Quote Originally Posted by Solidice View Post
that definitely wasn't the case fore NCAA 11. As Texas Tech I routinely had the #1 passing team(I had a 4-year starter gain 19,000 passing yards and around 166 pass TDs) and never could get any top WRs to commit(could really only get 3 star WRs), most never wanted anything to do with me at all. most of my best WRs over the years were ATHs that I converted to WRs(which worked out great though). I was able to attract a few big time scrambling QBs though, which sparked my moved to Miss St/Tulsa playbooks with a read option style offense.

we had another user that brought back the option to Nebraska, lead in rushing pretty much every year, and he could never get any top HBs interested.
Hmm. I noticed the opposite on 11. I signed tons of 4* WRs at SDSU. I played 4 years with them, then began simming. When I started simming, my HBs were garbage but I had a good QB and some good WRs. My 3-year starter at QB had over 17k passing (I upped passing to 80% in Coaching Philosophy) and I was getting mobbed by WRs and QBs. I also changed my playbook to Texas Tech's during that period.

I guess this is leading me to believe that I should always adjust my Coaching Philosophy to reflect the way I actually play the game. Typically, Coaching Philosophy is only used for simming, but my experience tells me it affects recruit interest, too.