Like it as is
Needs some tweaks
Want a new system
ya the logic behind it all needs to be better
if i run the wishbone offense we should have to beg 1 star WR's to come to our school, not have 4 star WR's lining up at our door
plus it would be cool to have more promises available and have them be weighted.... if i tell a guy "hey you will start as a freshman"...that should be a deal clincher for guys where early playing time is big when other schools wont make that commitment to him
ya, this could be a community made feature though, where the community comes up with exactly how we want it implemented, and then you guys with the connections pass it on to ea saying, "this is exactly how we want this done. do it"Originally Posted by JeffHCross
i think the Most/D pitch rating is a good baseline for causing a dealbreaker. that should be something that immediately raises a red flag for a recruit. maybe if they averaged his 2 Very High pitch ratings and 2 High pitch ratings and it came out to be less than a C+ average, then it definately causes that recruit to stop talking to you altogether. this would make swaying pitches for the better, even more important. rudy's idea of swaying down a topic would help in this too, as there'd be a chance of swaying down the recruit's Most important pitch. swaying a most, though, should rarely happen....maybe 10% of the time.
I agree with the comments regarding pipelines and distance from home. Pipelines make sense on a more localized level, but if you have four players from San Diego, for example, that shouldn't realistically have any bearing on a recruit from Sacramento. Similarly, basing the "proximity to home" variable solely on being in the same state, or the number of adjacent states disregards basic geography. For an extreme example, a recruit from El Paso should not have an A+ for proximity to Houston, compared to a B+ for the New Mexico schools. Toledo (which is on the Michigan border) should not have a better grade for Cincinnati-area recruits as compared to Detroit-area recruits.
I think that EA could make it more realistic, either by going on a mileage-based system to determine proximity, or by subdividing larger states into regions (i.e. north/ central/ south Florida). For a mileage-based system, they could simply have concentric circles determine the score-- for example, an A+ would be within 50 miles of the school (regardless of state lines), an A would be from 51-100 miles, etc. Since we can't be expected to know the location of every town in every state, the game would have to display the mileage to each school in the recruiting screens, and it could be another variable for finding players. The regional split might be easier from a programming basis, and instead of simply having a pipeline into Florida by virtue of having four players from anywhere in the state, you might need three from one of the regions to get an advantage in that part of the state. Just a thought...
I hope you know it doesn't work like that. I don't think even the government gets to dictate that well when they're the customer.ya, this could be a community made feature though, where the community comes up with exactly how we want it implemented, and then you guys with the connections pass it on to ea saying, "this is exactly how we want this done. do it"
I don't think so, actually. It wouldn't be required to display it at least. It may be helpful information, but I think most players would go "Oh, I'm an A+, cool", or "Darn, I'm only a C". Once you know what the rating is (and that's present on the More Info screen before you even make a single call), does it really matter if he's 49 miles away versus 51? It's not like you're going to move the school
Last edited by JeffHCross; 08-30-2011 at 09:21 PM.
Twitter: @3YardsandACloud
Like the Devard Darlings and CJ Mizzel's of the Fl area.You mean these guys they signed last year, the 2 stars? 2 of them are from the same High School and if you look at the ones they are targeting this year 2 are from that High School and 2 others are from the same school and they are 3 stars(not to play down WSU's recruiting but when you said Big Kids I think 4 and 5 stars). Like I said I do think there are pipelines to certain High School or if a coach has a tie to a specific geographic area, but definitely not an entire state.
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk
you think the easiest way to implement that would be exactly like the pipeline bonus on pitches (ie: 25% of the pitch points)? or is 25% too high? or not enough?
If you're talking about 25% on each call, that would be too high. My personal preference would be a sliding scale for beating #1 to beating #10, but nothing as drastic as 25% for each call. I'm trying to think if there's some way that it could be included as a Negative Recruiting aspect, but without adding a pitch for it, I don't know how that would work.
Twitter: @3YardsandACloud
Beyond the mechanics of it all, I would REALLY like to see some personalization. Character to ALL players, starting as recruits.
Instead of just giving a % of liking for a recruit, add a reason (a player tweet every week would be cool) for the % instead of a generic quote only when you spend time on any topic. If a guy's still got Arizona #1 by a ways in front of everybody, give his tweet status this week as "still in love with ". When they soft commit throw an exciting tweet up like "I think im going to be a Wildcat!". Hard commit would be: "headed to Southern Cal this fall gonna go win a title!"
Give the recruits an identifiable character/personality towards you as they're being recruited, and not always positive. If their visit went crappy I wanna know! "I wasn't impressed with the loss last week, I'm thinking about changing my mind" OR "the visit to Oregon went well I loved Autzen!"
This may not sound how I want. I'm so tired
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk
The whole recruiting thing needs some serious work. I am an almost exclusive RUN team this year and yet the only 5-star kids I can get are WRs. Heck, I grabbed not 1 but 2 5-star WRs this year and didn't start recruiting them until week 7 or 8! On the other hand my HBs are racking up heismans and my D-Line are taking home hardware but those 5-star position players don't want any part of me.
I am NOT saying the current system is broken or anything, it could just use a nice face-lift as well some added logic to who wants to go where for what reasons. Currently I could finish a season with ZERO pass attempts and this would not deter any WRs from coming to my school.... that is silly.
ya, i'll agree with this, that there needs to be some better logic in identifying which positions a school produces more talent in. an elite pass heavy team (a couple of years down the line) should not be getting serious interest from the top 4 runningbacks in a class,(7 out of the top 10) regardless of how much playing time is available (in my case, none). i've taken hawaii to the top 6 years in a row now, and i have to fight to go after the top receivers from california, let alone the nation.
it'd be cool for schools to develop "identies" like what some have gotten over the years. in my case, hawaii could become "wr u," usc is "tailback u," penn state is "linebacker u," etc. creating an identity could receive an additional boost of interest to that position.
I would like to see them remove the new players that show up in offseason recruiting. Thats about as unrealistic as anything in the game. New players just dont appear out of nowhere. Especially 5 star players.
It isn't realistic but it's still fun. What they could really do is simply refuse to allow certain top level prospecst in the game to allow their interest meter to get more than 75% full until the offseason. That would keep you working for some flaky elite kid who can't make up his mind.
What would be even cooler is if the recruits had rankings that fluctuated during the year. Maybe that kid everyone thought was a 4* prospect has a bad senior year and ends up not as much in demand. The opposite could be true as someone has a breakout year that people start fighting over. I think that's what the new prospect list in the offseason is supposed to represent.
ESPN Scouting Reports/Player Description.
A brief description of a recruit's play style. Like, "RB Thomas is a powerful workhorse RB. Runs with good balance. He has decent speed, but good enough burst to break off runs. Always finishes runs. Not much of a East-West runner, just a North and South Runner." You could guess that he has 85+ Speed, 88+ ACC, 75+ STR, 87+ TRK/STF, 80- Juke/Spin, and 90+ STAM. SO, users will know what type of player they are getting.
Preferred Team Playstyle
Something small. But, adds depth. Where a player has a preferred offense or defense he wants to play in. Ex, Balanced QB Kelly wants to play in a Pro-style Offense. Speed RB Jones wants to play in a Aggressive No-Huddle Spread. Pass-Rushing OLB wants to go to a 3-4 D. A top recruit might skip on a powerhouse for a team with his preferred scheme. Where a team has to recruit the hell out of a player that doesnt want to go to their Offense. It can make teams look realistic and have good to average teams with studs.
Scouts and Emails/Communication
Scouting and I would like some type of communication from coaches, recruits, and scouts. Where you have scouts have a list of preferred players that fit your scheme. Scouts can send you emails saying, " Look at this QB, He looks to be a perfect fit for our scheme." AD can email you saying generic stuff. Ex. "Hey Coach ____, We would like for you to look for a RB who can make history or a QB that can be the face of our university." or " We want you to be in the top 20 in recruiting or sign at least 3 players in the top 100".
High School All-Star game
Important. It can show you the future of college Football.
LOL, this just shows how different people want different things. Personally I would be PISSED if I had to watch a CPU HS All-Star game to determine who is good and who isn't. It's hard enough to get through a couple of OD's now and avoid all the landmines that blow up and lock up an OD. Adding an all-star game seems to be a lot of work on EA's part that likely will end up in 10 more bugs.
No all star games.
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk
what about adding "strength of schedule" as a recruiting pitch?
I don't like this idea seeing as we set our own schedules.
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk
Buddy of mine wrote a good blog on some things he'd like to see fixed
http://wideright3.blogspot.com/2011/...s-in-game.html
I'm in this group, it's boring and takes to long, but I dont want the computer to do my recruiting so I'm forced to do it.
I think that recruits should be better. If I'm recruting a 5* prospect and he is only an 85 rating whats the point. I got him to be a starter not to sit for 3 years. what about the Marcus Lattimores of the world.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks