Any CPU generated Recruit Ratings yet?

[nmm666]

Quote: Originally Posted by All-Vol

My biggest problem with the recruits in '11 was the 3* kids. Unless they were fullbacks or kickers or jucos, they sucked. Basically no diamonds in the rough. You could recruit a 3* OL, redshirt him, and by the time he's a rs junior you could just sign a 4* to come right in and start over him...which is very unrealistic.

I remember seeing a list of like 10 years NCAA 11 of recruits with all their ratings and such. I took at look at it to analyze the ratings of income recruits. The average 5* recruit was like 78-79. The average 4* recruit was 74. The average 3* - about 64.

I think that you're right, the drop off between 4 and 3 start recruits shouldn't be so dramatic. With guys improving what seemed to be 2-5 overall points per year, 3* recruits are pretty useless.

I found it really frustrating last year to really build up a team because my incoming recruits couldn't replace the guys who graduated/left early. I don't need/expect all my recruits to come in as starts, but I'd like to think by the time 3* guys are juniors (or in some cases sophomores, depending on depth) that they could start and not be a total joke.

I find this particularly frustrating with positions that don't have a ton of recruits, like FB (though there are a ton of hidden gems who are FBs), kickers and TEs.

[Noles4ever]

Quote: Originally Posted by AuburnAlumni

Curious to see what the overall ratings of the Computer generated freshmen in OD are looking like, especially when compared to the initial roster set and its freshmen. Didn't see any vids on Ryno's site and was hunting for info on it. Also interested to see if Strong Safeties are still rated horribly and if the wacky Speed vs Acceleration ratings (i.e. 99 speed with 68 acceleration) are still going on.

I am wondering the same, the speed vs acceleration really killed the game last year. Recruits came in with to many odd ball speed vs acceleration numbers.

[Brandon26841]

Quote: Originally Posted by nmm666

I remember seeing a list of like 10 years NCAA 11 of recruits with all their ratings and such. I took at look at it to analyze the ratings of income recruits. The average 5* recruit was like 78-79. The average 4* recruit was 74. The average 3* - about 64. I think that you're right, the drop off between 4 and 3 start recruits shouldn't be so dramatic. With guys improving what seemed to be 2-5 overall points per year, 3* recruits are pretty useless. I found it really frustrating last year to really build up a team because my incoming recruits couldn't replace the guys who graduated/left early. I don't need/expect all my recruits to come in as starts, but I'd like to think by the time 3* guys are juniors (or in some cases sophomores, depending on depth) that they could start and not be a total joke. I find this particularly frustrating with positions that don't have a ton of recruits, like FB (though there are a ton of hidden gems who are FBs), kickers and TEs.

Yeah, it was kind of annoying where whenever you unfortunately had to sign a 3 star player, you pretty much knew you were going to get a turd. There is so many variables that go into recruiting rankings and who ends up being successful and who isn't, they really should just randomize it. You should be able to sign a 3 star guy that comes in immediately as a 75-79, because that happens a good bit in real life. Sure, they could make the 5 stars more of a sure thing, but having a few of the 5 star guys bust as well (come in at around a 68 or so) would add to the realism. Being an Ohio State fan, I've seen 3 star players like James Lauranitis, Malcolm Jenkins, and A.J. Hawk be All Americans early in their careers. They should not be as horribly rated as they are in the game.

Some of the elite freshman are probably a little low too at 75-79 also. I know if a FR ends up lighting it up you could always update the rosters, but you're telling me Marcus Lattimore wasn't ranked higher than a 78 or so last year?

[AuburnAlumni]

Quote: Originally Posted by Brandon26841

Yeah, it was kind of annoying where whenever you unfortunately had to sign a 3 star player, you pretty much knew you were going to get a turd. There is so many variables that go into recruiting rankings and who ends up being successful and who isn't, they really should just randomize it. You should be able to sign a 3 star guy that comes in immediately as a 75-79, because that happens a good bit in real life. Sure, they could make the 5 stars more of a sure thing, but having a few of the 5 star guys bust as well (come in at around a 68 or so) would add to the realism. Being an Ohio State fan, I've seen 3 star players like James Lauranitis, Malcolm Jenkins, and A.J. Hawk be All Americans early in their careers. They should not be as horribly rated as they are in the game. Some of the elite freshman are probably a little low too at 75-79 also. I know if a FR ends up lighting it up you could always update the rosters, but you're telling me Marcus Lattimore wasn't ranked higher than a 78 or so last year?

There appear to only be a very few default freshmen rated over an 80. Georgia RB Isaiah Crowell (81 OVR) and South Carolina DE Jadaveon Clowney (83 OVR) are both over an 80. Bama OT Cyrus Koujandjo is a 79. Auburn LB Kris Frost is a 77. Auburn OT Christian Westerman is a 74 and OG Greg Robinson is a 75.

These are all the Bluest of Blue Chip prospects at their respective schools (Rivals 100, ESPNU 150, etc.)

In EA terms that's the #1 HS RB, #1 HS DE (and #1 overall prospect), #1 OT, #2 LB, #3 OT, and #2 OG.

Going off of last year's rating system, each of those guys would probably get a 1-3 point boost to be more in line with CPU generated recruits.

So it would be more like Crowell 84, Clowney 86, Cyrus K. 82, Westerman 78, Robinson 78, Frost 80 IMO, going off of last year's ratings.


REALLY wish someone would show us what the CPU recruits look like. Can't believe not one site has that info up yet.

[plak89]

SOMEBODY WITH THE GAME POST RECRUIT RATINGS ALREADY!!!!

[Alex the Great]

It's because of an embargo I believe.

http://twitter.com/#!/Bumble14_OS

Read his timeline.

[BA2929]

Quote: Originally Posted by Alex the Great

It's because of an embargo I believe. http://twitter.com/#!/Bumble14_OS Read his timeline.

What's this embargo actually "embargoing"? They can show gameplay videos, RTG videos, setting up a dynasty and coaching carousel videos.... but not dynasty recruiting ratings?

[cap032]

As mentioned, they should definately have a few diamonds in the rough. This years cover guy is a prime example. Mark Ingram was a 3* RB coming out of HS. Two years later he was the Heisman!