Does Lowering Recruiting Difficulty Balance Talent Better?

[mavfan21]

A lot of people that simmed 10 plus years into dynasty mode have said the talent is all at the big time schools and that 3 star and lower schools have NO studs at all which is super unrealistic (Crabtree, Texas Tech for example). Some of the 2 and 3 star schools should have 1st round talent each year.

I was wondering what difficulty you guys recruited on and if anyone has used a lower difficulty rating and noticed if the smaller schools have a better chance. Just a hunch, but I'm wondering if on the higher difficulties the CPU amps up the aggressiveness of the big time schools and lowers it on lower difficulties.

Any input is great.

[joejccva71]

Quote: Originally Posted by mavfan21

A lot of people that simmed 10 plus years into dynasty mode have said the talent is all at the big time schools and that 3 star and lower schools have NO studs at all which is super unrealistic (Crabtree, Texas Tech for example). Some of the 2 and 3 star schools should have 1st round talent each year. I was wondering what difficulty you guys recruited on and if anyone has used a lower difficulty rating and noticed if the smaller schools have a better chance. Just a hunch, but I'm wondering if on the higher difficulties the CPU amps up the aggressiveness of the big time schools and lowers it on lower difficulties. Any input is great.

Very interesting. I also would LOVE to know this.

[mavfan21]

Quote: Originally Posted by joejccva71

Very interesting. I also would LOVE to know this.

I am using Varsity difiiculty but am only 1 year in. I am hoping some people that like to sim far ahead will have some insight.

Since recruits don't progress very much anymore having some good talent at 2-3 star schools will be very important for realism.

[BadAssHskr]

yesterday was my first day or recruiting. i started on varsity. when making calls yesterday, i went ahead and started offering schollies, and picked up a 4* DE, and a 3* TE. Last night i upped difficulty to AA. today when recruiting i didn't pick anybody up.

think it was posted that smaller schools will struggle to get recruits this year though.

[fjackson18]

Quote: Originally Posted by BadAssHskr

yesterday was my first day or recruiting. i started on varsity. when making calls yesterday, i went ahead and started offering schollies, and picked up a 4* DE, and a 3* TE. Last night i upped difficulty to AA. today when recruiting i didn't pick anybody up. think it was posted that smaller schools will struggle to get recruits this year though.

Oh man i am having the worst first year of recruiting so far using Da "U' and i have my first season on default Varsity.

[BadAssHskr]

Quote: Originally Posted by fjackson18

Oh man i am having the worst first year of recruiting so far using Da "U' and i have my first season on default Varsity.

interesting. going to evaluate it than. if AA starts looking bleak, maybe all have to drop back down. who knows maybe it'll make things more interesting.

[mavfan21]

I will be keeping an eye out for a few random studs on the lower rated teams.

[rjsuperfly66]

Quote: Originally Posted by mavfan21

A lot of people that simmed 10 plus years into dynasty mode have said the talent is all at the big time schools and that 3 star and lower schools have NO studs at all which is super unrealistic (Crabtree, Texas Tech for example). Some of the 2 and 3 star schools should have 1st round talent each year. I was wondering what difficulty you guys recruited on and if anyone has used a lower difficulty rating and noticed if the smaller schools have a better chance. Just a hunch, but I'm wondering if on the higher difficulties the CPU amps up the aggressiveness of the big time schools and lowers it on lower difficulties. Any input is great.

However, the scenario you describe is realistic. Big schools get all the big time players. Your best players are mainly going to the best schools, unless they have an undying allegiance with a local school.

Why do you think teams like Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, USC, Ohio St., etc are the best teams in the country year after year?

I'm recruiting with a 3-star school. Although I didn't get any 5-star recruits my first year, I got 6 4-star players and tons of 3-star recruits. The key to that is just finding players in your pipeline who are interested in your school before you start recruiting them.

However, the thing I would be interested in, is how many sleeper recruits are there? A lot of lower teams don't get top recruits, but rather develop recruits that fit into their system and then watch them blow up and become a superstar. You use Michael Crabtree as an example, and Scout lists him as a two-star recruit. If you get a two-star recruit, you should have the opportunity if developed right to blow up into a top player in the NCAA, but as it seems, two star players restricted to the 50s and 60s and low 70s, barely ever making a starting lineup. Obviously this would only happen with a few players every few years, but still, it happens and its important that it happens in this game to give some of the smaller teams a chance, otherwise when the players on the current rosters leave, out go the current superstars and insert a team of mediocrity for the rest of the dynasty.

Likewise, not every 5 star recruit should be a top player in the NCAA. There are plenty of 5 and 4 star recruits that turn out as busts, some because they don't get playing time and regress, others because they don't fit into their system. IE - If you recruited a good receiver into a wishbone offense, he won't be utilized properly, and should not continue to be a top receiver. Know what I mean?

That, if anything, could be the problem with recruiting.