Does EA Sports hate Purdue?

[talksnmaths]

Quote: Originally Posted by boilerfan1509

I agree that "to each their own" when playing video games. As for Purdue. I cant say that i have ran into the same problem. I play on heisman with recruiting on default (maybe varisty). But i am currently 6 time NC champs going into my 7th season, and have always been selected. I have had the drop from #1 to #2 for no reason, but havent missed out. As for recruiting (and it might be because i am on the default). I usually get 8-9 5 * and 4-5 4*. I cant just pick exactly who i want, i wont get EVERYONE, but it isnt like i am skimping by either. But i get Alabama, Texas, Notre Dame, and Ohio State as frequent challengers to most the 5*s. But that seems normal for the most part (except ND).

Those are the same challengers that I get, but I'm recruiting on All-American and I don't seem to get into the top 10 of as many recruits to start out the season. The way I recruit is I have a sliding list of positions in order to make sure I have a certain number at each position every year. I'm going after 12-15 recruits every year. I only go after recruits that have me in the top 3 to start out with the exception of kickers, fullbacks and tight ends since they never seem to have me in the top 10. I redshirt everyone unless I have a player leave for the draft before graduation. I hit everyone with promises up front so that I can get to #1 on their list asap. The promises that I use are ones that I know I can always meet (winning against rivals, top 10 first year, top 10 second year). I give a scholarship as soon as I hit #1 so that I have a chance to get them right off the bat. Otherwise, I offer a scholarship if another school goes green before I do. I always try to setup visits against rivals that are nationally ranked.

[talksnmaths]

Quote: Originally Posted by Block-O

Schedule tougher non conference games.

I do that already. I always setup one patsy so that I can run up the score and the rest of the non-conference games I setup ranked opponents.

[ACardAttack]

Quote: Originally Posted by EvanRG

I've had doses of this happen in my dynasty and I've talked to several others who played the dynasty mode and we all decided that it comes down to one major issue -- too many teams go undefeated in NCAA 11. One solace for me is the ability to move dominating teams out of weak conferences in NCAA 12 so that will help kill the crowded BCS rankings.

I think a good fix would also to be to add a championship game to every bcs conference, which I plan to do. That gives all teams who go undefeated an extra game to lose, but that also should fix some of the crappy poll logic where if you dont play a championship game, you might be leap frogged by a team that does play a championship game

[talksnmaths]

Quote: Originally Posted by ACardAttack

I think a good fix would also to be to add a championship game to every bcs conference, which I plan to do. That gives all teams who go undefeated an extra game to lose, but that also should fix some of the crappy poll logic where if you dont play a championship game, you might be leap frogged by a team that does play a championship game

Exactly! Which is why I think in the 2012 game it will be better for Big 10 teams since there will be a conference championship.

[Wildcats302]

Quote: Originally Posted by talksnmaths

I do that already. I always setup one patsy so that I can run up the score and the rest of the non-conference games I setup ranked opponents.

Your whole schedule sounds like patsies with the amount of national titles and Big Ten titles you have won. I for one find you getting left out of the title game hilarious and very appropriate.

[ACardAttack]

Quote: Originally Posted by Wildcats302

Your whole schedule sounds like patsies with the amount of national titles and Big Ten titles you have won. I for one find you getting left out of the title game hilarious and very appropriate.

Why does this keep coming up? It doesnt matter, its not the topic of the thread.

[boilerfan1509]

Quote: Originally Posted by talksnmaths

I only go after recruits that have me in the top 3 to start out with the exception of kickers, fullbacks and tight ends since they never seem to have me in the top 10.

This might be the problem. I have the same problem that few 5* have me (Purdue) in their top 3 or top 5.

I usually will select about 12-15 that I want to recruit. Usually 3-4 "ALL-STARS" regardless where they have me. Then 6-8 that are either in-state or i am in the top 10, and then 2-4 that i am #1 on their list.

Sometimes these overlap, but i will not actively recruit more than 12 guys. I will put in 10 min (for hopes of eithe instant commit when i offer or a commit) for 2-3 that I am #1 on their list.

But i have noticed MANY guys that I am either very low on their list or not on their list to begin the season. I give them 3 weeks to show movement and surprisingly about 75% of the time, i climb on their list (no guarantee i get them, but if they are a late commit, then i have realistic chance). If after 3 weeks i am still not on their list or one of the top dawgs is just light years ahead....then i drop them and move on.

If you limit yourself to guys that are only interested initially, you are missing out on alot of other guys. Especially if you have good pitches.

[boilerfan1509]

since we are on the topic of Purdue (i am sorry this is off topic of the thread), but does anyone have a PS3 cover for Purdue on NCAA 12?

I have requested one about 6 different times on the other thread...and nothing. I figure this could be worth a try. (#21 CB Ricardo Allen, if i got to choose).