NCAA Football 13 Dynasty Mode Recruiting Discussion Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp

when in an online dynasty, does anyone recruit a guy hard, and hold off on offering a scholarship? or do you always offer it right away?

---

With Powerhouse teams, typically if I'm in the top 3 or so, I'll offer a scholarship. If I'm not in Top 3 but still in Top 10, then it will just depend on things but more than likely I'll offer him a scholarship early. For guys that I'm not in their Top 10, I'll try to hide in the grass so to speak until I can climb up his list of schools. After the first half of the season is done and my initial targets start to commit, then I'll start looking around for more players and as I slowly scout them, I'll decide whether to offer a scholarship or not. Also... always offer a scholarship if you're #1. Always a chance to get an instant commit.

For lower tier teams, I'll use the scholarship as a way to get instant interest... if he doesn't have any other scholarship offers, then that typically will at least put me in his Top 8 or so. From there I can slowly build up on him.

you can always un-offer the schol, just take them off your board then out them back on

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jacoavlu

you can always un-offer the schol, just take them off your board then out them back on

---

but you wont get the points for the second scholarship offer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hellisan

How have you proven this to yourself? Just curious. or maybe better stated, how has the community, if that's what it is, come to that conclusion?

---

Observation based over many dynasties over many years from many different users. You can load the same dynasty week over and over again, ad nauseam, and get different results, even with the same steps being followed. If it's not a pseudo-random (which, let's be honest, almost everything in this game is based on the same principles as a dice roll (i.e. it's pseudo-random), so why wouldn't this be?), then it's so close to it that I can't imagine there being a specific code path that would generate an instant commit.

I think there are factors that may make it more likely (which is why, late in the year, I seem to get more instants from 2*s that have been getting no attention from me, or anyone else), but at the beginning of the year? Week 1? Pretty sure it's random.

Also, the simple answer is that a random would be the easiest to code. So :: shrug ::.

Note I'm talking about instant-upon-offer. Instant-upon-call is a different thing, not random, and I'm not sure I've seen it in NCAA 13.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp

when in an online dynasty, does anyone recruit a guy hard, and hold off on offering a scholarship? or do you always offer it right away?

---

I never offer until I'm #1, unless there are either: A) enough other offers, or B) the #1 school has offered and is far enough ahead that it's possible I'm going to be left behind. Basically, if I need to offer to guarantee I'll be in the Top 5 when the kid goes from Top 8 to Top 5, I'll offer. Or if I feel like I need to close the gap to the #1 school, I'll offer then. Otherwise, not until #1. There's no real benefit otherwise.

do gems progress at a faster rate than busts? kinda hard to answer since it would take a minimum of 3-4 years multiple times to figure out.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp

do gems progress at a faster rate than busts? kinda hard to answer since it would take a minimum of 3-4 years multiple times to figure out.....

---

No... I don't think so. I think that's just simply to highlight whether they were scouted better than originally rated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gschwendt

No... I don't think so. I think that's just simply to highlight whether they were scouted better than originally rated.

---

i know the gem/bust label is more accurately reflected as over-rated/under-rated......i was kinda getting at when they get on campus, do the gems get higher offseason training results and the busts not get as much in offseason training?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp

i know the gem/bust label is more accurately reflected as over-rated/under-rated......i was kinda getting at when they get on campus, do the gems get higher offseason training results and the busts not get as much in offseason training?

---

I think he got your original question ... and was saying that he didn't think the gem/bust label influenced offseason training at all. I agree with him.

sigh......robert nkemdiche decommitted from clemson today and reopened his recruitment.

oh to have this in the game....

Is there a place for someone new to go to find what everything means in recruiting and explain the points and when to offer and call strategy, when do have a recruit visit, etc?

AKAbus, you can checkout the NCAA 12 Recruiting Compendium. It had more discussion on the type of topics you're asking for. While the interface on NCAA 13 has changed, the strategies are largely unchanged.

If you have specific questions, feel free to ask them. I'm better with specific questions than broad ones :D

Welcome to the site!

I'm in an online dynasty with 6 other users. We just started season 3, and my coach integrity has no changed at all despite me promising all of my 1st year signees 3 promises each and passing them all. Does anyone know how this could be? Other guys have maxed out integrity, or 3/4 the way full. Does the National Championship and Top 10 team promise not work this year? The reason I ask, is because I promised most of them those, whereas the other coaches promised simple things like no redshirt, good exposure, etc.

Any insight, would be appreciated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

Note I'm talking about instant-upon-offer. Instant-upon-call is a different thing, not random, and I'm not sure I've seen it in NCAA 13.

---

I've lucked into two instant-upon-call hard commits twice in my current Texas State dynasty (just the second year).

Interestingly, even though I allocated x minutes for the call, I wasn't charged the full x.



Now if only I could reliably find some 3* gems to go with my 4* busts!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ralphs

Interestingly, even though I allocated x minutes for the call, I wasn't charged the full x.

---

its always been like that. even with the scholarship offer commits. if you offer a scholly as your first 10 minutes of the phone call, and the recruit commits, the call will end right there; even if you wanted to talk to him for an hour, you'll only be charged for 10 minutes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp

even if you wanted to talk to him for an hour, you'll only be charged for 10 minutes.

---

Though I believe there was a bug with this in NCAA 13 that had to be patched post-release. But I believe that's the behavior now, yes.

free and strong safeties should be combined into just one position in recruiting. it should be up to the user to figure out who to put at each position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp

free and strong safeties should be combined into just one position in recruiting. it should be up to the user to figure out who to put at each position.

---

Same case could be made for offensive lineman and linebackers... Maybe even defensive lineman.

I'd like that as well. Every year in position changes, I'm turning RGs into LGs and LEs into REs and whatnot. If it were just a pool of Gs, Ts, DEs, OLBs, etc., that would make things so much easier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gschwendt

Same case could be made for offensive lineman and linebackers... Maybe even defensive lineman.

---

not so much. rivals and espn both list o-linemen as 3 groups....same with d-linemen (DE and DT) and linebackers (inside and outside). i'm not sure how scout groups players off the top of my head. safety is really the only position where they dont differentiate which position exactly they play as.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp

not so much. rivals and espn both list o-linemen as 3 groups....

---

True, but that's because in real life there's a distinctive difference between a Left Tackle and a Center. Both in experience at the position (Center calls out blitzes and blocking protections for many teams) and in technique. Many safeties, particularly in high school, have to play both techniques because of rotation and not swapping.

But in the game there is no difference between a T and a C. Their OVR is calculated differently, but you can jump between the three easily in Position Changes. ATH recruits that could play all three used to be much more common, and really should be again. But the easier move would be to just reduce it to a single OL pool.

I don't agree with combining backers though. There's a big difference between the types of recruits you find at MLB and OLB, in the game. You could combine them, but I'd prefer to see them kept separate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by souljahbill

I'd like that as well. Every year in position changes, I'm turning RGs into LGs and LEs into REs and whatnot. If it were just a pool of Gs, Ts, DEs, OLBs, etc., that would make things so much easier.

---

For recruiting it already is a pool of Gs, Ts, DEs, etc, isn't it? I don't think they're meaning that LGs go to just G in the Roster, just in Recruiting.

It was apparently not discussed previously in this thread, but thought I'd post this here anyway ...

I know some people have complained about the "Compare Schools" option showing (0 - 0), such as on a Most with an A+/D comparison. I've seen that a handful of times, and only once, that I can think of, did I actually receive 0 points on the comparison. Come to think of it, it might have been the one time I did recruiting from the Web that I got 0 points.

Anyway, the past two weeks I've had a guy that has Playing Style for Most. I'm A+, the #2 school is D, I believe. The pitch has shown (0 - 0). This week I got +188/-189. I think it shows 0-0 when the range is too big for the variable to count (I'm guessing).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

But in the game there is no difference between a T and a C. Their OVR is calculated differently, but you can jump between the three easily in Position Changes. ATH recruits that could play all three used to be much more common, and really should be again. But the easier move would be to just reduce it to a single OL pool.

---

if you combined the 3 positions, how would you go about giving an OL recruit a position when he signs? how would you know which position to give him? or would the game randomly assign that recruit to one of the 5 OL spots? or is this a case, as to where we would get the ability to recruit a player for a specific position? the light bulb isnt clicking on, cuz i'm not understanding why you want the o-line combined into a single group. :confused:

For o-line (and any other position with L/R distinctions), I want 3 groups like during recruiting: T, G, and C. Once you get them, they turn into LG/RG, LT/RT, etc. They should just stay as G, for example, so it would be easier to set depth charts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp

if you combined the 3 positions, how would you go about giving an OL recruit a position when he signs?

---

Position Changes? The game could have a set position for him already (much like the game identifies whether a recruit is a LG or RG, instead of just "G"), just not shown on the recruit screen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp

how would you know which position to give him?

---

How do you know now? Besides AWR factoring in, there's no realistic difference between a C and a T. There are some players that are better fit to play T or G, but they might be recruited (in the game) as a C.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp

the light bulb isnt clicking on, cuz i'm not understanding why you want the o-line combined into a single group. :confused:

---

Hey, it wasn't my idea ;) I just pointed out that real life and the game are different in this regard, and gave a reason to support G's suggestion that you could make the argument for OL. There's a reason there are Tackle and Center recruits in real life. In the game they're practically the same.


Your point, from what I can tell, was that Rivals and other sites don't differentiate between FS and SS. I would guess that's because there's little separation between a guy that plays FS and a guy that plays SS at the high school level. They probably do a decent amount of both Centerfield and Run Support. But in the game there's a clear separation of skills between a FS and SS. The FSes are, generally, better at Zone Coverage and have superior speed/agility ratings. The SSes are generally better at tackling and run support factors. So there's a reason to keep them separate as far as the game is concerned.

Rivals/Scout/247 aren't the best lead to follow, after all. 247 has separate rankings for Pro-style QB and Dual-style QB. No reason to emulate that, obviously. They also have WDE and SDE (Weak Defensive End and Strong Defensive End). I wouldn't like to see DE split into two either.

Anyway, to end a long bit of rambling, if the central question is "if they're combined, how would I separate them", then I could ask the same question for a combined Safety list. If it's left to the user to decide which fits best where, wouldn't that, again, be the same for a combined OL?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by souljahbill

For o-line (and any other position with L/R distinctions), I want 3 groups like during recruiting: T, G, and C. Once you get them, they turn into LG/RG, LT/RT, etc. They should just stay as G, for example, so it would be easier to set depth charts.

---

so then which side of the line does the #1 guard on the depth chart line up at?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

Anyway, to end a long bit of rambling, if the central question is "if they're combined, how would I separate them", then I could ask the same question for a combined Safety list. If it's left to the user to decide which fits best where, wouldn't that, again, be the same for a combined OL?

---

i didnt know the reasoning behind the idea, so sorry for any confusion if it came across as "me thinking the idea was stupid." it wasnt, i just didnt understand why they thought it should be changed.

as far as the question in this quote, ya, i guess it would be the same for the o-line. i would think that some of the blocking/footwork ratings for each position would need to be more/less important for every position (run/pass block footwork for tackles, run/pass block strength for guards and centers, awareness way more important for centers than guards/tackles).

maybe i'm just looking at it the wrong way, idk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp

so then which side of the line does the #1 guard on the depth chart line up at?

---

Wherever I choose to put him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by souljahbill

Wherever I choose to put him.

---

i think i'm catching on.... but just to be clear, would you have an addition position on your team for unassigned o-linemen (like what the athletes position is) at the position changes screen?

No, that's not necessary. Continuing to use Gs as an example, when doing position changes/depth chart, ALL the Gs on the roster are shown as opposed to LGs only showing on the LG screen and RGs only showing on the RG screen.

guards and tackles can play the other side of the line without penalty, so correct me if i'm wrong, but all you're essentially doing is removing the letter of which side they play as? if thats the case, then i dont see the point of doing it. it doesnt seem like a step forward; more of a sidestep, imo. also seems like it'd screw up the cpu as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp

guards and tackles can play the other side of the line without penalty, so correct me if i'm wrong, but all you're essentially doing is removing the letter of which side they play as? if thats the case, then i dont see the point of doing it. it doesnt seem like a step forward; more of a sidestep, imo. also seems like it'd screw up the cpu as well.

---

Isn't that the same as not having FS and SS but just S? As far as I can tell, we both just want to pool our players so that it'd be easier to compare and make personnel decisions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

It was apparently not discussed previously in this thread, but thought I'd post this here anyway ...

I know some people have complained about the "Compare Schools" option showing (0 - 0), such as on a Most with an A+/D comparison. I've seen that a handful of times, and only once, that I can think of, did I actually receive 0 points on the comparison. Come to think of it, it might have been the one time I did recruiting from the Web that I got 0 points.

Anyway, the past two weeks I've had a guy that has Playing Style for Most. I'm A+, the #2 school is D, I believe. The pitch has shown (0 - 0). This week I got +188/-189. I think it shows 0-0 when the range is too big for the variable to count (I'm guessing).

---

I have had this happen to me countless times. In my online dynasty, I will be recruiting against a school with D- or D Coach Prestige (in comparison to my A+) and it will preview as a +180 points or whatever, but when I make the choice it gives me 0 points.

Curious as to if it's too big to write out, or if it doesn't go thru for some unknown reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by souljahbill

Isn't that the same as not having FS and SS but just S? As far as I can tell, we both just want to pool our players so that it'd be easier to compare and make personnel decisions.

---

It isn't the same as moving a FS to SS or vice versa because the is a decrease in awareness with those position switches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prime9

It isn't the same as moving a FS to SS or vice versa because the is a decrease in awareness with those position switches.

---

Yeah, that was always in the back of my mind as this discussion went on as typically, I think of SSs smaller, faster LBs while I consider FSs to be bigger stronger CBs. I wouldn't necessarily pool those positions together but I would Ts, Gs, DEs, and OLBs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp

i didnt know the reasoning behind the idea, so sorry for any confusion if it came across as "me thinking the idea was stupid." it wasnt, i just didnt understand why they thought it should be changed.

---

It was your idea to combine positions in the first place ;) :D

only safeties. i didnt understand the reasoning for combining all of the o-line positions into one for recruiting purposes, to begin with.

combining o-line doesnt really make any changes though, as o-linemen are all basically interchangeable right now....unless they made some changes to what's important for each o-linemen. as of now, changing a T to a G, only drops him like 2 OVR points.

but combining safeties would create a hybrid safety model. he'd be slower than your typical free safety but faster than a strong safety, little worse in coverage than a FS but better than a SS, a better tackler than a FS but not as good as a SS, etc. obviously some safeties would be better suited as a FS and some as a SS, and some could play both. i think with a hybrid model, you'd see more variation between your elite recruits and the average recruits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp

only drops him like 2 OVR points.

---

Because of the AWR drop that comes from moving him from the position he was supposed to play to a position he's better suited for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp

but combining safeties would create a hybrid safety model.

---

Only if they went out of their way to create safety prospects that could be either one. You didn't suggest that (that I saw) previously -- only to combine the list.

There should be a lot more prospects that blur the lines -- but that's what ATH is for. There are definitely ATHs that fit both FS and SS. That's where you'll find the hybrids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

Because of the AWR drop that comes from moving him from the position he was supposed to play to a position he's better suited for.

---

thats why i'm not in favor of combining the o-line. they could do it right now because there isnt a difference between the different o-line positions, however, once ea starts making major changes to how the OVR's are calculated between the different o-line spots, they'd have to change it right back to how it is now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

Only if they went out of their way to create safety prospects that could be either one. You didn't suggest that (that I saw) previously -- only to combine the list.

There should be a lot more prospects that blur the lines -- but that's what ATH is for. There are definitely ATHs that fit both FS and SS. That's where you'll find the hybrids.

---

they already have the hybrid safety model. and when i said combine the list, i assumed people would pick up on dropping the "free" and "strong" safety labels, and creating one safety classification, as could be seen on the rivals/scout/espn websites. when the recruits are randomly generated, there are naturally gonna be some who are better suited to play free safety, some who are better for strong safety, and some who can play either. its part of the deviation of the curve that they have to make sure that not all of the recruits are the same. this doesnt involve the athlete position group, as thats largely for recruits who can play offense and defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

It was apparently not discussed previously in this thread, but thought I'd post this here anyway ...

I know some people have complained about the "Compare Schools" option showing (0 - 0), such as on a Most with an A+/D comparison. I've seen that a handful of times, and only once, that I can think of, did I actually receive 0 points on the comparison. Come to think of it, it might have been the one time I did recruiting from the Web that I got 0 points.

Anyway, the past two weeks I've had a guy that has Playing Style for Most. I'm A+, the #2 school is D, I believe. The pitch has shown (0 - 0). This week I got +188/-189. I think it shows 0-0 when the range is too big for the variable to count (I'm guessing).

---

just ran into this bug again, in this site's 360 od. i'm playing as ASU, and was recruiting against iowa for a WR.

i used the playing style pitch as i was rated an A+ in it and the recruit had above average interest in it. iowa, on the other hand, was rated a D- in it. comparing the pitch showed (0-0), but i tried it anyway, and it returned a 0-0 interest gained/lost result.

Were you recruiting from the web or on the console? I've only seen it once, and I do almost all of my recruiting on the console.