Printable View
Personally I think a Freshman 5* coming in at 85 is about right. Maybe could see it pushed to 87, 88ish. Lattimore is rated a 93 in the game this year as a SO, if he came in as a FR at 87/88 then a 5 point jump to his SO year would put him about right where he is and should be.Quote:
Originally Posted by oregonman
I could see a very small selection coming in high 80's but for those, I would expect their progression to be lower... instead of jumping 5 points they would jump 2-3 on a good year since their window for progression is smaller.Quote:
Originally Posted by psuexv
Alternatively, I would like to see some lower rated players come in low (high 60s) but with higher progression... so one season you might see them jump 10 points, but the rest of their seasons it would be 3-5.
Yeah I think the high end recruits are pretty much on par now. Coming in mid 80s and they don't seem to progress too rapidly.Quote:
Originally Posted by gschwendt
The low end recruits with more range in progression would be pretty cool to see. I know it's hard to generate a formula to replicate real life, but there is always that walk on or 1 and 2 star recruit that turns into a stud and also those high end recruits that turn into flops.
i want to see the way that recruits were rated go back to what the system was last year. i dont like how they factored in a recruit's potential into how he'll be rated. it's causing too many recruits to have an inflated star rating. i'd like to see it where recruits were rated based purely on their talents; either that, or make the recruit's talents matter a lot more than what they currently do (if its currently a 50/50 split of talent/potential for how a recruit is rated, it should be changed to like 75/25, talent/potential). i'm seeing receivers get a 5* rating only because they have a good hidden potential, even though their catching, spectacular catch, catch in traffic, and route running ratings are all listed as a D. if potential wasnt a factor for this recruit, he'd be either a low 4* player or 3* player, depending on his speed.
additionally, since it seems that the cpu teams only target the recruits who are ready to play and not the work in progress recruits (regardless of star rating), its actually causing a smaller talent pool for the cpu to choose from, which makes it harder and harder for the cpu to compete with us.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
I see 4 or 5 star players with the ratings of a 3 star player. I rather see them come in as a 3 star player, then grow into the star players. You will see the Mark Ingrams, Tyrann Matheiu's, and RG3 of the NCAA world. If Those 3 were graded by NCAA 12 scouts, they would have been 4 or 5 star players coming out. You will see smaller schools with one of these players(that are 3 stars with the potential of the 4 or 5 star player) eventually become schools like Baylor or Stanford.
I would like to see the recruits have personality. I would want to see them have preferred Playstyles. When I see a QB with average THP and high THA, I see a spread QB. When I see a 5'10 or smaller Rb with great Speed, I see a Run-1st Spread RB. I would like to see players go to teams they fit more.
One thing I noticed is the size of CBs. I barely see CBs under 6'0. There is alot of undersized CBs, but it doesnt even compare to 6'+ CBs. Even though I prefer 6'+ CBs, I would like to see more undersized CBs. I would like to see more undersized CBs graded lower for their size. Only the great undersized CBs are graded highly. Therefore, you small schools and good school have great CBs
I would like to see the ability to recruit underclassmen, like the College Hoops 2k series did. You could start recruiting all high school levels so that when their senior level arrives and they're ready to make commitments, you've planted yourself on their board, even if it's a player that right now you wouldn't have a shot at. Obviously you're using time that could be spent to get commitments at generating recruits for the future, so it provides the challenge of balancing between today and the future.
Like Coach Prestige follows you from program to program, I'd like to see your recruiting influence/pipeline states follow the coach from program to program. Urban Meyer is a great example of a coach that pretty much cornered the Florida recruit market, and now at Ohio State, his former dominance in Florida will help him recruit Florida players to Ohio State.
After thinking about this forever and playing 8 seasons in OD, I've figured out the biggest problem with recruiting: No connection to play style. There are 3 things I really wanna see here that would change all aspects of a dynasty with recruiting being the common denominator. Let's delve in.
1: Adding 2 play styles with even more specialized rating values per position. Let's use RB's and WR's as an example. Currently there are the "power", "speed" and "balanced" RB, and the "speed", "possession" and "balanced" WR. Adding a "Breakaway" (DeAnthony Thomas or Lamicheal James of Oregon) and "Bruiser" (Laveon Bell of Mich St) RB type and a "playmaker" and "team player" (WR who would be more likely to improve blocking skills for down the field blocking) WR type would add more depth to creating your team philosophy. This needs to be the case for offense before and more importantly than defense, but both would be preferable and extremely beneficial. With this the current ratings don't necessarily have to change, but I would like to see more discepancy between certain attributes. Also select attributes need to carry more weight towards overall rating. In general I think with added player types you could begin to also seperate player rankings into "player type" rankings, so that we'd have 3 levels, including Overall recruit rating, position rating and player type rating. If you're the #23 receiver but the 3rd best "team player" wr, Stanford would look at you and conversly you should be interested in Stanford. If you're the #5 rank overall and #1 ranked "breakaway" Rb, you shouldn't probably be interested in Washington State. However, a small percentage of recruits are interested in schools that don't fit, for a reason such as in-state ties or something like that, so the chance of a "pipeline" giving you a chance at a recruit that doesn't fit your style needs to be available too.
2: The game needs to classify your play style as it classifies a playbook. The cpu plays (or sims) like their playbook dictates their style to be. But with a user, it needs to track the plays you call and depict what you are doing. If you have a run and shoot pb but run 60% of the time you are a spread run team. If you throw 10-12 times a game and run 40-50 times you are a power run team, and Vise-versa you are a Pass Attack team. This is important for point 3.
3: This is where recruiting brings it all full circle. A very small percentage of the extreme player type (Breakaway RB/Playmaker WR) Will want to play for the opposite extreme play style (Power Run style team). This would be the case consistently regardless of where a team is located in relation to a recruit or any other factor. But as i said, sometimes it does and should happen in the game. THE MAIN SELLING POINT FOR RECRUITING ANY PLAYER IS YOUR PLAY STYLE AND HOW IT RELATES TO THEIR PLAY STYLE. A "Blocking" TE should be more prone to look at a Running offense (unless said Running offense throws the heck out of the ball to its TE's: see Stanford).
The main problem with the game as it relates to dynasty is that it's far to easy to stack a team based solely on prestige rating. You should have to stack a team based on your play type regardless of the rating of players vs school. This also means that the second and third tier schools have too much problem catching up, even if they are "better" at recruiting to their style of play and coaching/playing games. This is what would change the game in dynasties, especially for ODs. As long as the top teams keep winning, their ratings will always b A+ in all areas because the top 5 recruits at every position are always interested regardless of anything, which makes them impossible to beat. As we all know real life teams fluxuate all the time between winning and losing (or not so winning) seasons. This should be the case in game. It would make a dominant team more worthy and more admirable.
I agree with most of what you said, but I don't see much extra differentiation in your suggestion for RBs. A breakaway back is still, largely, a Speed back. A Bruiser is still, largely, a Power back.
Now, NFL Head Coach 09 had a massive amount of personalities and characteristics of players. I'd love to see both Madden and NCAA go down that route.
Improved recruiting- When think of guys like Les Miles, Saban, Mack Brown, Urban Meyer, Stoops, and the FSU Guy, you think of guys that can continuely bring in good talent. I was watching the Unser Armour practice. John Gray said that he knew that he was going to Texas once he met Mack Brown. Do you think that he or the guys would talk about a Recruiting topic that is C or worst to a good recruit. I want to see the "Slot machine" type of recruiting go. I hate going after a big recruit when I am in a recruiting battle and end up losing him because I was stuck using my worst topic. I remember in NCAA Basketball(one of them) where you couldnt schedule with some teams because they didnt feel like your team would be competitive. I would like to see some recruits not pick up the phone, if they felt you had no chance. Better Height and Weights for recruits. Too many 6+ CBs and undersized RBs, DL. Especially since there isnt weight progression. Ability to recruit for the future. It can be just for the following year. Imagine having a good JR QB and signning a good Qb in the following class, you would be set for the future. You wouldnt have to recruit a Qb in the QBs SR year. QBs should have a personality. They should have requirements like how CHoopz had. Like, Big Time School, Good Conference, Good Coaches.
adding personalities to ncaa would only do so much, imo. it'd certainly be a welcome addition, dont get me wrong.....but players still need to be rated accordingly. as it stands now, ncaa players are WAY over-rated in their actual weaknesses/skills they dont excel at.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
the example i've brought up in the past, was terrance cody. in ncaa10, he had power/fineese move ratings of 98/70. in madden11, those ratings were 95/30. just by looking at those ratings, you'd get a sense that he has an awesome power move, but he'd also try to run around you at times too. that was clearly not the case in real life. every year in the recruit database, i see this kind of thing going on with every position. its especially evident, though, with d-ends and d-tackles as their power and finesse move ratings are always rated very similar. you dont see any kind of separation of skill talents, like A power move and C- finesse move. those 2 ratings are always within like 1 letter grade in the top prospects. the same thing happens for runningbacks with juke and spin moves.
You're right its just an example of a larger extreme. Monte Ball is a balanced back, Chris Polk is a power back, etc. There are lots of "speed" backs, but then there's Lamichael and De'Anthony who are gamechangers. And there are only so many Brandon Jacobs and Ron Dayne's. Just saying speed backs go to places like WSU and Baylor, but gamechangers go to spread run teams and big bruising goaline guys go to WisconsinQuote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
This isn't the case in the game dependinding on their rating vs your prestige is all that matters. The players don't look at schools and how they can benefit most from the system
Requirements are exactly what I'm looking for. Except different in the fact that its not so much random as player type vs comparable offensive/defensive system.Quote:
Originally Posted by illwill10
Something I always wanted to see is preferred/suggested Playstyles for recruits. For some recruits it wouldnt matter. But I would like when I look at recruits, I want to see a playstyle that best suits them. For example, If you see a QB with high THA and Low THP, he will fit in a air raid or spread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayrah
anyone have any ideas on how to get your coordinators involved into recruting?
just throwing an idea out there, but what if you could only see the measureable ratings for recruits (speed, acceleration, agility, strength, possibly awareness?). you'd then be able to either spend your weekly recruiting time scouting a recruit (which would unlock random ratings), pitching your recruiting topics to him, or a combo of both. better coordinators would offer a smaller range of where a certain rating comes in at (like 83-87 for good coordinators, 60-90 for bad coordinators).
*obviously, this assumes that coaches are going to have some amount of ratings*
Probably involve their prestige as a topic. I think there should be a menu that shows 3 players each coordinator wants you to target and a description. Like, "This QB isnt a big name, but I could wonders with him" or "This is is a athletic freak, but he is raw. Give me 2 years and I will turn him into a star"Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
I think there should be a "Show Stats" topic where it tells players where your team ranked on stats. Like being in top 20 in rushing, should entice some RBs to go there.
I would also like Playstyle playing a factor. Like, a bruiser rb would not prefer a spread team unless the coach is a great recruiter/
I would think the only way to get them involved woudl be to have coach specialty i.e Spread option coach, 3-4 coach etc. And then formula would have to take into consideration what that coaches more detailed would be QB coach, RB coach, etc. calculate that with the the style of player. Anything short of that I can see how a coordinator would matter on this game.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
I would like for the coordinators to have more of an impact like if "I" bring in a number of big recruits the coordinator gets a boost for recruiting and he becomes a star recruiter and then we can go back to having an option like BB where we can send the coordinator to visit recruits.
This is also the reason bad teams stay bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by illwill10
I would love what you're saying if there was a way to eventually see potential. So like you pump x amount of time into a player and you get to see his hidden potential rating. This way you could also back off of a 4 or 5 star player if he's got bad potential and a smaller school could recruit him. This way teams could get good "starters" for themselves while knowing he's not gonna progress, and you dont have torecruit a good player that will never play for you. Good way for smaller schools to stay competitive imo.
Tons of ideas, but it all depends on what direction they'd want to go. There's the obvious (use CH2k*'s method of having assistants sometime do the recruiting for you, and the assistant's recruiting rating dictates how successful the visit/recruiting/whatever goes) and the simple (head coach's recruiting rating + assistant coach's recruiting rating are combined to do a modifier on the recruiting's call/visit point scale). And practically everything in-between.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
The meat of the question, in my eyes, is how many other mechanics the team would be willing to upgrade/change/modify in order to facilitate an influence by assistant coaches. Your suggestion of scouting is certainly up there, but that would be a fundamental change to how players are currently recruiting. Not that I disagree with it, just saying that it has the potential to impact a lot of areas. I mean, just the introduction of ranges and the potential for a recruit's rating to be "wrong" would have drastic effects on recruiting.
Personally, I think, long term, that scouting will return and your coach (maybe not the assistant, but at least the head coach) will have an influence on the success of both scouting and the actual recruitment. Short-term ... harder to guess.
I don't want to ever be able to see the player's potential. At least not the real potential. However, I would love to see something that may or may not be accurate -- I call it "Upside". So you get a player's Upside, and say it's an A. I have a bunch of caveats and factors going through my head whenever I think about this, but short summary is that the "A" might be an "A+", or a "B+", maybe even a "B". Or maybe, depending on the factors involved, really a "C". There'd be ways to know how true it is, but, at least in my head, you'd never know the potential with absolute certainty. So there'd be a huge amount of risk/reward there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayrah
what if instead of ranges, they just stole the page from madden's scouting and it would just tell you that "this player's stamina rating is 85" or "this player's speed rating is 92" or something like that?Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross