A hunch on poor computer recruiting

[rjsuperfly66]

So I think it has been well-publicized that the best teams in this game get the best recruits.

Well today I discovered something that might lead to why the lower-ranked teams in this game struggle in recruiting during dynasty.

I decided to start a "joke" dynasty with Western Kentucky, who I believe is one of the worst teams in the game, if not the worst.

Like I usually do, I let the computer auto-fill my recruiting database, and then work from there.

Well, week 1 comes around, and about 20 recruits on the list are all 5-star/4-star players that are some of the best in the country, and who I will clearly have no chance of getting at a 1 star school, where they have no interest.

My thought is that if these lower computer teams are all trying to recruit such high recruits that have no interest, these higher teams are obviously getting them. What happens next is that the computer then will have to turn to realistic recruits, but the recruits have already developed some roots with higher prestiged teams and then they are taken too. What does that leave but mostly 1 and 2 star players for the low schools, giving them no chance to advance themselves...

1-2 star teams should be looking at really higher than 3 star players, because they don't have a shot at a 4-star guy unless its a good homegrown connection.

Seems like it could be something to look at. Even with progression tuning, this might still be a problem.

[sell445]

Yeah I noticed that too playing with FAU. I put 20 prospects on the board myself and let the computer fill in the rest. The computer added nothing but 4*s and 5*s.

[dmick4324]

For such a great game, isn't it crazy that there are kind of a lot of little issues that equal a big problem. The game is awesome gameplay wise and the dynasty imo is great too it's just these problems here and there. I thought recruiting and progression was fine in 10, what was wrong with it in some of your guys opinions?

[rjsuperfly66]

Quote: Originally Posted by dmick4324

For such a great game, isn't it crazy that there are kind of a lot of little issues that equal a big problem. The game is awesome gameplay wise and the dynasty imo is great too it's just these problems here and there. I thought recruiting and progression was fine in 10, what was wrong with it in some of your guys opinions?

I was a fan of recruiting in 10.

I thought the bigger problem was progression. Most guys I got were in the mid 70s as freshman, so by the time you did a redshirt and they played a few seasons, they were already in the high-80s or low 90s, and these were higher 3-star recruits if I remember right.

That was why most teams were A+ ratings wise after a few seasons.

My problem with progression was to make it more stat-driven, but EA wanted to re-work the recruiting wheel this year.

That is not a bad thing, as I like the interactions more in the game this year. I think the recruiting system as a whole this year is great. It is just the logic that sometimes accompanies the system I think is broken. For example, every season I target about 20 guys I want. When about 10 of them commit, I don't mind clearing up space on my recruiting board for other possible recruits. However, from some reason, the computer will auto-fill with players, which is fine, but they start putting crappy players with no interest at the top of the list with the players I am actually interested in. I know I usually order the players in how I want to talk to them for the week, but the computer might not differentiate this. So if the computer keeps getting auto-filled up top with players they have no shot with, are they recruiting them, or removing them from the list like I do?

It leads back to my initial point, how much of a problem might this be, that low-teams recruiting boards are full of several 5-star and high 4-star players? It might not seem like a big-deal, but it can severely mess up dynasty down the road, as the talent-difference between the top and bottom teams will continue to grow... It gives bottom teams little to no chance of ever become the next "Boise."

[goalieump413]

Quote: Originally Posted by rjsuperfly66

... It leads back to my initial point, how much of a problem might this be, that low-teams recruiting boards are full of several 5-star and high 4-star players? It might not seem like a big-deal, but it can severely mess up dynasty down the road, as the talent-difference between the top and bottom teams will continue to grow... It gives bottom teams little to no chance of ever become the next "Boise."

But the real problem seems to be that all teams, regardless of their tier, suffer after several seasons. If the talent gap grew between the top and bottom teams in college football, dominant dynasty teams would remain strong while bottom-feeders would also grow in numbers. The middle ground teams would either rise or fall.

But your observation IS a real problem, in that the AI logic defaults towards unrealistic recruiting philosophy, while allowing reasonable talent to have to wait until the other players commit.

Question though... Does this mean that the players that would commit to 1 and 2 star teams simply get washed away? Does anyone know if these guys stay around through the offseason?

[rjsuperfly66]

Quote: Originally Posted by goalieump413

But the real problem seems to be that all teams, regardless of their tier, suffer after several seasons. If the talent gap grew between the top and bottom teams in college football, dominant dynasty teams would remain strong while bottom-feeders would also grow in numbers. The middle ground teams would either rise or fall. But your observation IS a real problem, in that the AI logic defaults towards unrealistic recruiting philosophy, while allowing reasonable talent to have to wait until the other players commit. Question though... Does this mean that the players that would commit to 1 and 2 star teams simply get washed away? Does anyone know if these guys stay around through the offseason?

At least from what I saw, most 2-star and 1-star players still had some teams interested in them. But the problem with the whole scenario is that while crappy teams are going after great players, average teams could/are swallowing up any potential decent players the crappy team could get. All this leaves are really crappy players for crappy teams.

I'm not even gonna try to recruit with Western Kentucky. I'm curious where walk-on players stats are. After all, a 2 star player is around a 50 rating? A one-star is around 40? Would they really make walk-on players in the 30s? Or would they make them similar to FCS generated players, who are typically in the 50s or 60s.

Recruiting this year is funny like that.

[FedExPope]

This lack of talent for teams other than the top dogs (Alabama is always in the top 5 in preseason polls even up to 2018. Ridiculous.) I remember in my PSU dynasties in 09, eventually it would get to a point where Ohio State and sometimes Michigan were the only tough teams in the Big Ten besides me. Purdue in particular was always picked on, their overall rating would be in the 50s after a while. And this happened pretty much every time I did a PSU dynasty in 09.

[NaptownMVP]

This isn't really a problem. If they are signing one and two star recruits, what's the difference if they start off recruiting them, or try landing a big fish by chance and signing the same recruits weeks later?

No...the real problem is that the one and two star recruits blow terribly. Even 5 star guys aren't that great.