Coaching Strategy vs Recruiting

[GetYaWeigtUp]

Just wondering if anyone knows...Does your team's coaching strategy determine what type of recruits will be interested in your program? For example, if you run a spread offense, will you attract more scrambling QBs, or Speed WRs and RBs?

If your offensive strategy is balanced like OSU, will you attract more Balanced and Power RBs? or will the Speed RBs/WRs and scrambling QBs still be attracted?

Thanks!

[deucepoppi17]

Some say its true, some say its a myth. But based on my testing, i think its true in terms of which positions will show more interest in your team.

I moved the slider for Run/Pass all the way to Pass and all of a sudden I had a ton of WR's/QB's interested and no RB's. And vice versa.

[youALREADYknow]

Quote: Originally Posted by deucepoppi17

Some say its true, some say its a myth. But based on my testing, i think its true in terms of which positions will show more interest in your team. I moved the slider for Run/Pass all the way to Pass and all of a sudden I had a ton of WR's/QB's interested and no RB's. And vice versa.

The run/pass sliders do impact player interest. I believe that was confirmed already by an EA dev on a podcast.

Whether the type of offense impacts interest is another story, but it does impact how many players are needed at each position.

[N51_rob]

I will say this. You may get the recruit but you may not be able to keep them.

In my online dynasty we have a guy who is using Navy. He was able to land the 2nd or 3rd best WR in the recruiting class. Guy played as a freshmen. Had 126 catches for over 2000 yards and 20+ TD. In the off-season he transfered to WMU. It made no sense to any of us. I figured it was one of two things. The fact that Navy isn't in a major conference or his playbook and coaching philosophy was still the navy, run first, run second and run third. Nothing to prove this but I guess in the world of NCAA it would make sense.

[Andrews85]

Quote: Originally Posted by N51_rob

I will say this. You may get the recruit but you may not be able to keep them. In my online dynasty we have a guy who is using Navy. He was able to land the 2nd or 3rd best WR in the recruiting class. Guy played as a freshmen. Had 126 catches for over 2000 yards and 20+ TD. In the off-season he transfered to WMU. It made no sense to any of us. I figured it was one of two things. The fact that Navy isn't in a major conference or his playbook and coaching philosophy was still the navy, run first, run second and run third. Nothing to prove this but I guess in the world of NCAA it would make sense.

I too am a run 1st, run 2nd and run 3rd type of player in my Army Dynasty and i've had quite a few WR's and QB's leave. Last year I had 2 of my JR WR's (low 80's) transfer. Now I have pretty much junk at the WR position.

[GetYaWeigtUp]

Thanks guys I just wanted to know how much of a difference it made. I see that playbook and style may not matter as much as the run/pass ratio they have. I'll keep an eye on this and do a few tests myself, thanks!

[ftball11]

Quote: Originally Posted by Andrews85

I too am a run 1st, run 2nd and run 3rd type of player in my Army Dynasty and i've had quite a few WR's and QB's leave. Last year I had 2 of my JR WR's (low 80's) transfer. Now I have pretty much junk at the WR position.

The military academies, in this game, should not have JRs transfering because by their JR Year they are locked into their military commitment. Also, players should not be leaving early for the pro draft and the academies don't redshirt their players.

[Andrews85]

Quote: Originally Posted by ftball11

The military academies, in this game, should not have JRs transfering because by their JR Year they are locked into their military commitment. Also, players should not be leaving early for the pro draft and the academies don't red shirt their players.

Yeah, when I started my dynasty with Army I was going to do the "No Red shirt" policy the have to make it a little more challenging, but the cpu automatically red shirts a player if he doesn't play a down during the previous year.