In the current year of the TGT OD, I got 2 4* commits with the first 20 minutes I used for the season. That was a nice start. :nod:
Printable View
In the current year of the TGT OD, I got 2 4* commits with the first 20 minutes I used for the season. That was a nice start. :nod:
Here is the definition of negative recruiting. Aided by X2 Bonus....can't remember if I had Pipeline Bonus as well.
http://www.thegamingtailgate.com/ima...Recruiting.JPG
+920
-509
Essentially a 1429 point swing :D
Wow, that's ridiculous. Those poor bastards.
What I don't get in some of the dynasty stuff is how some schools clean up on the 5star recruits consistently when my team has a better record consistently and doesn't seem to get the number of sniffs, much less the number of commitments, from those 5star guys.
The other thing I don't like is that you can basically run a lean roster since injuries aren't that severe across the board which helps have more recruits interested in your school since there is playing time available and spots available. That intentional lack of depth is silly to have in a game that is trying to mimic/sim real college football where quality depth is paramount for making it through a season as well as long-term development and program strength. Yet, you can basically cheat that out in order to attract top recruits in the game.
On Heisman recruiting I think it's very balanced in terms of user difficulty. Some programs do get too many 5* but I have no problem with the amount I'm able to get. My classes are realistic.
I know a lot of guys want 85 man rosters but it will just lead to talent hording. This is one area that doesn't bother me with only 70 schollies. 75 might be nice but I do just fine with 70.
I just can't say enough about how much I love the randomness of recruiting this year. It is truly awesome (and certainly lifelike) to have these high rated prospects turn out to be busts, while finding some of those hidden gems among the 1 Star, 2 Star, and 3 Star players.
I think the hording could be offset with proper player transfers and with more busts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy
Agreed. I think we already have a hoarding problem, even with 70 man rosters, because top-tier players go to too many top-tier teams with no regard for playing time possibilities and basically no chance of transferring in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by steelerfan
Jeff I think we seen this in Powerhouse with my QB's. For those that don't know, I'll break it down.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
This season that just ended I had the following:
95ovr RS SR
92ovr RS SR
94ovr RS JR
92ovr RS JR
and redshirt incoming Freshman #1 overall 79ovr, as well as #2 ATH that was a QB 77ovr.
That year all the top QB's wanted to come to PSU, I took the #1 QB and since we just finished with the offseason he is an 80ovr that I'm redshirting.
This is just crazy, and not once has any of these guys wanted to transfer.
Uhm, yeah. You and Papa are Exhibit A and Exhibit B.Quote:
Originally Posted by psusnoop
And Alabama. Sigh.
One would think there would be a way to assign a weight to number of players at the position, years of eligibility remaining, player’s potential, and players OVR in determining if a recruit will sign with a team, then use the same formula and add playing time to determine if a player will transfer.
Give players a school pride rating and when the outcome of the formula outweighs the players school pride he transfers, or in recruiting if the players school pride outweighs the outcome of the formula there would still be a possibility of him signing dependant on how well you are able to talk him into coming to your school.
I would make the players school pride rating a hidden rating so it’s not abused.
I have quite a few ideas about hidden ratings that they could consider. Maybe I'll take the time to write 'em up and hope they stumble upon them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneback
That's a good idea. I like Oneback's idea about school pride too.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
I like this as well, well done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneback
I understand what you're saying, but my complaint w/ recruiting is the randomness of the Interview process. You may already know a recruit has zero interest in your school's academic level, but every time you go to speak w/ him this will pop up. And you have to use one of your Ask Another Question choices.Quote:
Originally Posted by hillbill
I like the old way, where we found out what they considered Most - Very High - Very High - High - High and sometimes, you could pound on those High's enough to turn them into Very High's. The new, complete random, almost Wheel Of Fortune way of talking to recruit's is ridiculous because it just isn't real at all.
I agree that it should be more weighted so things like Low/D- never come up, because who's going to take the time to talk about that? But a lot of us have been interpreting it as the recruit having control of the call, not you. That doesn't always explain some of the decisions and topics, but at least it can partially explain the change in control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Death
Plus, you actually pointed out the central problem with the old system. You pounded on those Highs, etc, until you had the guy signed. There was very little strategy, and absolutely no risk/reward. You could use a 2.5+ hr phone call on one guy by using three topics. Hit one until he turns :(, then go to the next, then the next. That was crap.
I don't 100% like the system as it is, and there are a few modifications I would advocate, but I also know the old system wasn't real at all either. Nick Saban doesn't insist on talking about Conference Prestige for 90 minutes just because he can.
LOL! How many recruits are trying to decide between VA Tech and Troy?Quote:
Originally Posted by cdj
in one of my ODs, Troy and Fresno State both became a pretty good recruiting schools landing top 15 classes almost every year.Quote:
Originally Posted by souljahbill
I really hope conference prestige changes this year. It really hurts recruiting IMO. The ebb and flow of conference strength needs to be better reflected in recruiting.
And if that's the case then why would the recruit bring up topics he has zero interest in? You said the old way wasn't real either, but at least it was more real than this current system. You had the football face and if you tried to pound a subject and he grew tired of it you needed to bail quickly or risk him hanging up. The old system also didn't waste time on non-interest topics.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
One more complaint w/ recruiting... since I run 5- wide I always have a slew of WR's on my team. Eight at the minimum... but let's say I am recruiting a 5-star WR who is just off the charts. Great speed, hands, acceleration, awareness... total package. Why does it say Playing Time - Poor??? Why can't I tell the kid, 'Look, you come to {Insert school} and not only will you start, you'll catch over 100 passes in my offense!'
Yeah, they have the promise of playing time, but that's broken too. One year I landed a stud WR, placed him as the # 5 WR on the depth chart, which in 5- wide, means he is always the far inside WR on the side where there are three WR's. The kid caught 144 passes and 18 TD's and at the end of the year it said I broke my promise of significant playing time to him. He also won several awards... and was an All-American First Team... yet I got nailed w/ a broken promise because he wasn't listed as one or two on the depth chart! :bang:
Yeah, you can swap SEC and Sunbelt teams and the SEC will still be an A+ while the Sunbelt will still be a D+ or whatever it is. Each school should have some kind of hidden "value" rating and when you add up all the values in the conference and divide it by the number of teams, that mean avg. should equate to a conference prestige grade.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaymo76
Exactly! Let's say:Quote:
Originally Posted by souljahbill
1. strength of previous years schedule
2. bcs BOWL bids / victories
3. N.C. BIDS
... Add whatever you like but one would think there could be a pretty simple formula used???