Printable View
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. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
Heh. I've wondered that for a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
Bahahahahahahaha.Quote:
Originally Posted by SmoothPancakes
i thought you were actually serious up until i hit the emails and letter to the editor part. well done smooth, well done. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by SmoothPancakes
Thank you mvp. :) That was the very first thing that came to my mind when I saw your post. I'm not sure if that's sad or not. And even worse, I can sadly see that being true and happening in real life in some places in this country.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarEagle
"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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
That's another one I hadn't thought of. I like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by morsdraconis
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by psusnoop
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by morsdraconis
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by morsdraconis
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.)Quote:
Originally Posted by morsdraconis
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!"
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
i wouldnt mind seeing the soft verbal last longer....all season long, if you get a certain kind of recruit?
I think if you are going to do that you definitely need to give more time per week. If you have to talk to these kids longer or all year then class sizes will be too small. As it stands now, you are able to lock a kid up and then use that time on more people.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by psuexv
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.
They added this with the new website releaseQuote:
Originally Posted by keyser soze
http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/...v/Capture1.jpg
I disagree with that entirely!!! Now I will say the ATH position probably needs to be overhauled in some sense because of the 160 lbs OT which comes up quite often, but overall you need the ATH position. Its for players who can play multiple positions (even though most of them can't) or as I like to say the guys that are good at a couple of positions but not great at any.Quote:
Originally Posted by keyser soze
Thats a neat little addition, now carry that over to the game!
The problem with the way ATH are right now is the fact that they are not really athletes at all. They are basically good at only one position. Hell, FS is actually a better example of ATH's in the game as they can typically play multiple positions. I want real athletes that could line up at 2 or more positions and have an opportunity to start.
I wonder why Pocketscout can produce a spreadsheet that allows you to sort on its position columns (for those unaware, the program not only quantifies the letter grades from the game, but also provides OVR scores for all positions) to see that a 57 OVR HB has 80/80 KA/KP and would be rated an 80 K or P, but when you perform a Find Recruits search in the game for a P it only produces punters. Pick any other position "A" and after a sort the spreadsheet will show you TONS of guys from other positions with high "A" OVRs but the game search function only includes ATH -- the 160 lb OT, LOL -- and "A".
Edit: sorry, hadn't realized that I'd not stated I was trying to ask for the game's search function to be more broad, while at the same time taking care of the 160 lb ATH coming up in an OT search issue.
This EXACTLY! The FS is basically the ATH in this game. The ATH are 90% WR with a few CB, RB, QB, Centers mixed in... they are just annoying. I believe all the players should come with a recommended position rating (likely where they grade out the highest) but then we should be able to see where they grade out at every other position and hence they ALL can be "ATH" in the sense that EA uses them.Quote:
Originally Posted by ryby6969
You can basically see where an OT is going to grade out right now ... it doesn't take rocket science. Unless you want to know exactly where the #3 Tackle would place in the Guard list ...and, quite frankly, I don't see that ever happening. There's a strategy to position changes -- you don't want to just give it away.
Now, I do agree that athletes shouldn't show up for position searches, but there are ways around that. Would be nice to see it as part of the menu though.
tackle -> guard is generally a -1 point in OVR, but a +2 OVR changing to centerQuote:
Originally Posted by keyser soze
guard -> tackle is generally a -1 point in OVR, but a +2 OVR changing to center
center -> guard or tackle is generally -4 OVR
thats just what i've noticed when changing them their freshman year.
instead of every school starting at 24 or 25% interest for a recruit, they should lower that starting % to 0. this would allow some recruitments to become more of a race as his top 10/8/5/3 would be made up of who is all recruiting him. this shouldnt be applied for every recruit, as i do like it where some kids start at like 50 or 60%, but the race to sign them would take drag out their recruitments more (good thing), and allow for a more flexible/shifting top 10/8/5/3.
Maybe I just forgot but can someone tell me why online the recruiting separation of points is different then on the console?
Is this going to be changed heading into 13? If not could we make that suggestion.
I don't like this idea because its not realistic. Everybody has an idea of their top school choices. It makes sense that those choices are leading the race at the beginning everytime. Also it would be annoying if you put in a ton of time and never made the top ten.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
This is just a pet peeve... BUT... I think the recruiting advisor should be included in the game versus a paid download. I have never purchased it but it would add more to the immersion. I'm not a big fan of paid DLC adfter you drop $70 for a game.
absolutely true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayrah
this already happens. i had it in the 360 tgt od, when i was the OC at :Utah_State:. i had a 2* Juco TE from the beginning of the season, called him 30 minutes every week, and never cracked his top 10 until i dumped him in like week 11. he had all the big 10 schools listed in his top 10 so obviously he wasnt gonna get an offer from them. if this situation happened in real life, where he never received a single phone call from the big10 schools but was getting called every week by utah state, he would be listing utah state as hit top school, not rejecting them, and holding out/hoping for a scholarship offer from his dream school.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayrah
the whole "race to sign the kid" idea kinda goes in part with not being able to see how many points you're leading/trailing by, but i dont particularly care for that half. i just remember back to reading on cfb message boards that some recruits seemingly listed a new leader in their recruitment, every week (ie: Aziz Shittu, who ended up at stanford). additionally, the 5* recruits, nowadays in real life, all get 30+ offers; so the whole race idea is exactly what recruiting turns into. the recruit's top 10/8/5/3 (regardless of star rating), in the middle of the season, are all made up of who are recruiting him the hardest, not dream schools who arent talking to him at all.
I don't know if this has been discussed yet because I haven't finished reading this thread but something I would like to see implemented that will make the recruiting system so much better and more realistic is to have the option to recruit high school juniors. Has anyone on here played college hoops by 2k? You can recruit kids who are freshman, sophs and juniors. Now for the fresh and sophs, you are only able to contact them once at those class levels, which is just asking them for their tapes, but it increases their interest. And you can't start calling them and visiting them weekly until they are juniors. Now I don't know if the ncaa gives different recruiting rules to basketball than football, so Idk if this is realistic to have college football coaches call and visit high school juniors. So this was just a thought.
Also, on the player profiles while recruiting, it shows us their letter grade for each skill. Why can't we sort through them? Like, if I am looking for a pocket passing qb, instead of clicking on every single qb to see their throw accuracy and throw power, why can't I sort through them in descending order like you can for their bench and squant, etc.?
As far as I know the rules are largely the same. And it's been discussed numerous times over the years. But we've never come to an consensus on it. There's a sizable portion that think recruiting is boring/tedious/annoying as it is (though few of those are on our forums), so obviously that group would be against deeper recruiting. I don't remember it being in this year's Wishlist tournament, but it's been mentioned in past years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aztec4Life
Personally, I like the idea of doing something with underclassmen, but I wasn't a fan of how College Hoops implemented it (FYI, plenty of us here have played it :) ). I always hated that players were usually at 99% before their junior season even ended. So you had a completely different experience with your Year 1 recruits versus Year 2. I think there should be some thing that can be done with Juniors or Underclassmen (like influencing a recruit's Top 10, for example), but it shouldn't be a full-blown ability to recruit kids. Senior year for Year 2 or Year 3 recruits should be reasonably like it was for Year 1. Just to keep the balance, in my opinion.
I'm not really in favor of getting too involved with juniors since it's unnecessary in game terms. However, it wouldn't be a bad idea to perhaps add a feature where your school could host a football camp each offseason/summer and either invite juniors to get a sneak peak at some of their skills, or simply to see who shows up. The players that show up and enjoy the camp might have a tiny edge when the initial recruiting classes are created at the start of each season.
Larger, more prestigious programs would likely allure higher profile kids to their camp, while cupcakes would happy with some 1 or 2-star athletes, and everything in between. Just like with seasonal recruiting, the kids most likely to show up would be from your pipeline states.
i'm not a fan of having juniors and underclassmen being added in at this time. recruiting isnt that hard to do that you need to plan out your team for the next 2 years. i can see a case for it being added in if you regularly play on all american/heisman recruiting difficulty, but on the lower difficulties, jr's and underclassmen shouldnt even be in the game or be given a thought.
imo, there should be several other things that should be added in before jr's and underclassmen, because as of right now, jr's and underclassmen dont bring anything to the table that would dramatically enhance recruiting. its just fluff.
i think that in the 5 weeks of recruiting you are able to recruit transfers as well. In real life the schools have to recruit them they are not just handed to them. Also there needs to be the posibility of 1 or 2 star recruit being really good and the possibility of a 5 star recruit not being good enough to play.
Actually, you are not allowed to contact players looking to transfer; only they can contact the schools. Obviously there are loopholes that teams work around but the intent is there to require the players to initiate contact.Quote:
Originally Posted by kansascitysooner
question: should the pipeline bonus be reconfigured to how strong the pipeline is to that state (be based on the number of players you have on your roster from that state)?
if i'm playing as :USC:, i have california as my pipeline state with like 45 players on my roster from there. personally, i dont think that a new jersey pipeline or a florida pipeline should provide the same reward as that of california, when i have 10 times the amount of players from CA as that of FL or NJ.