield, his BSH and MVs will piss you off. At WR, his CIT will suck.

FWIW, I have a similar guy st CB and his AGI doesn't kill him.

Though I'm always in favor of pissing JB off :D

eagles555
03-19-2013, 08:32 AM
Hey guys,

I have a question that's been killing my dynasty. I have all the CPU recruiting help turned off. I have 13 scholarships left going into signing day, with 13 guys that have me as #1 by at least 900 points. But at signing day, I end up losing about 7 of them (I've quit without saving about 3 times because at first I thought it was a glitch) because for some reason, a bunch of crapping recruits that have never been on my board and that I NEVER OFFERED SCHOLARSHIPS too commit and (I assume) take the spots of my guys, who then commit elsewhere.

Can anyone offer insight/assistance?


Thank you!

gschwendt
03-19-2013, 10:05 AM
Unfortunately it's less of a case of the new commits pushing off the old recruits and rather the CPU needing to "cheat" in order to fill their board/needs so they steal your recruits. If you can't sign them before Week 5 of the offseason, there's a chance you won't get them. Next time, I'd take a look to see where your recruits ended up at and see if they didn't go to a school with only a handful of commits.

As for the new commits, that's a complaint that several have this year... guys that you never even talk to somehow sign with you on signing day even though you're already over the 70 player limit. That said, I have ended up with an 80 OVR freshman QB out of the blue like that.

eagles555
03-19-2013, 11:16 AM
Unfortunately it's less of a case of the new commits pushing off the old recruits and rather the CPU needing to "cheat" in order to fill their board/needs so they steal your recruits. If you can't sign them before Week 5 of the offseason, there's a chance you won't get them. Next time, I'd take a look to see where your recruits ended up at and see if they didn't go to a school with only a handful of commits.

As for the new commits, that's a complaint that several have this year... guys that you never even talk to somehow sign with you on signing day even though you're already over the 70 player limit. That said, I have ended up with an 80 OVR freshman QB out of the blue like that.

Thank you for your quick response!

So is there anything I can do about this? Should I just go after less guys but go after them harder so that they commit before signing day? Why give me 25 scholarships and the ability to make 25 solid guys have me as #1 if they won't commit? Frustrating.


Thanks again

gschwendt
03-19-2013, 11:19 AM
Yeah... I very rarely even come close to signing 25. I pretty much just go after around 10 at a time and eventually end up signing 15-20. Since we don't have 85 player rosters, you're still going to end up having a full roster.

JeffHCross
03-20-2013, 08:31 PM
I agree with G. Go after fewer players, go after them harder, and don't let them go to the very last week. Too many variables at play on Signing Day for my liking.

dhook27
03-23-2013, 10:43 AM
Yeah... I very rarely even come close to signing 25. I pretty much just go after around 10 at a time and eventually end up signing 15-20. Since we don't have 85 player rosters, you're still going to end up having a full roster.
wut happened to the powerhouse dynasty vids

JeffHCross
03-24-2013, 12:34 PM
wut happened to the powerhouse dynasty vidsHe's been having PC issues.

BK Commando 30
04-02-2013, 09:03 AM
I'm playing as Hawaii and trying to form a powerhouse out West after moving into the Pac-12 with Boise State. The problem I am running into is that the only pitches I can make that aren't rated C or below is campus lifestyle and distance from home (since I'm recruiting mostly players from in Hawaii and California). Not every recruit likes the campus lifestyle pitch, which is understandable, but a huge tool Im using is getting those in-state recruits. If you look at Hawaii's real-life roster, their team is mostly players from in-state. Yet when I pitch the distance from home, which is almost always an A+ or at least an A, it very rarely earns me a solid amount of points with my recruits. I'm still doing rather fine, but trying to out-bid recruiting powerhouses like USC and Oregon out West is quite the challenge

JeffHCross
04-07-2013, 10:23 PM
BK, that's pretty much the challenge for smaller schools. You're going to need to find hidden gems that the big schools aren't targeting and work on improving your pitches over time. Don't try to go head to head.

Also: welcome to the site!

sandyc1aws
04-10-2013, 05:14 PM
Got an issue. 24 of my 25 scholarships were given out and c with one left i went for a long shot recruit. I added three recruiters to my board and offered all three a scholarship even though i only had one to give. The next week one. Of them accept the scholarship but i decided to leave the other two on my board and still talk to the that way in case they transfer later. Problem after i played the game for that week i checked the board and the guy who just signed was now signed with another school and the other two dropped me from 1st to 10th. And all the other guys who i already signed had red down arrows next to their names. Why did this happen. I've done it a lot where i offer more than 25 recruits and have never had this happen.

steelerfan
04-10-2013, 06:26 PM
Welcome to the site! I can't answer your question, but it's always great to see guys here from outside of North America who love American Football. :up:

Enviado de meu SAMSUNG SGH I997 usando o Tapatalk 2

baseballplyrmvp
04-10-2013, 09:21 PM
Got an issue. 24 of my 25 scholarships were given out and c with one left i went for a long shot recruit. I added three recruiters to my board and offered all three a scholarship even though i only had one to give. The next week one. Of them accept the scholarship but i decided to leave the other two on my board and still talk to the that way in case they transfer later. Problem after i played the game for that week i checked the board and the guy who just signed was now signed with another school and the other two dropped me from 1st to 10th. And all the other guys who i already signed had red down arrows next to their names. Why did this happen. I've done it a lot where i offer more than 25 recruits and have never had this happen.

i had this in this site's 360 od....its just a bug. you'll still have all 25 guys commit to your school.

here was my recruiting board at the end of a season

http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn284/baseballplyrmvp/commit_zps7857c5df.jpg

sandyc1aws
04-11-2013, 02:33 AM
Cool thanks. I ended up still not getting him (MLB #3) but i went and got another one, a better one (MLB #1)! Lol. Thanks though. Also is there a thread or something for the new game and its features?

JeffHCross
04-14-2013, 10:07 PM
Sandy, you can find numerous discussions on NCAA 14 in the News and General Discussion forums. Sorry I can't give you a direct link ATM. Welcome to the site!

youtzy21
04-18-2013, 03:14 PM
I have been playing NCAA 13 for quite some time and have played ever version as far back as i can remember..... I just encountered a problem that has never happened to me before and need some help. I have 24 commits on my recruiting board in week 10 and my final recruit committed in week 11 via a scholarship offer commit (+5500 points). After playing my game for that week and simulating through the rest of the games for the week, I arrive in week 12 and that final guy who committed shows he has committed to another team. On top of that, all the rest of my recruits that are hard commits showed to have gown down with the red arrow. They are still committed to my school but i do not get what happened.

Anyone seen this before. Need help

baseballplyrmvp
04-18-2013, 08:53 PM
read the past couple of posts

baseballplyrmvp
07-06-2013, 02:48 PM
started playing 13 again.....and signed the biggest gem i've ever managed to find. 4* TE ended up an 82 OVR (+11)!

SCClassof93
07-06-2013, 03:30 PM
started playing 13 again.....and signed the biggest gem i've ever managed to find. 4* TE ended up an 82 OVR (+11)!

Wow! I usually get them going 11 the other way :smh:

baseballplyrmvp
07-07-2013, 10:24 PM
Wow! I usually get them going 11 the other way :smh:

well you have to know what to look for. ;)