Any CPU generated Recruit Ratings yet?

[K0ZZ]

That or at least have it loosely based on stats. I've seen those miracle 'how the heck did I land these guys' land at small schools and they never progressed. A 4* QB stayed at 71 until his senior year, when he went up to a 73. His stats? His QB rating was in the upper 90's, always finished with more TD's than INT's and his yardage was always over 1500, but he never would progress. But his backup progressed pretty big every year.

Like it was said, it seems random and happens for absolutely no reason, at least have some form of predictablity to it. If it's guided by a rating so be it, if stats are involved that would be great. If it's based off learning a system than everyone should progress gradually. But having starters not progress at all (or regress from terrible years) it makes building up small schools infuriating when there is no reason to the progression and the recruits come in horrible.

[illini74]

If they don't fix player progressions in this years game. Buying it, I WILL NOT. That aspect COMPLETELY ruined the Dynasty mode for me last season. It was awful. EA has really fallen off the map IMO in the last 3 years, especially when they have no competition.

[plak89]

I tend to agree with everything everyone's saying about there needing to be enhancements to recruit progression and sometimes their incoming overalls, but it is possible to find some decent 3* players to come in and be like low 70's right off the bat. There's usually only like 15 or so a year, but I've seen multiple 3*'s come in and be pretty highly rated and after a year of redshirting they'd be mid-to-high 70's as RFr.

[All-Vol]

Plak, I've played 20 years into dynasty in '11 and have only seen useful 3* guys who were fullbacks, kickers, jucos and occasionally outside lbs.

[RynoAid]

ok, it's up.. still processing for better quality. It's at the bottom of the page.

http://traditionsportsonline.com/nca...allery-dynasty

if there was a better way to do this, sorry... i did what i thought would be easiest to give you guys an idea.

[Roggie]

Watched a little bit so far. 4 80+ freshmen for Auburn? Uh oh. Not on par with original roster freshmen at all...

[RynoAid]

Quote: Originally Posted by Roggie

Watched a little bit so far. 4 80+ freshmen for Auburn? Uh oh. Not on par with original roster freshmen at all...

Auburn was definitely the exception though, not the rule. Most of the other teams were much lower.. with only 1 or 2 80 rated freshmen.

[Roggie]

Quote: Originally Posted by RynoAid

Auburn was definitely the exception though, not the rule. Most of the other teams were much lower.. with only 1 or 2 80 rated freshmen.

This is true, but by my knowledge, there are only 2 or 3 freshman 80+ on the original roster. That's the issue I'm seeing. Stretched rosters don't seem to fit when the freshmen are dominating the original freshmen.

Also saw it with OSU. I mean, I have no problem with high rated freshmen, but they don't fit with the original rosters.