A hunch on poor computer recruiting

[jhawk886]

Quote: Originally Posted by 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.

I agree with you that the overall's for the recruits should be boosted, but I also think the OP may have a legitimate case.
I haven't personally advanced that far to see it myself, but I'm guessing that once the big time recruits get taken, and the smaller schools go down to going after the 2 and 3 star recruits, the bigger programs are then spending their time on those same recruits too.
The bigger schools still get these lower caliber players even though they may not have scholly's left because players don't value the scholarship offers enough and just walk on to more elite schools.
The lower tier schools are left with walk ons in the 40 OVR range and then the elite schools at the end of the season probably just cut all the lower 2 and 3 star recruits that walked on to them, and then these players are just lost, as they can't go to the lower schools anymore.
I have no evidence to support this theory, just a theory based on how everyone is saying the system is set up.

[rjsuperfly66]

Quote: Originally Posted by jhawk886

I agree with you that the overall's for the recruits should be boosted, but I also think the OP may have a legitimate case. I haven't personally advanced that far to see it myself, but I'm guessing that once the big time recruits get taken, and the smaller schools go down to going after the 2 and 3 star recruits, the bigger programs are then spending their time on those same recruits too. The bigger schools still get these lower caliber players even though they may not have scholly's left because players don't value the scholarship offers enough and just walk on to more elite schools. The lower tier schools are left with walk ons in the 40 OVR range and then the elite schools at the end of the season probably just cut all the lower 2 and 3 star recruits that walked on to them, and then these players are just lost, as they can't go to the lower schools anymore. I have no evidence to support this theory, just a theory based on how everyone is saying the system is set up.

Yes, that is what I'm saying. These one or two star schools, who might have had a legitimate chance with some three, or higher two star players, are left at the bottom of the barrel, grabbing all the scrub two or one star players, at least that is how it appears.

I think part of the problem deals with interest levels in a school. Clearly, not many players are going to start out with much or any interest in a 1-star school. So instead of just adding 1-star or 2-star players with no interest who you might be able to convince, the game adds players with no-interest, who the team has no chance of recruiting in 5-star players.

Because of this system, there is no chance for the program to develop, to get talent, etc. The problem is that without being able to see the programming, there is no certainty as to how the computer reacts under these circumstances, how long they left these 5 star players sit on their recruiting board, etc.

[NaptownMVP]

Well it's real easy to see if the computer is signing players or not, just look at the breakdown of top classes. If the one star schools in the future have 0's across the board, then it's a problem. If they are signing a normal amount of 1's and 2's, it's not.

[Purplepower_NC]

In my thread "Possible workaround for broken dynasty", I noticed another problem that could be a result of the bad recruiting by teams. It is the way the CPU does the depth chart..as it really doesn't take the postion player, but instead uses the best overall player reguardless of positon. In turn stockpiling QB, and RB.

But yes...this is another good find. I am going to do some more testing, maybe at least setting up the CPU's recruiting, because I am just about sure if you set the CPU's it doesn't change. I know this for sure about the dept charts, you can go and change a CPU's depth chart and it sticks.

[Pogo27]

Sure, the 1-star schools end up with all the 1 and 2 stars they need...but the real problem created by them going after so many 4 and 5 stars is that they're never going to get them.

Instead...they could fill their board with 3 stars. And if they got three to six 3 stars, it could actually make a pretty significant impact in their program whereas 1 and 2 stars are just maintaining the status quo.

It's much like those rare 5 stars that a 3 or 4 star program signs.

[bigrice25]

cant you see who other teams are recruiting with one of those dynasty accelerators??

the one where u can see other schools recruiting boards.....

if so we can verify if the cpu is really recruiting that way.

[FedExPope]

Don't forget that the CPU doesn't recruit based on position. They just recruit. Just make a dynasty and sim it for a few years and you'll start to see. I did a purely simulation dynasty till 2018 (took a lot longer than I thought it would too...) and looked at Akron. Their best player was a 56 OVR WR. They had about 8 QBs, 12+ WR and like 4 tackles. And they had a player that was actually 40 OVR.

[kcarr]

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?

No, the recruits dont end up getting washed away. I mean, some don't sign, but most do. They really should use those that don't as the walkon pool but that is a whole other topic. anyway, what probably happens that would cause a major problem is as follows:

All teams chase 4* and 5* players with 5* teams getting the most attention. 6* and 5* schools get most of them with a few going to 4* or 3* teams and teams start to filter down giving more attention to 3* recruits. 5* and 6* schools will fill out their boards here and 3* and 4* schools will get most of the rest. Teams will then move down to the 2* players. Since th 5* and 6* teams are pretty much full the 3*s and 4*s get 1st choice here followed by the 2* schools. 1* schools are given the scraps of the 2* recruits. Now we move down to 1* recruits and everyone kinda fills out meaning 1* teams mostly fill out here.

While this is not an ideal system it does have some advantages, especially in ease of programming. There isn't nearly as much work involved in writing a system like this as there would be in writing a robust system with actual logic. Also, it does accomplish the basic goal of getting good players to good schools and bad players to bad schools.

What should happen is the 5* and 6* schools should start off looking at 4* and 5* recruits then filling out with 3*s when they have the time and there are no more 4* and 5* players worth chasing or if they have serious needs that cannot be filled by the top 2 tiers.

3* and 4* teams should chase mostly lower 4* to upper 3* players to start looking maybe at 2*s to fill needs and chasing a couple upper 4*s or lower 5*s in their pipeline states and then fill out with lower 3* and some 2* recruits to fill in for losses.

1* and 2* schools should start out looking at mainly 2* recruits giving them 1st choice of them atleast letting them gain a lead. Also, they should look through the 3* teams and pick a couple to chase for each school allowing them an occasional pickup to really help the team out. They should then go back and fill in with the 1*s.

This would obviously not be the full list of determining factors in who they choose but it would be a starting point. This would allow lower rated teams to get a few good players and give them a chance to improve or to have a few good years here and there.