Recruiting Stories

[dragon4ever]

How has your recruiting gone so far? I just finished my first season with the Washington Huskies and even though I went undefeated and won the Rose Bowl (no BCS), my recruiting was downright horrid. I was only able to recruit 13 players:

10 - ***
2 - ****
1 - **

I have no recruit rated over 70! Even my **** recruits are only rated 68 and 69. I think I was ranked 97th overall in recruiting around the league. That's bad for a *** school in a major conference, but I do like the challenge.

[andicesharks]

I moved my Eastern Michigan team up to 2 stars 3rd season and was pretty stoked that there were a lot of 3 star people wanting to play for me. I ended up signing like 12 3 stars and I was extra excited to find out that they were all in the low to high 50s and that they were all worse than the worst people on the team at the start.

By progressing I was actually getting worse.

[dragon4ever]

*** recruits rated in the 50's is ridiculous. I don't feel so bad now. At least my *** recruits were all rated at in the mid 60's. I don't know if they'll ever amount to anything. By the time they're seniors, how much can they actually progress? 12 points max?

[sniperhare]

It's because the starting players are all overrated compared to what you will recruit.

After a few years the highest teams might be B- OVR.

I don't like it because you won't be able to get recruits that will make it into the NFL unless you play as a powerhouse. Even if you rush for 1200+ yards with your junior HB he won't get a boost in OVR for his senior season and emergence into an NFL ready back.

[andicesharks]

Yep. Still somewhat trying to ignore this while at the same time wishing upon a star that they will fix progression ASAP before I lose interest.

[Mtneer08]

You guys just need to start thinking that 80 is the new 90's and so on. The EA rosters were just rated way too high. Reminds me of college hoops 2k8....You would never see a player rated over a 96. Most of the highest rated players in the game were in the 88-93 range. A 99 rated player is near perfect and would make him the greatest player to have ever lived. If you think about it, this way is more realistic.

[andicesharks]

I sort of agree but I also disagree.

I agree that some of the rosters (Alabama... duh) are just stacked and they dont need to be.

I disagree though because I do think it is just a bit too unrealistic. The numbers are just too low. Not very low but a bit too low. I know for a fact that in 2-3 years every guy playing for Western Kentucky or Eastern Michigan or San Jose State is not going to be just one sliver above a walk on skill wise. There will be good players on the team. It will not be a blanket of terrible. This is especially true if those teams have winning seasons for a couple of years and can recruit better as dynasty mode lets you (or is supposed to).

And it is not just perception, it is actual game play. Like I said, I play in the dregs conferences with the 1s and 2s. By year 4-5, every 1-2 star team is missing 75% of their PATs and the other 25% just squeak by. There are a number of other issues as well. All of them would be helped by just bumping some of the new recruit stats just a bit.

It could be fixed by weakening the starting rosters of the teams but those rosters seem to feel good when you first play. The bad teams are bad but they arent full of bad players.

[poopoop]

The default rosters aren't overrated the recruiting classes are rated too low. I don't think EA said "hey players are rated too high on the default rosters, let's balance things out by having recruits come in with extremely low ratings."