You can view the page at http://www.thegamingtailgate.com/for...g-2-of-3-is-up
Printable View
You can view the page at http://www.thegamingtailgate.com/for...g-2-of-3-is-up
Thanks for posting this, Austin.
I love the changes made to help the ratings of prospects match up with the base roster. That had been a problem for years in the franchise. They really put in a lot of work and time into this huge database, but it'll be worth it.
im surprised we got a new blog so quickly, here's to hoping the 3rd comes in a few days too...
it sounds great to me. I love the idea of spreading out the ratings and making really great players stand out. also with the retooling of the entire recruits database to fit in with the base rosters is fantastic. this will help dynasties stay interesting longer IMO. I think something that shouldn't be overlooked in this blog is at the beginning where he talked about the ability to win a "coaches choice" or whatever he called it. this will give me something to look forward to while recruiting with smaller schools, when i can get that topic of my own choosing and really harp on something that is maybe my only real strong suit with the prospect. maybe my favorite thing of this post though is the idea of having a potential rating, this is AWESOME IMO. to see that a kid might be good as a freshman but not really ever get any better or to see a kid that might not be that great as a freshman but has huge upside, this adds another level to recruiting that hasnt been there in the past, i'm excited.
wish they would have called this recruiting blog rather than dynasty blog though...teased me as to what was going to come along.
I love that they spread the ratings out as well as putting the potential rating more into the progression. I also like the menu interface with the ESPN theme to it. looks nice.
Also, TCU's pro-combat uniform. I love those.
*Standing Ovation*Quote:
Originally Posted by cdj
A few things: (1) This is actually partial recruiting and partial miscellaneous dynasty, because of progression throughout a players career. It sounds like the 3rd blog may be something similar in concept. But I love the changes. (2) Our first look at pro combat unis [TCU], looks like those are in :cool:. (3) CD guys: it sounded like 'potential' was already there but didn't matter previously as much, is that correct? Also, is it a visible or invisible rating. It sounded like it's invisible, and thus we would only be able to calculate our recruits based on lower rated recruits jumping above a higher rated recruit (at least within the position).
This. Big.Quote:
potential rating
Cool element of the decision to chase a QB A who is rated nearly the same as QB B, but has higher potential while only having you 4th on his list while QB B has you listed as first on his list.
A comment that was dropped from my original post:
I think the value of recruit position is hopefully tying nicely into how different teams with different styles will pursue certain positions and thus recruit according to their needs for those styles.....hopefully on offense AND defense.
The raw potential isn't visible is what I gather, but you'll be able to determine which guy has better potential by how they are ranked:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayrah
Quote:
Using an arbitrary number to adjust the rankings really seemed like a poor way of going about things, so we took a rating that isn't visible to help solve the problem: potential. What we did for some of the Prospects is change both their overall rank and position rank based on the potential they have. This doesn't mean that you'll now see a 40 OVR player as a 5 star... but it does mean you might see a Prospect who is technically a few points lower in OVR rated above another Prospect. So, why did we use Potential?
Quote:
Player A - True Freshman QB, 70 Overall rating, 90 Potential rating
Player B - JUCO Junior HB, 75 Overall rating, 75 Potential rating
Player C - True Freshman HB, 73 Overall rating, 50 Potential rating
Player D - True Freshman QB, 71 Overall rating, 70 Potential rating
On average with the 4 players above would end up being ranked like this in NCAA Football 11:
1. Player A
2. Player D
3. Player C
4. Player B
In previous years, only overall would have mattered.
yesQuote:
Originally Posted by austinwolv
Sounds great. There isn't one thing discused in the parts about the ratings & rankings of prospects that doesn't sound good to me.
Nice to see that the coach will sometimes have the ability to chose which pitch he makes though hopefully it's not just a random thing. Just based on what we've heard so far, and not having played the game at all, it seems to me like it might've been a good idea to remove one of the 3 "change topics" per call & add one "coach's choice" per call. After all, the coach can always steer the conversation in a direction he wants to go during a call. It'll be interesting to see how it works.
Every blog is just more & more impressive. It's not even necessarily one specific thing either. It's like cdj said, when you take a step back & examine the big picture of what they've added/changed this year it's really impressive. :D
I've been under the impression it's always been there (invisible), but that now it means more than ever and is still invisible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayrah
That's how I read it too. That actually gives a bit of mystery back to your recruiting, as the numbers won't always match up, and you'll have to determine who you wish to pursue based on more factors. I like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinWolv
See my post above. It would seem it is implied by the recruit rankings, although not an absolute known number, but rather a potential hint that is the surprise that it may or may not play out, i.e. the gamble that is recruiting in college football.Quote:
I've been under the impression it's always been there (invisible), but that now it means more than ever and is still invisible.
Love the ESPN 150, love the potential rating. like the ranking of players. This in all is a great blog. Good stuff here and alot of reason to be excited
There has always been a potential rating it's just been invisible (& unimportant aparently).
I really like the fact the most freshman will come in below 80. No more easy reloading. Hopefully it takes time and some good recruiting to reload this year.
Haha, still holding out for that uniform blog tomorrow, based on the release of a combat uniform screeny. If not no biggy though, I didn't expect this one today, so hoorah.
Also gotta love the fact that so many fewer players are *elite* status this year. Makes it easier to go after a mid to high 60's player when you are in need of position depth, when you know the other teams aren't loading it up with 80's guys right off the bat. And finally we will get information on cpu recruiting logic in the next blog. This will be BIG. I can't wait.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deuce
EDIT: Can I also just say that I LOVE the fact that you have to EARN the *coaches choice* option in phone calls. More strategy! They'll explain how in the final blog sounds like.
The coach's choice is a random thing across the board for all schools. This was still being tuned at community day, but it was usually somewhere between one and three times per phone call.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kwizzy
love this... so good to know that elite players will barely crack 80 sometimes as a freshman... i like having the potential rank as well... allows us to recruit for short term players to be in rotation in positions that can possibly produce immediately, but given the rotation, the long term potential wont matter... things like that make things interesting, different, and create the ability to be creative within dynasties, which we all know, is NEEDED BADLY...
"E"
Just to clarify Pistol, I'm pretty sure the potential rating will still be hidden, it always has been anyway. I don't know if you were thinking it would be shown.
JB- 3 times in one call seems like it defeats the purpose of the random & limited topics in the first place no?
nevermind... i was reading it wrong... at first i thought he was saying that made it more prevalent by putting out there, but now i see its going to be hidden...Quote:
Originally Posted by Kwizzy
want to hear CD guys spill everything they know so far on this stuff...
"E"
Yeah, and I told them it was too many, it was still being tuned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kwizzy
At most with promises and skips, you could have up to 12 topics come up for one call.....
Yeah definitely, adds a whole different set of decisions & depth to recruiting.Quote:
Originally Posted by PISTOLxCOACH
You're most likely going to see this coach's choice only once....but maybe twice.
Was it already confirmed that roster size was staying the same as previous years? I thought I saw that, but can't recall now.
Good question. I doubt we ever get to 85 man rosters but it would be great. Maybe they could increase injuries and decrease stamina so roster depth would be more important.Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinWolv
Potential is still tied to the overall ranking of the player even though you can't see it. They indicated that when they showed the rankings of the recruits in the 4 player example. I don't know if I like that.
Why don't you know if you like it? Or what about it don't you like? Just curious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy
I dunno what it is, but there is something that is preventing 85 man rosters. Dunno if something just goes completely haywire by adding more to where they don't want to focus the manhours trying to figure out all the working parts to get it to 85.....that is my best guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deuce
Potential is part of the rankings but not for every player. Therefore, one player could be a 75 as a Freshman and an 85 as a Senior while another could be a 70 as a Freshman and a 90 as a Senior. Depending on whether or not Potential is calculated for those two players, either one could be ranked higher.
Awesome blog by Russ. Can't wait for Part 3 ... CPU recruiting!!!!
I actually saw a logical reason for keeping it at 70 the other day. Apparently every BCS conference besides the Pac 10 has a 70-man travel roster. The Pac actually only take 64. While the reasons for remaining at 70 may be technical, there's also a realism reason to keep it at 70, unless the team introduces some kind of "travel roster" system (like healthy scratches in NHL).Quote:
Originally Posted by JBHuskers
I am amused ... to the point of getting a headache ... that there is not a single mention of Coaching Carousel on this thread on TGT, yet on another site it's in nearly 20% of the posts.
Good grief.
And how in the world people think "Coaches Choices" connects to Coaching Carousel is beyond me.
Yeah I'm pretty sure one of the devs last year told me there is a technical reason too....but my memory can be the most horrible at times....thank god for Blackberry, the phone and the brandy.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
Jeff.....I'm laughing too man. How the choice of a topic in a recruiting phone call hints at a coach changing schools and taking his system with him is beyond the realm of sophistication. Dimensions far too deep to comprehend I'm sure. DOH! It hurts my head too.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
yes this is big news for me, it was always terrible after about 2 years of recruiting and most of your base freshman and sophomores were out of the job, rated way to low to compete with random 3 and 4 *s from recruiting.Quote:
Originally Posted by cdj
also could the potential rating be unlocked once you get him signed and on your roster (like madden)? or will we just have to guess at the potential after one year of training.
With a set amount of points you can earn based on your schools rating in that particular area....I have a good feeling that smaller schools are going to have a tough time getting the big dogs right off the bat this year. Then you combine this with part two of the blog....the challenge of building up a small school may finally be here. I'm hoping so.
^^
+1
me too, its fun to build up small schools, buts it has been unrealistically easy in the past...
I think that is what has killed longevity and interest in online dynasties.Quote:
Originally Posted by Schauwn
should be fun. I love building up bad teams for my offline dynasties. I really love that they are stretching out the ratings and changing up the new recruits too.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBHuskers
All this info is really great. Agreed on stretching out the ratings, I really feel that too often a couple of years into a dynasty you have 20 some odd teams with an "A" or better overall rating. I'm sure this will help ameliorate that.
I echo some of the disappointment that all three of these "dynasty blogs" will be about recruiting. The silver lining is that all of this stuff needed the upgrades, and the fact that they seem to be coming out quickly is a big plus.
Don't want to sound greedy, but I hope there's more news that may affect dynasties beyond recruiting :o
If not, no bigs, just keeping my fingers crossed