Recruiting and Progression should look more like this

[kingkilla56]

People are unhappy with how recruits look specifically down the road in dynasty mode.I think progression is the problem. Last year recruiting was fine minus the abundance or 78-84 rated 3 star guys. The progression was the issue. The power house schools got the best progression at 1-6 scale where 4, 5, and 6+ came at far greater percentages than the lower tiered schools. A 72 rated 2 star guy at Alabama could reach 96 with +6 ratings but the same guy at eastern Michigan could barely reach 80. The eastern Michigan progression seems about right possibly a little high. Here's how I'd like it:
If they revert Recruits to:
5 star= 75-83 (rare 85)
4 star= 72-78 (rare 80)
3 star= 67-76 (rare 78-80)
2 star= 64-72 (rare 73-75)
1 star= 59-65 (be real any lower than 59 isn't even high school) (very few to actually be recruited at all)

Prestige is the culprit to progression so
6 star prestige progression scale: +1-3 (rare 4)
5 star +1-2 (rare 3) (extreme rare 4)
4 star +1-2 (rare 3) (no 4)
3 star +1 (rare 2) (rarer 3) (no 4)
2 star +1 (rarer 2) (extreme rare 3) (no 4)
1 star +1 (extreme rare 2)

By this. 6 star Bama lands a 5 star qb 83 and 2 star qb 69. years of progression: (assumed to become RS senior)
QB 83 +1 +3 +1 +2 = 90 senior qb great player, drafted
QB 69 +1 +3 +1 +2= 75 back up on a powerhouse, could start at a lower school

3 star Syracuse (lol 3 star) lands a 4 star DT 77 and a 2 star DT 65
DT 77: +1 +1 +2 +3 84 senior DT good player may get drafted in later rounds
DT 65: +1 +1 +2 + 3 72 decent player, starter, puts in his hard earned time on the field.

1 star San jose state lands a 2 star RB 71 and a 1 star RB 61 and a 4!!! star RB 76
RB 71 +1 +1 +2 +1 75 senior good back up, does damage and puts in good work
RB 61: +1 +1 +2 +1 66 doesnt see the field very often
RB 76: +1 +1 +2 +1 81 starter great player in his conference (notice that he may be the teams best player but he isnt incredibly amazing)

For anomalies:
6 Star Texas magically has a terrible class 2 star QB 71, 2 star RB 67, 2 star DT 66
QB 71: +2 +3 +1 +2 79 decent player, may start on texas may transfer
RB 67 :+2 +3 +1 +2 75 again great for lower team but texas had bad class
DT 66: +2 +3 +1 +2 74 not the best for a texas team but serviceable

And 1 star western Kentucky has an all time class 5*QB 80, 5*CB 78, 5* MLB 77
QB 80: +1 +1 +1 +2 85 great player drafted later rounds great pick up
CB 78: +1 +1 +1 +2 83 again super play for his caliber team drafted later
MLB 77: +1 +1 +1 +2 82 fantastic player for his conference It was a great class so they have great players.

Keep in mind these are OVERALL ratings not individual/what matter ratings

I think this is a fantastic scale as a base to build on. Im sorry if this dragged on but i was kinda bored with my gf hogging the TV gosh.

Any way tell me what you think. Would you change it, do you like it?

And make up your own recruits using these scales and see what you come up with. Are the players too high too low for their star rating and school star rating? Chime in guys

[dan_457]

I like the incoming recruit ratings, but i think the progression they already have would work. My main beef this year is how terrible incoming recruits have been, the progression is fine as is.

[Starfleeter]

I agree, I think they just need to change incoming recruits. The progression they have is perfectly fine as it's based on your program prestige for the most part.

I just get tired of anything less than 3 star not being able to ever improve a school since they can be rated so low and just be huge busts since the current progression (which is a great model) just doesn't allow them to improve much at all if you're at a school that is forced to recruit these bad players.

[Meatloaf86]

Reading earlier about how 1* players come in in the 40-50 rating range has really disappointed me, as well as the 2* players coming in the barely 50 range. As a 1* team 2* players are key in the building of a team at an early stage, with players continuously rated in the mid 50s, it will be extremely hard to build a team up if you keep with tradition and make a schedule that isn't a cupcake.

I like this scale, and hope the developers begin to realize 1* recruits are basically worthless. It'd be nice to see them take into account the comments made on forums like this one and begin to create a rating scale that doesn't make building a team up from the bottom more challenging than running a marathon after training for a week.

Let's get realistic and go back to how it was on the previous generations. I love the ratings of players, even 2* players could contribute, now it seems like that may be impossible.

[kmaxhokie]

I find your idea very interesting about how school prestige would affect how much progression a player can go through.

My only question is about star players for small school teams. Take Demarcus Ware for example, he went to a small school at Troy (not sure his scout rating but wasn't better than 3 stars, wasn't highly recruited) and was a 1st round pick in the NFL, so that would be 90's in the video game. From your ideas he would come in around 70 (since he wasn't really recruited) and leave at best 76-78 since Troy is only a 2 star I believe. There has to be hidden gems in every recruiting class that can go from 2 to 3 stars and be amazing for lower teams (90's). So basing just only on school prestige would not allow low star recruits at small schools to make it to the NFL, although I think your idea can be a base.

[mgoblue678]

^^Agreed. You need a couple of special players from smaller schools as well.

What I would suggest is that they get rid of the 1* recruits entirely for the most part and add more 2* and 3*. If you look at the recruiting rankings even bad teams/programs sign mostly 2* players with some 3* sprinkled in. For the most 1* players do not play D1 football at all.


Just for example if you look at a horrible team/program in Eastern Michigan and their 2010 recruiting class. According to Rivals their recruiting class is made of 2 3* players and 22 2 * players. Not a single 1* player in their entire recruiting class.

[Meatloaf86]

It'd be great if those 2* players were actually beneficial instead of filler players and scrubs. I like the idea of having a few hidden gems, every team has at least 1 or 2 per year who pan out and become stars compared to what they were ranked coming in as a freshman.

[Catamount53]

In my opinion performance needs to be a factor for progression so that if a person plays well their rating will reflect that.