Thoughts on Over Signing, Cutting Players and Recruiting in Dynasty Mode

[Deegeezy]

Quote: Originally Posted by erod328

although I've been playing and recruiting on NCAA since 2002, (I think, I know Carson Palmer was on the cover and you could build your own team in the game), I've always recruited to fill my alotted 25 schollies. this year is the first year I've decided to recruit to replace who is leaving. Once you build a decent team, you get to a point of cutting guys rated fairly high, who could easily start on the "Little Sisters of the Poor" teams. you also are faced with the computer giving you guys that can also play at that lower level. Once I have who I want, I plan on going to the bottom of the recruiting list, and fill out the rest of my schollies with guys who I know will not play and disappear from the game after the offseason recruiting ends. I say plan because I've never done it before, and this will be the first time trying. I'm hoping it'll make the game a little more competitive in the long run.

Wow...this is a great idea.

[Deegeezy]

Quote: Originally Posted by prettylittlesmiles

I do not understand. Every year you will have more players on your team than you need and thus will need to cut someone. So who do you CUT? 25 scholarships will be used regardless because the 'walk ons" are the rest of the scholarships you dont use. So do you just cut the walk ons?

This is what I do.

For me, once you're on the team, you're on the team. If I have to cut someone, it's going to be the latest recruits that signed against my wishes.

[GGGswim]

I think we should find a way to ask this question to the top-most authority on the issue...Nick "Oversign 'til it hurts" Saban.

From countless threads here on the topics of dreads, roster ##s, freakin' discipline problems: "...realism...", "...if it's in the game in should be in the (EA) game...".

Not trying to start an argument, I'm just sayin' though...

[Deegeezy]

Quote: Originally Posted by GGGswim

I think we should find a way to ask this question to the top-most authority on the issue...Nick "Oversign 'til it hurts" Saban. From countless threads here on the topics of dreads, roster ##s, freakin' discipline problems: "...realism...", "...if it's in the game in should be in the (EA) game...". Not trying to start an argument, I'm just sayin' though...

It's not just a matter of realism, it's a matter of trying to keep the game somewhat difficult. I don't oversign because it's a good handicap.

[Warren Piecee]

The game is a simulation and so realism is a key ingredient in as far as what makes for a fun gaming experience. In many areas realism has to be sacrificed for the sake of game play. Recruiting, however, does not need to be one of them, at least to a very large degree. To the extent which that under discussion in this thread makes for unrealistic recruiting, it detracts from my enjoyment of the game. If you feel differently I respect you and your opinion. For the rest of us I hope we can continue with what I believe has been an interesting discussion.

When I started this thread it was under the assumption that the last patch fixed the recruiting bug and that recruiting thereafter would be more difficult and produce more true-to-life recruiting classes. I just finished my first post-patch dynasty season and the results are in. I used Virginia Tech, went 7-6 and finished with the 6th best recruiting class in the nation. I had fourteen four star recruits, nine three star recruits and two two stars.

For the last decade Virginia Tech has landed an average of four or five four/five star recruits per year. The school has never ended up with a recruiting class ranked any better than eighteenth in the nation. Last year they had seven four star recruits. This year’s class is shaping up to be even better. Nonetheless, the results the game produced, even on the highest recruiting difficulty, are clearly ridiculous. The patch did not seem to change anything recruiting wise.

Those of you who expressed contrary views to mine were right. You have won me over and I will do as you do. I will not take all twenty-five recruits. I will take only as many as the number of players who graduated and transferred. However, I do not think this will be enough to make for a more competitive and more realistic game. (It is also worth noting that with each passing year this course of action has less meaning and will meaning nothing once no players are left from your initial roster.)

I will retain just seven of the four star recruits since this is the number the team landed last year. Since this year’s class seems as if it will be even better than last year’s, I will also edit one of the four star players and turn him into Kendall Fuller, Tech’s five star recruit who has already committed. (I plan to start a new thread for the sharing of thoughts on what his ratings should be.) The remainder of my recruiting class will be picked from among my nine three star recruits.

I also will take a few more steps that I hope will make for a more true-to-life recruiting class as I move forward with my dynasty. I will give up on a recruit and remove him from my board if he becomes a soft commit to another school. I will only offer as many scholarships as open slots I will have in the coming year and so will never have to cut players. I will also only use half of the recruiting time and scouting time the game makes available to make it harder to land a high number of the best players.

I am curious to read more of what others think on this subject.

[PocketScout]

Quote: Originally Posted by Warren Piecee

Those of you who expressed contrary views to mine were right. You have won me over and will do as you do. I will not take all twenty-five recruits. I will take only as many as the number of players who graduated and transferred. However, I do not think this will be enough to make for a more competitive and more realistic game. (It is also worth noting that with each passing year this course of action has less meaning and will meaning nothing once no players are left from your initial roster.)

What I have been doing is writing down all the players that I sign. The CPU will fill you up to 25 on signing day. I then cut all the players that the CPU filled in for me no matter how good they are. It is not perfect but it is a good work around.

Also one thing that I have done in the past to make recruiting harder is to not use any of your 20 hours of scouting time in the preseason.

Preseason: 20 hours
Rest of Season: 45 hours (3hrs x 15 weeks)
Total: 65 hours

This reduces your scouting time by 30%. If you limit yourself to only 2 hours a week in the regular season it cuts your scouting time by 54%.

I also use the program I wrote to regress some players and progress others. It regresses 7 players more points than it progress 3 players. So running it my teams gets a little worse overall which is another way I make the game just a little harder.

[Warren Piecee]

Thanks for your helpful ideas.

I do not feel we should have to come up with creative strategies to make for more realistic recruiting and therefore a more competitive and enjoyable dynasty gaming experience.

I am not good enough at the game to play at the highest level of game play difficulty. Why can't this same difficulty gap between game play at the highest and next to highest difficulty level be reflected in the recruiting level difficulty between the top two levels? The highest recruiting level difficulty should be much harder. Recruiting is flawed to a great degree.

[Pielet]

In real life scholarship are simply 1yr renewable contracts. If you want to play realistically, you shouldn't cut any NEW recruits but can cut everyone else as you have to decide whether or not to "renew" their scholarship. The new recruits have a legally binding scholarship for one year and thus they cannot be cut.

Over recruiting is realistic as all the big time programs do it. The problem, in my opinion, is EAs 70 man roster limit versus 85 (I believe off memory) in real life. I am sure this limit by EA has to do with memory or something due to adding over 1500 new players.