So when does EA blow us away with recruiting (more...)?

[capone2117]

Quote: Originally Posted by TKBama7

I've actually seen 3 or 4 guys I have recruited not qualify and it pissed me off but I mean, seriously, if they list a GPA or just say Academics "Poor" or somethign like that then that should warn you that they may not make it.

You've had people that didn't make your roster because they didn't qualify? I have never seen this happen in recruiting. All the guys I have recruited always make the roster, even if they are not above a D- in intelligence(field awr).

[Cebby]

Quote:

Another thing that bothers about recruiting is the JUCO'S. Recruiting JUCO's is pointless in this game. Mid-Majors and soemtimes even the major programs need a JUCO guy to step in and fill a position where they lost a ton of talent the year before and in this game they make that non-existant because they are no better than the incoming freshman. I hate starting true freshman, especially when I am in the SEC unless they are just a FREAK OF NATURE. Mid-majors live off JUCO's and I think EA needs to fix this problem.

That's the thing they really need to change. The JUCO system should be completely separate from the HS recruiting.

JUCO *****s should come out as 88-90
****s as mid 80s
***s as low 80s and high 70s

Right now, there's no reason to recruit JUCOs

[BROman]

Quote: Originally Posted by Deegeezy

To me, this is a good thing.

me too, just like real life, recruiting is a crap shoot.

[edmus]

Has anyone noticed this while recruiting on the PS2? --

I've simmed through season #1 several times with a few different teams just to try to figure out some house rules that would make my results more realistic. Two things I've noticed (which I'm hoping might just be isolated to year 1?).

1) I don't think I've ever seen a player during in-season recruiting with a potential rating above average. They sometimes turn out to have "good" potential once I've signed them and check how they're rated during off-season recruiting.

2) Everyone's potential is rated as "Good" during offseason recruiting. While discipline ratings vary a lot, I'm almost certain everyone is rated as having "Good" potential during the offseason.

Has anyone else noticed this or do I just have the one broken PS2 copy?

[Jackrabbit]

1) Go through the 5 weeks of pitches and only receive verbals at the end of every recruiting week, then make National Signing Day bigger. In real life, coaches only get official notice on National Signing Day. You should see all the coaches waiting around the fax machine waiting for their recruits.

You can even quantify as a hard or soft verbal, but you still may have to put points on those players throughout the process. You could even have SCOUT.com do a projection on where players would sign, with a likelihood of signing, throughout the weeks. But you only find out who you get on National Signing Day.

2) Add a narrative to the scouting process. "Reminds us of Jerry Rice." "Is a north-south runner." "Will be a discipline problem." Things like that.

3) Increase the number of players needed to make a pipeline by one or two more players. That would greatly reduce the number of pipelines you could have. And it would force you to focus on your pipelines more, as opposed to gobbling up more pipelines.

Fewer pipelines for colleges would also create more rivalries, at least from the player side. If you were constantly battling the same five teams for players from a particular state, and you play those teams, you will be taking on players you actually wanted to play for you, and you want to beat them...bad. No rivalries if you are battling ten teams.

4) Create a new rating, Teammate, and focus on it during recruiting. It would be different from discipline because all the discipline problems are focused on the player himself (grades, transcripts, etc.) A highly rated player in Teammate would improve ratings across the board when they are playing well while a lesser-rated player could actually reduce teammates' ratings because they are a clubhouse cancer.

5) Tie recruiting pitches (especially coaching related ones) to your years left on your contract, at least inernally. You could even make that a feature of the players' feedback. If you are in your last year, it might be more difficult to pick up highly coveted players. If you just signed a new extension, it would be easier. More years left on your contract means you have a higher probability to stay longer, and players would feel that there would be consistency.

6) Allot the recruiting points you get based on a rolling three-year W-L record and program prestige. If you have a 10 win season after two 5-6 campaigns, you now automatically become a recruiting power. Not true in the real world. The same goes the other way. If you have two straight 10 win seasons, then have a 5 year, you shouldn't go all the way down. The better your win % and prestige, the quicker you get your full allotment of points. 1, 2 and 3 star teams should take three years of success to get the highest number of points. 4 and 5 take shorter and 6-star can the full allotment year in and year out.

What this does is eliminate the Western Michigans playing for the National Championship every year after three years of simming. We all want a Rutgers or Utah or Boise State plaing for it all once in a while, but when was the last perrenial powerhouse created? All these teams at the top in real life football year after year have been, or once were, college powerhouses before. It's because its taken them years to create a winning atmosphere and attract great players, not just two good years and recruits.