Please at some point just replace the 1 star recruits with 2 and 3 star guys

[xxjgbxx]

this isnt RL and most of the *1 stars in the game arent even worth the time

[Ricky Rowe Zay]

Quote: Originally Posted by xxjgbxx

this isnt RL and most of the *1 stars in the game arent even worth the time

True.

Another thing EA Sports should do is introduce hidden gem prospects and project players. I remember in NCAA Football 10, a small CPU school would end up with a low rated prospect who came in with a rating higher than some 5* prospects. Those guys happen in real life. Guys who go underlooked and come in as studs.

[UnderRatedCoast]

Quote: Originally Posted by Ricky Rowe Zay

True. Another thing EA Sports should do is introduce hidden gem prospects and project players. I remember in NCAA Football 10, a small CPU school would end up with a low rated prospect who came in with a rating higher than some 5* prospects. Those guys happen in real life. Guys who go underlooked and come in as studs.

Yeah, thats one thing that has always bothered me about the game. Maybe not so much the game missing that some 3 stars are better than some 5 stars, but HOW those guys become better, and that has to do with progression. As it stands currently, progression is totally random, and dependent upon the team youbare using. Thats not the case IRL. Pat White and Steve Slaton didnt become great because they went to WVU, and they certainly wouldnt have gotten better just because they went to Florida instead. And they werent highly overlooked recruits, either. They were as good as they were because they had a certain potential, and worked hard to perform like they did. And thats something missing from the game. No matter what level a recruit is, his potential is determined by which team signs him. But we are pretty much SOL on having any kind of rating for potential like the ncaa 2K bball series, but I would hope they implement it in the future.

[Ricky Rowe Zay]

Quote: Originally Posted by UnderRatedCoast

Yeah, thats one thing that has always bothered me about the game. Maybe not so much the game missing that some 3 stars are better than some 5 stars, but HOW those guys become better, and that has to do with progression. As it stands currently, progression is totally random, and dependent upon the team youbare using. Thats not the case IRL. Pat White and Steve Slaton didnt become great because they went to WVU, and they certainly wouldnt have gotten better just because they went to Florida instead. And they werent highly overlooked recruits, either. They were as good as they were because they had a certain potential, and worked hard to perform like they did. And thats something missing from the game. No matter what level a recruit is, his potential is determined by which team signs him. But we are pretty much SOL on having any kind of rating for potential like the ncaa 2K bball series, but I would hope they implement it in the future.

Maybe they could tune it in in their next update.

[cr00v]

Quote: Originally Posted by Ricky Rowe Zay

Another thing EA Sports should do is introduce hidden gem prospects and project players. I remember in NCAA Football 10, a small CPU school would end up with a low rated prospect who came in with a rating higher than some 5* prospects. Those guys happen in real life. Guys who go underlooked and come in as studs.

This. I really hope EA reads these threads or somehow obtains this information, because this is a very good idea. I don't know about other schools, but a ton of Auburn's 3* prospects are in the NFL and 5* LB Tray Blackmon was a total letdown...

[Ricky Rowe Zay]

Quote: Originally Posted by cr00v

This. I really hope EA reads these threads or somehow obtains this information, because this is a very good idea. I don't know about other schools, but a ton of Auburn's 3* prospects are in the NFL and 5* LB Tray Blackmon was a total letdown...

I hope they can patch that in/tune it. Whatever they have to do.

I'd love to watch as one of my 2* players come in and turn out to be a great player/high NFL draft pick. It seems like its more common for linemen & TE's to do that than any other position because they develop at high rates.

[jmik58]

i see what you're saying, that in the game (not in real life) 1* players don't equate to sufficiently skilled players.

1* might as well be walk-ons.

Don't get caught up in the label though. Perhaps the ratings need to overlap to help this.

[hazey]

Russell completely ignored this in the other thread, so I'm assuming it won't be on their agenda to change anytime soon. Maybe for next year's version.