Because - has a negative connotation, and having a letter grade with a - attached to it could cause the recruit "irreparable harm" and bring about angry emails and letters to the editor from mothers and upset parents. ;)
Printable View
"coach's choice" should also be included in that weighted system- depending on the prestige of the coach (or coach's rating if its ever added). the better the coach is at recruiting or however high his prestige rating is, the more opportunities he gets to talk about what he wants to talk about.
we need more variety in the recruit's positions in dynasties. its pretty bad when i'm looking at the #6 rated wide receiver, who happens to be the #8th ranked recruit in the country......or the #10 ranked wr, who happens to be the #14 ranked recruit in the country.
i took the liberty of making a table to at least show what i'm seeing in my offline dynasties, there were 2578 recruits generated in this year's class (new recruits have NOT been included). keep in mind, this is from one sample year (year 2015).
http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/2249/tablep.th.jpg
this is absolutely terrible....16 5* wide receivers, yet 0 5* offensive linemen? better yet, only 4 of the 33 total 5* players, wound up to be defensive players. the 6 athletes all had ratings best suited for either wr or rb. with this amount of imbalance that is present (assuming similar type numbers will be used every recruiting class), its no wonder why offense rules the game, especially down the road in future years of dynasty.
Just a cursory glance at the real :5star: commits from this year's class:
22/50 are defensive players
11/50 are offensive linemen
7/50 are RBs
8/50 are WRs
2/50 are QBs
Pretty interesting numbers.
Even more interesting is the fact that there are 50 :5star: recruits in real life this year and only 33 :5star: recruits in the game. Definitely doesn't look good.
I would also say the chances of the most of the 6 :5star: ATH being a WR is very good also. It is also a shame that it is very rare that there are any :5star: LB's ever. When the number of receivers and corners is that lopsided, it makes it damn near impossible to stop the passing game. They also need to make ATH's that are RB's be able to play LB also. A good portion of the time if a player is a RB but considered a ATH, he plays LB also. (Think Wilder) Also, get rid of :5star: ATH's who are basically just FB's.
Edit: Just read the rest of he post and noticed that you said the ATH's were either WR or RB. That is just unacceptable to have basically half the top recruits as WR's.
Based on some tests I did on NCAA 11 with this, this kind of stuff varies a ton from season to season. But I never saw that much of imbalance either, so maybe something changed.
Who the hell lists 50 5* recruits this year in real life? Rivals only has 32 and 247sports has 25. Plus, the 32 that Rivals has is the highest number they've had since 2009 (33).
Even ESPN only shows 11. And as much as I have a problem with some of their player grades, that actually seems more logical to me than 33.
here is the next season's recruiting breakdown in that same offline dynasty.
http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/7893/table1ke.th.jpg
at least there were some more 5* defensive players this year. however, out of the 37 5* players, only 9 of them would have played defense, and 16 would have been wr's. :smh:
additionally, 3* players account for 45.7% of the recruiting class, while 2* players accounted for just under 25%!
Something I posted in a different thread, but for me I like this idea :dunno:
I'd like to see "committed" recruits still be able to be swayed to the point of de-committing from a school. Like after the season you have all these coaches changes now it would be nice to have recruits change their mind and de-commit.
Maybe after a recruit commits to your school you still have to maintain contact with him and it will show a bar with his level of his decision, if you ignore him or have coaching changes at years end this recruits bar goes down and can be swayed by a different team. Now I'd think there would maybe need to be slightly more time available to keep interest at its peak, or a separate time for committed recruits that you'd have to use but this would add lots to recruiting and I think it would be lots of fun too!
The only way I'd agree to that is if they made it an option to turn on/off. Simply because there are a lot of people out there that don't "enjoy" recruiting as it is, and I don't think the potential for decommits would do anything but make that worse, for those people.
Personally, I like the idea (as long as it didn't take tons of in-game time to keep a player interested), there's just a lot of things that need to be considered for something like that.
I think, as the school that the prospect is committed to, you shouldn't have to do anything extra to the prospect to keep him interested in your school, but there is a small percentage chance that a school that lines up perfectly with what he's interested in could get him to decommit to the school that's he's currently committed to and resume the fight over the prospect. The school attempting to force the decommit would have to spend 60 minutes per week and, again, be PERFECTLY (A- through A+ in the recruit's Most and two Very High categories) lined up with what the recruit wants (basically, the only schools that are going to force a decommit are going to be :6star: prestige schools or maybe :4star: or :5star: recruits that just so happen to line up perfectly with the recruit's wants).
So, it COULD happen, but the school that got the original commitment would have a DISTINCT advantage throughout the process, even with the small percentage of the decommit happening.
The behind the scenes application would be to continue to keep count of what points were accumulated by the school attempting to force the decommit and use it as a basis of how much the school forcing the decommit would be behind the originally committed school once the process renews for the fight over the prospect since it's obvious that there is an arbitrary number that is needed for the prospect to commit to a school (even an instant commit has the +5000 thing).
i dont really agree with that, but there are some things that could be done to make sure it takes minimal effort to secure your recruits. when the recruit originally commits, he's given a percentage of how solid his verbal commitment is (maybe it starts at 50%?). at this point, you can continue to talk to him to further solidify his commitment, or just let him be, in which he'll remain at 50% if no other schools are talking to him. if this percentage drops below, lets say 30%, that recruit officially decommits, and is now fair game with however many schools are going after him, with those now interested schools being -1 point behind the originally committed school.
i agree. i'd think an easy way to do this would be to offer 1.5-3X per recruiting pitch if you continue to talk to a recruit, as i listed above. this gives an easy advantage to the committed school, as they should have an easier time securing the commitment, when there are only 2 schools vying for the recruit. however, the more schools involved in recruiting a kid, the harder it should be for the school to solidify his commitment (like a 6 vs 1 battle, shouldnt last more than a couple weeks between the top schools).
again, referring back to my responce above, once a kid commits, (and his verbal starts at 50%), the points from all schools are added up. whatever percentage your school's points are of the toal either increases or decreases the verbal percentage. (ex: your school earns 300 points, another school earns 200 points. 500 total points, but you had 60% of em...since you had 10% more than half of the points, that recruit's verbal goes up 10% toward your school. if points are equally earned between you and another school, no change is made.)
An alternative, and simpler, change (though along the same lines as what you guys are talking about) would be for the "Verbal - Soft" stage to last longer, and be slightly more complex than just "hit the # first!"
I agree that, overall, things would need to be re-examined if Soft Verbals were lengthened. However, specifically in response to "you definitely need to give more time": Not necessarily. It wouldn't make sense for a player that has a +300 pt lead to arbitrarily increase the length of his soft verbal. It should only be in cases where the player's commitment feels ... fast. Like when a guy with three -1 schools decides to commit for no apparent reason. That would increase the chance of flips and decommitments, while not increasing (too much) the necessary time expenditure.
It would also force people to reevaluate their recruiting strategies and maybe avoid the drawn out battles for every prospect they want to go after.
few things I have to add that are probably already in here but I will put here:
1 - Do away with the ATH position, its horrible and makes searching through stuff near impossible when I have 160 lb guys in my OT list
2 - Show the ratings/grades of every player at every position when being recruited. Meaning, I should be able to see how an OT would be rated at OG when recruited
3 - Make SIZE matter!!!
4 - Add some sort of ceiling/risk rating factor so some guys (hopefully the bigger frame guys) might have a higher ceiling but often times less probably of panning out or getting better
5 - Make stats and how you PLAY factor HUGELY into recruiting. Drop back gun slingers should not want to play for Navy
These are the ones off the top of my head.