Disagree. The size of the database is not the problem.Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
How?
I don't think so. I think the existing problem is that the CPU doesn't re-evaluate their board properly. I did a simulation a few weeks back, and when I got to the end of the season (with full recruiting assistance turned on), I only had something like 10 guys on my board, and they were all signed. For some reason the CPU wasn't re-evaluating at all.
Now, that is true. If there were less top end players (whether or not there should be is another discussion), more 3* players would have to be in the mix. But that would require more 3* players that actually have ability. Like an AJ Hawk (who came in as a 3* and ended up starting at the end of his freshman year).
Except, normally, those walk-ons suck. So you're just filling more teams with bad players (since the CPU has horrible cut logic, that might compound the problem).
I don't know how the game could possibly replicate this, but one thing a lot of us have commented on over the years is that there's not enough offers going around for the top players. The reason for this is pretty simple ... there are only 35 offers to go around, and you have to be somewhat efficient with them.
Ohio State, for 2014, has already made 119 offers. That's how, in real life, some of the top players can get 50+ offers. Because when there's no limit, you can just throw an offer out there and see what a kid thinks about it. You don't have to spend 1/10th of your recruiting time, every week, trying to convince that 5-star to come join you.
Again, no clue how that could apply or be represented in NCAA. But that number was astounding to me.
Bookmarks