Recruiting in NCAA 13 - What would you like to see?

I was actually thinking earlier about doing away with the 100 pt scale for ratings and just doing 1-10.

A+=10
A=9
B+=8
B=7
C+=6
C=5
D+=4
D=3
F+=2
F=1

I think the floating scale is far more interesting. I want a scale that changes based on the skill sets of the player and the system that they are playing in. It would grow the game to something VERY close to realism because you'd have kids underperforming because they are in a system that isn't conducive to their skill sets resulting in them leaving for the NFL early or transferring to another school that's a better fit for them.

There are so many things that they could do with the rating system to increase the depth of this game 10 fold, but they're far too worried about the lowest common denominator of players of the game instead of going after the customer base that would make the game a series that could last for a long time instead of slowly dying like it seems like it is and would have already if they weren't using so many aspects of Madden's technology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by morsdraconis

I think the floating scale is far more interesting. I want a scale that changes based on the skill sets of the player and the system that they are playing in. It would grow the game to something VERY close to realism because you'd have kids underperforming because they are in a system that isn't conducive to their skill sets resulting in them leaving for the NFL early or transferring to another school that's a better fit for them.

There are so many things that they could do with the rating system to increase the depth of this game 10 fold, but they're far too worried about the lowest common denominator of players of the game instead of going after the customer base that would make the game a series that could last for a long time instead of slowly dying like it seems like it is and would have already if they weren't using so many aspects of Madden's technology.

---

what do you mean by a floating scale, exactly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp

what do you mean by a floating scale, exactly?

---

They'd have a floating scale for their attributes. Say a recruit would have anywhere from 86 to 95 in something depending on several factors, but, most of all, the system in which they were playing compared to what their skill set suggested.

QBs that aren't good at pro style passing concepts (because of lack of arm strength and truly great medium to long range accuracy) would struggle in an offense that was pro style but would excel in an offense that was more West Coast or Air Raid oriented because they'd be playing more to their strengths by using routes that made more sense as well as having WRs that were better at getting open, and, therefore, less accurate passes would still give positive results.

Head Coach 09 allowed you to customize your "philosophy" for each position (i.e. Field General QB vs Rocket Arm QB vs Scrambler), and each philosophy had a different way of calculating OVR. Is that what you're thinking along the lines of, mors, or were you actually meaning to influence the attributes themselves? Of course, HC 09 had that too, because every staff (and their skills) influenced how players developed; but that's a much deeper addition to be made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by morsdraconis

they're far too worried about the lowest common denominator of players of the game instead of going after the customer base that would make the game a series that could last for a long time

---

A small, but consistent, hardcore playerbase is not enough to sustain a series, not any more (at least not on consoles). And with licensed games, that's doubly true. I'd argue that it's impossible to chase the "lowest common denominator" when everybody knows the casual player is largely overwhelmed by the entire sports genre. Plus, pleasing everyone, even within your hardcore audience, is impossible. GamesRadar actually makes both arguments for me :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

Head Coach 09 allowed you to customize your "philosophy" for each position (i.e. Field General QB vs Rocket Arm QB vs Scrambler), and each philosophy had a different way of calculating OVR. Is that what you're thinking along the lines of, mors, or were you actually meaning to influence the attributes themselves? Of course, HC 09 had that too, because every staff (and their skills) influenced how players developed; but that's a much deeper addition to be made.

A small, but consistent, hardcore playerbase is not enough to sustain a series, not any more (at least not on consoles). And with licensed games, that's doubly true. I'd argue that it's impossible to chase the "lowest common denominator" when everybody knows the casual player is largely overwhelmed by the entire sports genre. Plus, pleasing everyone, even within your hardcore audience, is impossible. GamesRadar actually makes both arguments for me :)

---

they should just release multiple videos showing the different difficulties. it can be the exact same plays called, but it'd give everyone a chance to see the game in action on the difficulty that they play on. they need to give us (especially the major community sites) something other than varsity footage, where practically none of the hardcore gamers of the series play on.

on the head coach thing, i'd like to see a system where it listed the recruit's high school offense, and then depending on how similar of an offense you run, his progression in your system would be affected as such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

Great list, MVP. I particularly like #4, and agree with you that it shouldn't be a full-blown junior recruitment. I'd love to see a way to influence Junior's Top 10 though, so you can find your way onto a recruit's list before the season begins.

---

I posted the following in the wishlist forum...

It addresses the "junior" recruiting, at least before the next season begins.

Quote:

---

I'd like for there to be an option of "in-depth recruiting." I say option because some people think there's too much already. So, this is how I'd break the recruiting modes down...

A) - The CPU recruits for you like old school College Football USA 96. At the end of the season, the CPU randomly selects commits based on how your team performed and their prestige in the given year.

B) - The standard user-controlled 5 week post-season recruiting only, which was introduced in NCAA Football 98 (I believe).

C) - The existing setup: In-season recruiting + 5 week post-season recruiting.

D) - In-season recruiting + 5 week post-season recruiting + off-season recruiting.

In real life, there are 4 types of recruiting periods set by the NCAA: Quiet, Evaluation, Contact, and Dead periods. For the purposes of this post, I'll only be using the Quiet and Evaluation periods as it pertains to off-season recruiting.

Quiet Period = Coaches are allowed to call recruits (and offer scholarships). Recruits can visit coaches, but can only do so at the coaches' respective colleges (i.e. unofficial visit).

Evaluation Period = Assistant Coaches are permitted to visit recruits off-campus (as well as make calls and scholarship offers).

The real off-season recruiting calendar set by the NCAA is as follows...

1st week of February (the day after Signing Day) - April 14th = Quiet Period
April 15th - May 31st = Evaluation Period
June 1st - July 31st = Quiet Period

Here's what I'm suggesting with the "D" mode (off-season) recruiting...

Off-season Tasks

1st week of February
- Signing Day
- Next season's Top 100 Recruits 'Watch' List released
- Recruiting: Notification of any prospects that will attend your school's Junior Day Event
- Recruiting: Select Prospects for Recruit Board
(Advance to next period)

February (day after NSD) - April 14th (Quiet Period)
- Spring Position Changes (including early enrollees)
- Spring Depth Chart (Divvy up reps to each position group by percentage points totaling 100%)
- Recruiting: Notification of any prospects that will attend your school's Spring Game
- Recruiting: Calls / Scholarship Offers permitted
- Spring Game (option to play or sim)
(Advance to next period)

April 15th - May 31st (Evaluation Period)
- Training Results (including early enrollees)
- Recruiting: Notification of any prospects that will attend your school's Summer Football Camp
- Recruiting: Calls / Scholarship Offers; Off-Campus Coach Visits permitted (this period only)
(Advance to next period)

June 1st - July 31st (Quiet Period)
- Official Top 100 Recruits List released
- Recruiting: Calls / Scholarship Offers
- Summer Position Changes (including non-early enrollees who have now arrived on campus as well as walk-ons)
(Advance to next period)

August (Pre-season Tasks)
- Pre-season Depth Chart
- Redshirts
- Cut Players
- Schedule Changes
- Recruiting: Calls / Scholarship Offers; Official Visits now permitted (beginning of Contact Period)
- Begin Season
(Advance to regular season)

NOTES:

Junior Day, Spring Game, and Summer Camps are all unofficial visits i.e. prospects randomly attend based on interest level and/or location. The spring game DOES NOT determine off-season training. Practice does. And practice is simulated by setting the rep percentage of your players in spring depth chart.

Spring depth chart is essentially spring practice. Each specific position group in your offense/defense scheme (based on playbooks) has a cumulative total of 100% reps. Example of a pro-form offense's position groups: QB, RB, FB, TE, SE, FL, LT, LG, C, RG, RT. Each one of those groups totals to 100% reps.

Then, you divvy up that 100% within each position group. Say you have 3 QBs. You give your starter 50% reps, back-up 30%, and 3rd string 20%.
1 - QB = 50%
2 - QB = 30%
3 - QB = 20%

And you do this for each position...
1 - RB = 40%
2 - RB = 30%
3 - RB = 20%
4 - RB = 10%

The amount of reps, coupled with a player's potential (which is hidden), will determine the offseason training results. It's also a risk/reward scenario. You could give one player all 100% of the reps at his position, leaving the others with 0%, where your reward is maximum progression for that player depending on his potential rating, however you risk injury. Conversely, if a player gets a small percentage of reps, you risk that player transferring or minimal to no training results. This would also play a huge role for CPU A.I. when they oversign too many players at one position, like having 5 QBs on a roster. The 4th and/or 5th string QBs would be getting screwed in the rep department and may transfer.

The game should have a default percentage already set up, then you could manipulate it from there.

This would give you some control over the development of your players. But just as coaching in real life, there are risk/rewards to these decisions. Hidden potential ratings, though, are the key in keeping offseason progression from being cheesed.


The current off-season tasks as of NCAA 2012 features 5 advancements (Signing Day / Position Changes / Training Results / Cut Players / Pre-season Tasks). The example I have given of an in-depth off-season recruiting also has 5 advancements. However, there are now 4 additional recruiting opportunities, a Spring Game, and 2 opportunities for Position Changes (Spring and Summer).

---

Also, was there any word on them adding a JUCO search filter? It's a tedious process looking for only a handful of JUCOs among thousands of freshmen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TIMB0B

I posted the following in the wishlist forum...

It addresses the "junior" recruiting, at least before the next season begins.

---

Biggest problem I see there is that you'd have to be generating new recruits while the current recruits are still in the database (AFAIK). That could be problematic from a technical standpoint. I do like the design though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

Biggest problem I see there is that you'd have to be generating new recruits while the current recruits are still in the database (AFAIK). That could be problematic from a technical standpoint. I do like the design though.

---

After all the recruits from the previous season have signed??? If NSD and the recruit database for next season create that problem, then NSD will have to stand on its own "advancement period" again. Just take that first period, and split it into two.

National Signing Day
(Advance to next period)

Off-season Tasks

Day after NSD
- Next season's Top 100 Recruits 'Watch' List released
- Recruiting: Notification of any prospects that will attend your school's Junior Day Event
- Recruiting: Select Prospects for Recruit Board
(Advance to next period)

February - April 15th (Quiet Period)
- Spring Position Changes (including early enrollees)
- Spring Depth Chart (Divvy up reps to each position group by percentage points totaling 100%)
- Recruiting: Notification of any prospects that will attend your school's Spring Game
- Recruiting: Calls / Scholarship Offers permitted
- Spring Game (option to play or sim)
(Advance to next period)

...and so on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TIMB0B

After all the recruits from the previous season have signed???

---

They're still treated separately as recruits, AFAIK, on NSD. You're right though, that beyond that point they should be gone from the database.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

They're still treated separately as recruits, AFAIK, on NSD. You're right though, that beyond that point they should be gone from the database.

---

So, to avoid any problems, they'll just have to keep NSD in its own stage. It would be one more advancement period, but with the new additions to the off-season, I don't think people would gripe too much about an extra 60 seconds of loading/saving to the next period.

Btw, this thread is awesome. I joined this site last night and read all of it. The "dealbreaker" suggestion would be huge among others. And I like the idea of having coach recruiting ratings, etc.

I hope the progression of ratings are improved this year.
There have been alot of players with high(90+) positional ratings, where you cant tell the star players apart from regular players. With WRs able to create space on route cuts, I dont want to see almost every(good) team with 1-2 WRs with 90+ RR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TIMB0B

So, to avoid any problems, they'll just have to keep NSD in its own stage. It would be one more advancement period, but with the new additions to the off-season, I don't think people would gripe too much about an extra 60 seconds of loading/saving to the next period.

---

But with Online Dynasty, it has the potential to be much more than an extra 60 seconds. Though I would think it should be able to be combined into another item, rather than a separate stage that's by itself.

Of course, I'd argue that a lot of the offseason could probably be reduced, but I have to imagine there are technical reasons they're not.

Glad you enjoy the thread; hope you find the rest of the site to be just as interesting!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

Though I would think it should be able to be combined into another item, rather than a separate stage that's by itself.

---

Isn't it currently a separate stage by itself already? And which stage would you combine it with? Keeping in mind the complications of the previous season's recruit database and the next season's overlapping.

Ignore that, I misunderstood what you were saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp

i know its too late for 13, but just throwin an idea out there......

for the recruiting pitches, what if they switched it from letter grades, in which there are only 8 currently, to ranking everyone on a 1-10 system? maybe even having it include decimals (like :USC:'s Pro Potential rating could be like a 9.9 whereas :Eastern_Michigan:'s would be like a 1.1)?

this would help separate schools even more, as there are now 100 or so "grades" instead of only 8. it could work exactly as to how the current system works; the only difference would be that there are more levels available to be graded at.

anyone else agree?

---

I completely agree. This has always been one of my ideas as it really adds so much more depth than the letter grades that lump too many people together. One big example that I laugh about is Academic Prestige. You have a school like Stanford or Northwestern that is an A+ and you also have so many other schools that are A+ as well but nowhere near the level of those schools.

I'd actually like to see a scale of -100 to 100, for recruits as well. Basically same concept MVP just going whole numbers instead of decimals. With this system though you could hit all different aspects of a recruits interest. 100 would obviously be to top end, 0 would be indifferent and -100 would be they didn't want topic. For example, Early playing time. If a recruit wants to play right away it's a high number. If he could care less it's around 0, but if he didn't want to play early it would be on the lower end of the scale(I know having negative numbers gives it a negative connotation but I think it could work). If I had plenty of depth at QB my grade could be say -80 and I was targeting a QB that had Early PT as -75, we would match up and I could actually pitch it to him to get positive recruiting points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psuexv

I completely agree. This has always been one of my ideas as it really adds so much more depth than the letter grades that lump too many people together. One big example that I laugh about is Academic Prestige. You have a school like Stanford or Northwestern that is an A+ and you also have so many other schools that are A+ as well but nowhere near the level of those schools.

---

I didn't think there were too many "A+" schools in the game. "A", yes, but not A+. Plus, you have to consider two things: 1) It's based on the US News & World Report rankings, which does put a fair amount of schools up in Northwestern/Stanford territory, though I agree that they're probably not really up there. 2) We're also talking from the perspective of college football players. There are very, very, very few football players that would care to distinguish between Duke/Northwestern/Stanford and Ohio State/Penn State/Michigan on academics. Some, yes, but few.

I think there are more A+ than you realize.

And I completely agree that most recruits aren't looking for that high caliber school, but it would be nice to show that distinction. And academic prestige was just an example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psuexv

I think there are more A+ than you realize.

And I completely agree that most recruits aren't looking for that high caliber school, but it would be nice to show that distinction. And academic prestige was just an example.

---

academic prestige is also bottomed out at a C grade. so all 120 schools are ranked in only 6 letter grades. this doesnt even come close to allowing any kind of distinction.

if they dont move toward a number system in the future, and decide to keep it as a letter grade, they need to add - grades. i've been toying around with a new numbers grid based on a 1-10 ratings scale with .25 increments.....but its been hard coming up with an acceptable range for each increment.