Why does my team still suck?

[Buffalo Gold]

Not my intention of trying to be a "DBag" just relaying something I noticed with recruits from various states. Stay classy.

[talksnmaths]

Quote: Originally Posted by jbrew2411

I see your issue now. You are comparing the original roster to the recruits in the game. The original roster is over rated. EA tried to tone that down by making much lower rated recruiting classes.

Not quite. My beef is that even though I've managed to bring Purdue up to being a 6* program, I can't get my players to be as good as those players that other 6* programs have. Maybe the problem is that I haven't been a 6* program long enough. I still get beat pretty easily by the Alabamas and the Ohio States. The only reason I managed to get to the BCS championship two years in a row is since the past two seasons I didn't end up having a game against OSU and they somehow lost to other teams. If I actually ended up playing them I'd get creamed because all their starters are in the 90's overall. I've read posts from other people in the boards who play OSU or Alabama or Michigan and they say they've stopped redshirting because all their players are reaching 99 and that they are getting progressions of +8 or more for players. Maybe Buffalo is right and the game just knows that Purdue sucks

[talksnmaths]

Quote: Originally Posted by Buffalo Gold

Not my intention of trying to be a "DBag" just relaying something I noticed with recruits from various states. Stay classy.

But you were making a dig at Purdue and that's fine. It's the truth, we haven't had a strong team since Brees graduated. I was just joking with you. I didn't mean any offense.

[AMB]

I hope the game doesn't operate this way. So you're telling me if a program builds up to a powerhouse school with more and more recognition, winning rivalry games, moving up to a better conference, better bowl games/NC, etc...

Kids aren't going to want to play for you??

Hope not cause then I wont accomplish what i was going to set out for with a low ranked team.

[talksnmaths]

Quote: Originally Posted by AMB

I hope the game doesn't operate this way. So you're telling me if a program builds up to a powerhouse school with more and more recognition, winning rivalry games, moving up to a better conference, better bowl games/NC, etc... Kids aren't going to want to play for you?? Hope not cause then I wont accomplish what i was going to set out for with a low ranked team.

Well, I can definitely say that I'm recruiting much more highly rated players (in terms of stars) as a 6* school than I was initially when Purdue was a 3* school. The problem is twofold. First, once you reach 6* status and as your school's pitches get better, there isn't much to differentiate you and the other guys that you're competing against pitch wise. You've all got A/A+ pitches for things like pro potential, conference prestige, coach prestige, athletic facilities, etc. Some things never change like campus life and academic prestige. So, basically it's a function of where you rank in the recruit's mind on the first day (you'd better be in the top 5 if not the top 3) and how much time you spend with the recruit vs. your competition. As a school in the midwest, even though I've made it to 6* and have Texas and Florida in my pipeline, the southern schools have a proximity and sometimes home state advantage over me. I rarely get 4 or 5* prospects who have me as the #1 school, which is a huge advantage because there is a chance you can sign them immediately with a scholarship pitch. I'm always 3rd, 4th or 5th to schools like Alabama, Miami, Texas, etc. Also, I don't seem to get many prospects in the defensive secondary or offensive line that are highly interested in my school. I get TONS of prospects on the defensive line and wide receiver who are highly interested in my school and some pretty decent linebackers. Second, in terms of initial overall rating and subsequent progression, there really for me doesn't seem to be a huge difference between the 3* guys I was recruiting early on and the 4 and 5* guys I'm recruiting now. The 3* guys were coming in rated in the low 70's. The 4 and 5* guys are coming in rated in the mid to high 70's. Progression seems to be around 3 to 5 overall pts per year and on-field playing time and performance don't appear to have much of an effect on that progression. I don't know why that is because I didn't write the code, but I have to believe the other 6* teams are getting better results because they are fielding a lot of players with overalls in the 90's and I'm not.

[AMB]

That sucks.

I was thinking the game logic was different. So if that if I were to create these pipelines and outplay the best teams I would separate my team even more so.

Sounds like it all comes down to...
Location.Location.Location

No Rutgers for me then LOL

[NDAlum]

Yea honestly it comes down to luck with getting solid in-state prospects. What is your program prestige at? (Letter grade)

Also, I'd venture out and say the teams with A ratings have great depth and veteran starters.

[Buffalo Gold]

I here you Talksnmaths. I have been running with Iowa, and just seems we stay relatively the same. In 6 seasons I haven't won a National championship, but have been to and won BCS bowls. My big time recruits, for example a 5 star running back from Illinois # 4 at his position, is lacking in talent compared to the #1 running back that Bama is stockpiling. I guess I just take it as it is, and say why would a kid from Palm Springs Florida want to play in a listless town like Iowa City. Underage drinking, and a great party town is all I can come up with.