NCAA 2004 - Recruiting

[wonderl33t]

Quote: Originally Posted by AndyDufresne

I never played 2004 (I haven't played anything past 2003), but from what I've read it appears that a lot of folks regard it as the best in the series. So I'm considering buying a used copy. Was recruiting any different than 2003? I know there was no in-season recruiting, but could you pitch a specific aspect (early playing time, location, etc) to a recruit in 2004? Was it too easy to reel in top recruits as a mediocre team?

The thing that I remember most about 2004's recruiting is that any team coming off a good season (2 losses or fewer) could easily land more than ten 5-star recruits. EA fixed it in 2005 by reducing the number of 5-star recruits in the recruiting pool

[BDawg35]

As great a game as NCAA 2004 was - and I fall in the camp of those who consider it the best ever - recruiting was way too easy. I remember getting 17 five-star recruits one year.

I eventually resorted to some of the recruiting rules that were posted on the Internet. After a while, I got so bored using six-star Michigan that I started a "Rollin' With No. 117" dynasty in which I took the 117th-ranked team in the country (Buffalo to start out) and played with them until I won a national championship. It took me five years with Buffalo playing at All-American, roughly default, then four years with Baylor. After my first year at UL-Monroe started out too easy, I stopped playing my dynasty. But by then I'd played well over 20 sesaons of dynasty mode, in addition to about 170 online games. That game rocked!

They did make recruiting a little more challenging in 2005. I only did two recruiting classes in 2006 because I got fed up with CPU playcalling, so I didn't get a true gauge. I was using Western Michigan and had a hard time getting players - as is proper. I do think that the inseason recruiting in 2006 gave me an advantage over other MAC teams, because you never saw the likes of Eastern Michigan, Akron, Buffalo, et al on anyone's recruiting list. Everyone I recruited in-season was considering Western along with Michigan, Ohio State, Iowa, Virginia Tech, Notre Dame ... schools of that nature.

In terms of recruiting rules, the one rule I always abide by is: Never recruiting more players than you have openings. College teams don't cut guys in real life just because they recruited someone better. Plus, it makes it more challenging, not allowing you to stockpile a ton of talent that could go to other schools.

[Cebby]

Quote: Originally Posted by wonderl33t

The thing that I remember most about 2004's recruiting is that any team coming off a good season (2 losses or fewer) could easily land more than ten 5-star recruits. EA fixed it in 2005 by reducing the number of 5-star recruits in the recruiting pool

It's not that recruiting itself was unbalanced, the amount of good players was. It's not unusual for a team to get a ton of good prospects. USC got 13 top 100 recruits this year. The problem was the top 200 or so recruits were all 5*s, whereas in real life, only about 60 are 5*s (Scout had 61 this year including JUCOs). Now if you've got a top team, you'll still pull in similar rankings, you'll just get fewer 5*s.