Recruits have to be A LOT Deeper

[devinewon]

Quote: Originally Posted by hazey

Well, my SJSU dynasty is an OD dynasty with 7 other users all in WAC and Conference USA. I like the Russian Roulette. It gives the game unpredictability, which is how recruiting in real life is. Without it, users can choose what they want to sell, and if 2 users go after the same recruit the user that has higher pitches is automatically going to get him every time. There is no flexibility or unpredictability that can be accounted for. In our OD, we relate the unpredictability to a sort of recruiting charisma a particular coach might have on that given week. I don't want to know that if I'm battling a handful of recruits with another user, that he is going to get every single one of them simply because we get to choose our pitches and he happens to be a little better in all those pitches than me. IMHO that isn't how recruiting in real life works. I also completely disagree about the skill not being a factor in comparison of teams overall ranking. I have seen players in our OD with equal skill have outstanding games with each other in significantly different team ratings. The A team might win 7 out of 10 times over the B team, but that generally happens in real life. Alabama is going to beat a team like South Carolina 7 out of 10 times. To each his own though.

You did not read again. I said DONT tell me about your Conference USA and WAC online dynasty. When one of you guys do get lucky and get one of those recruits it throws the balance off and it has nothing to with your skill as a recruiter. If you get a big time player in one of those conferences with the Russian Roulette system the computer has given you the player through the magic "unpredictability" of the system. Now your superstar WR is destroying the 2 and 3 star cornerbacks that the other poor saps and your dynasty have. All the while you're thinking, "Damn I'm good."

But regardless recruits talk about how they "felt" being the reason they chose one school over another.

The biggest things I hear when recruits talk is how close it is to home, early playing time, how nice the campus is, and chemistry with the coaching staff.

A Coaches Personality System needs to be implemented. That way there can be some sort of Human factor to the game.

[illwill10]

If I can edit recruit classes, I would be good

[devinewon]

Quote: Originally Posted by illwill10

If I can edit recruit classes, I would be good

For Offline, Not Online.

[jbrew2411]

Quote: Originally Posted by hazey

IMHO that isn't how recruiting in real life works.

Let me tell you how recruiting works in real life. The recruiter finds out what the kid is looking for out of college. Once they have that information it then becomes a sales job. The recruiter has to sale why his school offers something other school can't. It may be the campus, location, facilities, or coaches. While each kid may have different desires out of his college experience the process is the same. The recruiter spends time on what his school does well and hopes the kid buys the dream. Do you think in real life a recruiter would ever spend time talking about how they could put a kid in the NFL when they have never had a single kid from their school play beyond college? No, they spend time talking about what the school does well and what the kid wants out of a school.

The system in NCAA 11 is as far from real life as can be. It needs to be improved. We should be able to choose our pitches and not the other way around.

Quote: Originally Posted by devinewon

You did not read again. I said DONT tell me about your Conference USA and WAC online dynasty. When one of you guys do get lucky and get one of those recruits it throws the balance off and it has nothing to with your skill as a recruiter. If you get a big time player in one of those conferences with the Russian Roulette system the computer has given you the player through the magic "unpredictability" of the system. Now your superstar WR is destroying the 2 and 3 star cornerbacks that the other poor saps and your dynasty have. All the while you're thinking, "Damn I'm good." But regardless recruits talk about how they "felt" being the reason they chose one school over another. The biggest things I hear when recruits talk is how close it is to home, early playing time, how nice the campus is, and chemistry with the coaching staff. A Coaches Personality System needs to be implemented. That way there can be some sort of Human factor to the game.

This is the biggest thing that needs to be added. Coaches have such a huge impact on college football in all areas. That is not represented at all in the game. Add coaches with ratings that include recuriting as a rating. Then you could choose your pitches and the better rating your coach has the more points you gain and vice versa.

[nighttrain32]

Quote: Originally Posted by 89OneHanded

First of all, no wonder I agree with everything this guy says, he's an actual football coach. That makes sense. Second, as I said, I agree with everything you said, but the second part calls my name. I have said for years that both Madden and NCAA games are missing the sleeper players. Miles Austin is the perfect example. In Madden 2010 he was rated like a 60 something when the game came out. That year he blew up, ending the season with 1300 yards and 11 TDs, and by the time they released the final roster patch, he was rated 88 or 89. If a mediocre rated player blows up during a season, I want to see him get a 10 point jump or more. If he earned it, 20 points. Think about it how they would do the ratings each year. Cam Newton wasn't even the starting QB on the initial rosters, but if he was staying at Auburn, you can guarantee he'd be a 96-99 ovr next year. I would love to see this game get more creative with player growth, instead of all players growing 1-6 points each offseason. That is so boring, and so unrealistic. I want to see players come out of nowhere, like a 71 ovr RB that runs for 1200 yards after your feature back goes down at the beginning of the season. He should be a 90 the next season. 70-something ovr sophomore QB that steps in behind a graduating senior and throws for 4000 yards, 30 TDs and less than 10 picks? Should be 88 the next season. This way, 2* or 3* players could come out of nowhere to be studs, just like in real life. On the same subject, creativity towards realism has to include the other side of the coin. Players also get worse. 5* players end up being busts. This would be harder to determine programming-wise, because lots of people play 5 minute quarters, and there aren't enough realistic stats to go around in 5 min q. So at the end of the year, you can't base a ratings drop on stats. You can't do it randomly either (I would be incredibly angry if my stud DE dropped 5 points because he "only" got 4 sacks that year...even though heisman makes sacks unlikely at best.) The only really safe way to do it is to build a hidden "bust" label into a player from the beginning, so you're recruiting a 5* bust, but you won't figure it out until the offseason after his sophomore year. That may be frustrating for a player to see his 5* sophomore suddenly drop 3 points in the offseason, but it is a ton more realistic than a bland 1-6 points of growth every year. I would love to see the ratings growth system trend towards realism.

True that. We need more hidden gems in recruiting that make a big impact on a national scale.

[jbrew2411]

Another way to make recruits deeper is to add what positions an Athlete plays in high school. Then be able to recruit them at one position or the other. An example is Ronnie Hillman, a RsFr RB at San Diego St. He was a highly rated Athlete that was mostly recruited as a DB but wanted to play RB. Brady Hoke told him he would play him as a RB and he signed. Going back to the game, we should be able to choose how we are recruiting these guys. If the recruit wants to play offense but we recruit him for defense we may lose out. Another real life example is Michael Crabtree who was recruited by Texas as a DB but Tech recruited him as a WR where he wanted to play. Just an idea that happens in real life.

[devinewon]

Quote: Originally Posted by jbrew2411

Another way to make recruits deeper is to add what positions an Athlete plays in high school. Then be able to recruit them at one position or the other. An example is Ronnie Hillman, a RsFr RB at San Diego St. He was a highly rated Athlete that was mostly recruited as a DB but wanted to play RB. Brady Hoke told him he would play him as a RB and he signed. Going back to the game, we should be able to choose how we are recruiting these guys. If the recruit wants to play offense but we recruit him for defense we may lose out. Another real life example is Michael Crabtree who was recruited by Texas as a DB but Tech recruited him as a WR where he wanted to play. Just an idea that happens in real life.

Thats HUGE. Every time you comment on anything were on the same wave-length. I think there should be more athletes in this game because half of the players that come out in real life could easily play another position.

Denard Robinson is a perfect example. He's from Florida but the reason he did not go to a Florida school is because they wanted him to play DB or WR and he wanted to play QB. Rich Rod offered him an opportunity to play QB. On top of your idea making a promise of what position someone will play, which is a mechanic already built into the game, there should be more athletes and you judge by their stats which position you want these guys to play and they make a decision where they want to go. I think this gives some of the smaller schools an opportunity to get players because they want to play a certain position.

[jbrew2411]

Quote: Originally Posted by devinewon

Thats HUGE. Every time you comment on anything were on the same wave-length. I think there should be more athletes in this game because half of the players that come out in real life could easily play another position. Denard Robinson is a perfect example. He's from Florida but the reason he did not go to a Florida school is because they wanted him to play DB or WR and he wanted to play QB. Rich Rod offered him an opportunity to play QB. On top of your idea making a promise of what position someone will play, which is a mechanic already built into the game, there should be more athletes and you judge by their stats which position you want these guys to play and they make a decision where they want to go. I think this gives some of the smaller schools an opportunity to get players because they want to play a certain position.

If added it would make Athletes well athletes. I hate looking through the grades to only find more DB's then anything else. I know in past NCAA games I could find good WR's, RB's, QB's, and even O-linemen & D-linemen. That was not the case in NCAA 11. I also don't know how many time I saw Athletes who can only play one position. By adding a better Athletes to the recruiting pool and the ability to recruit them at one position over their other position then that would add some decent depth to recruiting.