Recruits have to be A LOT Deeper

[LambertandHam]

Quote: Originally Posted by jbrew2411

The more I read this thread and think about the subject the more I come back to the need for coaches with ratings that effect the game. Coaches should have ratings like this: Offense: This effects the offensive side of the ball. It effects how well the offensive players play and progress. Also has a effect on recruits who play offense. A coach with a offense grade of "C" will not impact the game and players like one with a grade of an "A". Defense: This effects the defensive side of the ball just like the offense grade did. Recruiting: This would effect the ability to pull in the best players. The higher the rating the more likely you will be able to sway pitches and the more impact your pitches have. This could use the current system with the points but allow for the better coaches to gain more points then the lesser coaches. Teaching: This would effect progression and in game adjustments. This rating would go along with Offense & Defense ratings. The better the teacher the more your players progress. Also would have an in game impact to help calm your team down when on the road and rattled or when they are playing bad. Maybe bring back the pop during time outs to choose actions to focus on during time outs. Maybe add in an option in game planning to coach players up or something. Personality: This would effect how liked you are and how well your teaching works. Recruits want to play for coaches they like and current players play harder for coaches they like vs they ones they don't. All these ratings would have to interact with each other. Some examples: Coach #1: Offense= B-; Defense= B+; Recruiting= C-; Teaching= A; Personality= C+ This coach would have an impact on player progression with the players on Defense seeing more then Offense due to the better grade. He would not have a major impact in recruiting as far as the impact of the pitches and sawing pitches. He also would not have a major impact but a small impact on getting player to play for him. In summery this coach would not land the best players in recruiting but will be able to coach up the ones he gets. Coach #2: Offense= A+; Defense= B-; Recruiting= B+; Teaching= C+; Personality= A This coach will have a major impact on the offense and getting players to play for him. He will be able to hold his own in recruiting. He will not have a major impact in progression or in game adjustments. In summery this coach will attract good offensive players and be able to land at least half of them. He will only see his players improve a small amount during their time on campus. He will be able to get players to play for him. The reason you have to tie the ratings to each other is to prevent one rating trumping all the others. It will create balance and open up recruiting. It will allow for the coaches like Chris Peterson and Gray Patterson to do what they do. Some coaches are great recruiters but don't really coach that well while other are not the best of recruiters but coach players up very well. This will system would allow for a smaller school to produce a top level player now and then. It also would help fix some of the recruiting problems we saw in NCAA 11. It would be more about the coaches ability vs the school it self. Anyone that wants to add on feel free. P.S. If coaches with ratings was added to the game then you have to have a carousal to make it all work so the same coach is not at the same school for 30 years. Without it we have the same thing we have now but with coaches names. Also the need to fully edit these coaches is needed as well so EA don't give all the coaches at a small # of schools all A's while every other coach gets screwed.

I like the coaches idea, but hopefully the ratings would actually do something, unlike Madden's hollow coach ratings.

[imraged]

Quote: Originally Posted by UniversityofArizona

coaches taking over most of the responsibility for progression would be wonderful. at the very least i feel facilities should play a bigger part than star prestige.

The athletic facilities pitch in recruiting definitely needs to be tied into the dynasty mode as a whole. I'm kind of going off-topic here, but my biggest issue with NCAA has always been the lack of realistic player development. In general 3 stars don't become great players by just a fluke; the same can be said of 5 stars who bust. For the most part it comes down to a player's work ethic. A real-life example of what I'm getting at is Demarcus Ware. He probably wasn't even 200 pounds coming out of high school; at lot of hard work, a good diet, and a lot of time in the weight room 3 or 4 years later he's 250+ and a first round draft pick. I'm sick of seeing 200 pound 5 star defensive ends with 80+ strength only gaining only 5 pounds over the course of their college career.

An option during the offseason to give the user control over the players' weight room and conditioning would be ideal. For example we could set an ideal weight for each position (having one for each player would be even better) and how close they come to their target would be based on a discipline rating. Also, the changes would be reflected in their ratings; players who add muscle may add points to strength, speed, btk, etc., players who were overweight that lose weight (think Terrance Cody) may add points to stamina, acc, be less likely to be injured, etc. On the other hand players with low discipline may gain bad weight and regress ratings-wise.

Another problem is that the recruiting system is not an accurate representation of real life. Not every coaching staff is going to have the same guys at the top of their board. I think the star rankings should be kept in the game, but the user should have the option to scout players themselves in a separate period before recruiting begins. To make this work the star rankings that are currently in the game would need to be more inaccurate (after all most real-life services are) and coaches would need a scouting rating. The difference in real life between Alabama's top recruiting classes and Miami's top recruiting classes from the last few years comes in the evaluation period. Nick Saban is one of the best talent evaluators in the game whereas Randy Shannon once openly admitted that he leaned heavily on recruiting services; the user in a dynasty should have an option to reflect this (someone who doesn't want to spend as much time on scouting/recruiting could just use the star rankings if they want) and the accuracy of a user's scouting should be determined by the coach's scouting rating.

[jbrew2411]

Quote: Originally Posted by Lambert&Ham

I like the coaches idea, but hopefully the ratings would actually do something, unlike Madden's hollow coach ratings.

Yeah they have to matter and work off each other. Recruiting ratings would also have to have a formula that includes offense & defense as well as the coach personality. A great pro-style QB is not going to a school where they run a option style system to play for a coach that is not known for developing QB's. If they have ratings that have zero meaning then what is the point. I great example of how this works is in College Hoops 2k8.

[CuseGirl]

Quote: Originally Posted by imraged

The difference in real life between Alabama's top recruiting classes and Miami's top recruiting classes from the last few years comes in the evaluation period. Nick Saban is one of the best talent evaluators in the game whereas Randy Shannon once openly admitted that he leaned heavily on recruiting services; the user in a dynasty should have an option to reflect this (someone who doesn't want to spend as much time on scouting/recruiting could just use the star rankings if they want) and the accuracy of a user's scouting should be determined by the coach's scouting rating.

OMG, someone admitted that Miami ACTUALLY didn't recruit that well. That foes for Florida State as well. I'm so sick of hearing about schools who recruit "so well" but it just didn't come together. No, the players WERENT GOOD ENUFF. End of story. And you dont see this in the game. There's very little drop off for the top schools in this game. Once a school becomes "elite" (5 or 6 star status) they're like that forever. This game should have a tier system, with only a few 6 star schools at any single time. And as the seasons go on, the schools are re-evaluated and re-assigned their star status.

[maizegoblue]

I agree that the players should go up more in ratings if they have a great season. Only problem is certain players would over progress. If it was based solely on stats people that run 5 wide all game would end up having a 99 overall QB and 95 overall WR's.

Defense is absent and the offenses would over progress compared to the defensive players and would create even higher scoring games with less defense.

[poopoop]

Recruiting on this game is mindless. The problem is that there is no reward for actually trying to recruit. You don't really have to look at a player's 40 times or anything else to search for gems, just put a bunch of 4 and 5 start players on your board and talk to theme every week.

EA also needs to remove ratings from the game (will never actually happen though) and not make recruit's star rankings so linear. You actually would have players come out of nowhere and perform if you were unable to see all of their exact ratings. You'd actually have to test players out in practice / on the field and figure out who to give playing time to that way.

The whole roulette mini-game they make you do isn't realistic at all and does cause some problems but I don't think it's the main reason recruiting sucks.

[Colorado Cooler]

Quote: Originally Posted by poopoop

Recruiting on this game is mindless. The problem is that there is no reward for actually trying to recruit. You don't really have to look at a player's 40 times or anything else to search for gems, just put a bunch of 4 and 5 start players on your board and talk to theme every week. EA also needs to remove ratings from the game (will never actually happen though) and not make recruit's star rankings so linear. You actually would have players come out of nowhere and perform if you were unable to see all of their exact ratings. You'd actually have to test players out in practice / on the field and figure out who to give playing time to that way. The whole roulette mini-game they make you do isn't realistic at all and does cause some problems but I don't think it's the main reason recruiting sucks.

Those of us who play one and two-star teams cannot access top recruits in this game. I dig through all the recruits who are interested, assign a numerical rating based upon attributes, pitch the best players I identify (yes, there are a few hidden gems in the bottom third of the list) and pitch 10-12 3-star guys who don't have my team in their top ten. Usually I wind up with a handful of those guys. It's a whole other world out there for players who try to build a C or lower rated team into a contender.

Yes, the recruiting roulette leaves something to be desired, but the challenge is there for for those of us trying to make a go of it with the likes of North Texas and Idaho.

[SynShadowzz]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cubs017

Sorry, I've just never understood the demand for this. If your QB throws for 4000 yards then why do you need his ratings to go up? So you can throw for 6000 yards instead? He's already performing like a star player.

Well if you're like me, you want to see this more for CPU-controlled teams.
It would be great for user-controlled teams too.

A system like this would be great for the crossover of draft classes into Madden. I had a DE finish his career as the NCAA's all-time sack leader, was just an absolute monster... but probably won't get drafted.