Just realized how bad CPU recruiting is

[Sori]

I knew the CPU recruiting was a little screwy, but I had no idea how bad. I just for the first time looked at other teams full rosters instead of just depth charts a few years into my dynasty.

Bama - 7 QB's
Ark State - 7 QB's
BYU - 8 QB's
Cinc - 7 QB's
Colorado - 6 QB's
Colorado St - 8 QB's
Florida - 8 QB's (all+85)
Fresno - 7 QB's
Hawaii - 10 QB's
Idaho - 9 QB's
Kansas - 7 QB's
Louisville - 7QB's
Minn - 7 QB's
Mizz - 7 QB's
Nebraska - 8 QB's
Ohio State - 9 QB's (8 of them +85)
San Diego St - 8 QB's
Temple - 7 QB's
Texas Tech - 10 QB's
Tulane - 7 QB's
Tulsa - 7 QB's
UCLA - 9 QB's
Washington - 12 QB's
Wisconsin - 8 QB's


And what do all these school's have in common? They all have walkon's at kicker, punter, and FB, and a few other spots because they are hording one position and not recruiting positions of need. None have depth on the O line or any defensive position.

[NEOPARADIGM]

Well that's amusing.

[penji24]

i think part of the problem is there are way too many qb to recruit. i pass up so many every year and thats just the ones interested in my team. i bet there are over 100 qb's every season. and not every team needs a qb every year.

[LambertandHam]

Quote: Originally Posted by penji24

i think part of the problem is there are way too many qb to recruit. i pass up so many every year and thats just the ones interested in my team. i bet there are over 100 qb's every season. and not every team needs a qb every year.

I tend to fall into that "ooo shiny!" trap when it comes to recruiting, especially QB's each year. Still it's an issue where major teams are loosing games because their kickers/punters couldn't make it in peewee football.

[demondecs21]

Honestly i think the CPU puts wayyyy to much emphasis on getting that QB (i should say all they can get) and making sure you dont.


I guess its realistic but i mean really 8 and 12 Qb's on a roster, come on MAN.

[jello1717]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sori

I knew the CPU recruiting was a little screwy, but I had no idea how bad. I just for the first time looked at other teams full rosters instead of just depth charts a few years into my dynasty. Bama - 7 QB's Ark State - 7 QB's BYU - 8 QB's Cinc - 7 QB's Colorado - 6 QB's Colorado St - 8 QB's Florida - 8 QB's (all+85) Fresno - 7 QB's Hawaii - 10 QB's Idaho - 9 QB's Kansas - 7 QB's Louisville - 7QB's Minn - 7 QB's Mizz - 7 QB's Nebraska - 8 QB's Ohio State - 9 QB's (8 of them +85) San Diego St - 8 QB's Temple - 7 QB's Texas Tech - 10 QB's Tulane - 7 QB's Tulsa - 7 QB's UCLA - 9 QB's Washington - 12 QB's Wisconsin - 8 QB's And what do all these school's have in common? They all have walkon's at kicker, punter, and FB, and a few other spots because they are hording one position and not recruiting positions of need. None have depth on the O line or any defensive position.

While they definitely recruit way too many QBs and too many at other positions, but I don't think that has anything to do with getting walkon kickers/punters. There aren't enough kickers/punters to go around and most of them are 1 *s that aren't any better than walkons.

[Yeti_2009]

yeah I noticed one season, I think it was UT had recruited 4 QBs during one season. 2 were 5 star and 2 were 4 star.

[maddguuns]

Well, this is amusing. Last night, after three years at Buffalo, and an invite to the ACC; I quit and took the Arizona State job. Guess what I found when I took over...

19 HBs
13 ROLBs
22 WRs
5 Ks
0 Ps
0 FBs
0 LEs
0 RTs
0 LGs
0 RGs

WTH?!?!?!

What an Fing disaster to recruit to in my first offseason. Needless to say, I moved a lot of players and ended up cutting more than 10 HBs who were FR and SO over 75.

I don't get it.