Recruiting looks great!

[Bamboospine1998]

I usually run through a dynasty, about 2-3 seasons while I am getting the rosters down, and it gives me a chance to figure out recruiting. Since this is pretty much a 180 from the last versions of recruiting, I may just jump into it with my dynasty (Maryland) to see how I do. I am figuring that spring of 2008 that maybe I get 3 1* recruits and 15 walk-ons and bring the Terps climb back into the top 25 to a complete halt!

[fightingillini]

I like the idea of a time allotment for recruiting rather than a number of points. It seems much more realistic. I'm sure in real life coaches don't have a certain number of points to spend...I'm glad EA finally changed that.

[davin]

Quote: Originally Posted by fightingillini

I like the idea of a time allotment for recruiting rather than a number of points. It seems much more realistic. I'm sure in real life coaches don't have a certain number of points to spend...I'm glad EA finally changed that.

Yeah I really think this is a lot better of a system to use, certainly more realisitic at least.

[srudoff]

Quote: Originally Posted by The Soldier

OMG GUESS WHAT?! Brent Schaefer also sucked!! JUCO recruits should all be rated low! And because Lorenzo Booker, Fred Davis, and Kyle Wright sucked, every #1 player at their position should be rated a 65 overall! Yes, you have figured out there are busts in college football. But the fact remains that Hargrave and high level JUCO players are there because they're stupid, not because they can't ball. The average JUCO kid is just like a HS prospect except with 2-3 years of better physical conditioning and coaching. Most are picked to fill immediate needs and at least play a role their first year. And thus, they should be rated higher.

name me 10 juco's in the past 2 years that have been stars in their first year with their division 1 team. they may only be juco's because they are stupid but they have inferior coaching and inferior opponents for 2 years. hard to develop much in that environment IMO. i'm not saying that they should be ranked 65, i'm saying EA does it right by having them high 70's low 80's.

[Cebby]

Quote: Originally Posted by srudoff

name me 10 juco's in the past 2 years that have been stars in their first year with their division 1 team. they may only be juco's because they are stupid but they have inferior coaching and inferior opponents for 2 years. hard to develop much in that environment IMO. i'm not saying that they should be ranked 65, i'm saying EA does it right by having them high 70's low 80's.

Mid-high 80s is not a star in NCAA. For good programs, it's a solid player who might start. Having Jucos in the 70s and low 80s makes them worthless as they get 1 year of development.

From the 2004 class alone:

David Irons
Taitusi Lutui
Jesse Mahelona
Claude Wroten
Robert Johnson
Andre Hall
Johnathon Joseph
Jerome Harrison

Some other random names include Rudi Johnson, Reggie Nelson, Colt Brennan, Aaron Rodgers, and JJ Arrington.

Prep school wise, the list is way too long.