Isn't it about time recruiting get's overhauled?

[GGGswim]

I'm beating a dead horse here with my idea for a 'weighted' (Least coming up least and Most coming up most for them) system, so I won't go into that, for the 23rd time.

Another thing I've noticed is the lack of relationship b/t pitches when there should be one.
If a guy's Pro Potential is his Most, it really wouldn't make sense, even IRL, if Champs Contender or Conference Prestige or TV Expososure ended up as Low, Very Low or Least. That particular recruit, with NFL aspirations, is logically not going to want to go to San Jose State. They guy's gonna pick a school with B+ or higher in the above mentioned attributes, and probably going to want a coach with prestige as well.

And where does a recruit find a coach high in prestige but low in experience? (although CC may be helping to remedy this with coordinators -- e.g. Will Muschamp IRL -- holding prestige with less HC experience)

'11 was my first NCAA (heck, my 1st Xbox and game) so I can't reflect on what was used in '10, but if they altered the russian roulette results and syncronized how the attributes play off each other, and then added the logic like the OP suggest re: Prox to Home, we'd have it.
In other words, I would hate to see an overhaul of the recruiting system, I just think it needs more work by EA to improve it.

[sfc415]

Quote: Originally Posted by GGGswim

I'm beating a dead horse here with my idea for a 'weighted' (Least coming up least and Most coming up most for them) system, so I won't go into that, for the 23rd time. Another thing I've noticed is the lack of relationship b/t pitches when there should be one. If a guy's Pro Potential is his Most, it really wouldn't make sense, even IRL, if Champs Contender or Conference Prestige or TV Expososure ended up as Low, Very Low or Least. That particular recruit, with NFL aspirations, is logically not going to want to go to San Jose State. They guy's gonna pick a school with B+ or higher in the above mentioned attributes, and probably going to want a coach with prestige as well. And where does a recruit find a coach high in prestige but low in experience? (although CC may be helping to remedy this with coordinators -- e.g. Will Muschamp IRL -- holding prestige with less HC experience) '11 was my first NCAA (heck, my 1st Xbox and game) so I can't reflect on what was used in '10, but if they altered the russian roulette results and syncronized how the attributes play off each other, and then added the logic like the OP suggest re: Prox to Home, we'd have it. In other words, I would hate to see an overhaul of the recruiting system, I just think it needs more work by EA to improve it.

I couldn't of said it better myself. I was thinking that samething exactly when I recruit a guy with Pro as most then least or average on prestige/TV/Championship. Doesn't really add up

[Sportsbuck]

Things that need improvement:

- How time consuming it is.

- The fact that I am forced to talk to kids about aspects of my program that either aren't that good, or that they don't care about it.

In CH2k8, you could recruit freshman through seniors (Granted for frosh and sophomores you could only get their gametape), and it took like 2 minutes a week.

There's no reason it should take as long as it does to recruit in this game.

[chessmyantidrug]

I don't have a problem with recruiting as it is at all. One gripe I have is it doesn't seem to matter how hard you go after some recruits, they still commit to the one school they want to go to, but that's pretty realistic. By the same token, there's those select few players who you can call for 10 minutes every week and no other school can compete because they simply want to come to your school.

And recruiting isn't solely based on prestige. Sometimes you can snag a four-star recruit because they simply want to play. I usually land one or two four-star recruits in my first year with a one- or two-star school because other schools don't go after them and they just want to play.

As for stars equaling ratings, I'm not seeing that. I haven't played this year's game nearly as much as ones from years past, but I recruited a three-star MLB who had a higher rating than a four-star MLB a couple years ago. The player's grades for each attribute are a much better indication of their overall ability. I personally recruit almost exclusively on 40 time, especially early in my dynasty. I will only consider a slower player if they are rated highly in other areas. For example, I landed a 4-star WR who had 84 speed, but he was 6' 5" with 95 route running. He was my top target for four years. I couldn't connect with him consistently on deep routes, but he didn't have a problem getting open with short routes.

[packersfan4eva]

What I would do:

1) Make it more like College Hoops 2k8
2) Add more recruit names (so f-ing tired of Mike Johnsons and Shaun Jones's making up every single player after five years or so)
3) Make the athletes good at many positions
4) Have positions besides WR, RB, and ATH make up the top 50. You know...balance.

[fcboiler87]

I definitely dislike the roulette style. Don't tell me it's realistic. It's not. The recruit is NOT going to bring up his least favorite topic. He's just not. It makes no sense. I liked the recruiting okay on NCAA 10, but I really liked it on last gen. The coach calls and visits were nice. But I'll also agree with the College Hoops guys. That was good stuff. That's more along the lines of how it should be. Regardless, it is too time consuming, though I still enjoy it and do it. But please overhaul the recruiting in a good way.

[sycodmn]

Just a few things I'd like to see:

- Modify the 'random' style of choosing pitches. I suggest a 'my turn'/'your turn' system. You, as the coach, get to choose what you'd like to pitch, based on whatever criteria you like, then the player being recruited will choose a topic, based on what is most important to them. To insure that they don't just pick whatever is 'most' every time, it would be a random choice between everything 'Above Average' or better. This woulf add some realism, and also keep it from being just a case of spamming your best pitches.

This would also necessitate a change to the way time is handled. Instead of each topic being 10 minutes, maybe each 'round', both coach and player choices, would be 10 minutes.

- As others have mentioned, if a player would like to move away from home, and I am on the other side of the country, I should GAIN points for that. Situation sensitive likes and dislikes would add a TON of strategy to recruiting. Make the players comments mean something.

- Bring back GPAs! Most people don't care, but there are people, like myself, that love to add some realism, and more challenge, to a dynasty, particularly if I'm running with a military academy or top flight academic school. You could then make it one of the coaching goals. Say I'm coaching at Vandy, one of my goals could be '90% of recruits ABOVE a 3.5 GPA'. It's also a better way of giving us a hint at Awareness, which leads to my next point...

- TAKE AWAY SKILL GRADES. Make recruiting more realistic by giving us all the stat-based info we can handle, but stop just giving us grades. I want to have to make a decision, not just click on the guy with a higher letter grade.

- The ability to delegate recruiting to assistants. This will help the people that feel recruiting is too time-consuming (I personally don't), while also making assistant coaches actually mean something. Maybe I only want to concentrate on the 5 guys I really want, while having my OC and DC handle the depth guys. Give them recruiting grades, some sliders and such to guide how I want them to recruit, and the ability to give them a set number of hours.

- Make athletes actual athletes. I've had more success than some, but a larger range of positions for athletes would, again, add more strategy to recruiting.

- Scouting reports on recruits! I want to know more about a particular recruit, give me some way to find out more info. From there, you can do things like, say, have recruits that have been life-long fans of a certain team, or who would be a legacy. Maybe these guys will commit instantly, and if you do recruit them, they have higher stats than they would if they went to another team. Hell, maybe if you DON'T recruit them, they go play for your rival, and have better stats AGAINST you!

I have tons of ideas for recruiting, which is the heart and soul of college football, and my favorite part of the game. Pretty much, I'm for anything which adds more DEPTH to recruiting, recruits, and thus, every other facet of the game. I understand other people aren't as into it, or don't have the time, which is why having a way to delegate some recruiting tasks to the CPU, while still having control to guide it, would probably be my number one suggestion.

[Sundown2600]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mavmoses07

Agreed. The one other change I would make would be to add more variability to the overall rating of recruits. Just because you get a 5 star player doesn't mean he's going to be a great. A lot of 5 star players don't even make it to the NFL. At the other end of the spectrum there should be 1 star players that turn out to be great, ya know a diamond in the rough.

EA has yet to copy the "Diamonds in the Rough" concept and more improtantly the whole recruit bust reality.

I watched Brock Berlin play his final HS game and said to myself man this guy is gonna rip it up at Florida he was the top recruit in the nation. Well we all know how he turned out.