Let us set our own position requirements

[dxdude2004]

You can go to recruiting board settings, and set FB importance to low, and see if that helps.

[prowler]

Quote: Originally Posted by dxdude2004

You can go to recruiting board settings, and set FB importance to low, and see if that helps.

I think that's only for CPU recruiting so it knows which players to focus on signing.

Changing your playbook after the bowl games helps a little because it changes the min requirements of certain positions. But it also means you might have to over recruit at another position (ie a spread playbook would require a lot more receivers but fewer FB/TE than a one back playbook).

[dxdude2004]

Quote: Originally Posted by prowler

I think that's only for CPU recruiting so it knows which players to focus on signing. Changing your playbook after the bowl games helps a little because it changes the min requirements of certain positions. But it also means you might have to over recruit at another position (ie a spread playbook would require a lot more receivers but fewer FB/TE than a one back playbook).

Yeah, I wasn't too sure about that actually lol

[stcloudgopher]

Quote: Originally Posted by blkrptnt819

I think we should be able to set our own requirements. That means if I run a spread and I don't want a FB then I should be able to have scheme them out of my recruiting plans. Also if I run a 335 and I want more safeties that should be a matter of making my low end higher so I can have more on the roster to fill my depth.

Yes, this sucks. However, a little tweak within the system works for me. (I rarely run the spread, but when I do...)

Do not recruit a FB in your first season. Then, remove all FBs after season 1 and switch a 3rd/4th/5th string RB to FB. I try to find a good pass blocking RB (they are rare) to plug in there. Or, if I don't have a RB that works for me, I'll throw a TE in there.

Most of the time, no matter the offense, I'll put a blocking TE in for my FB. The TEs tend to have better speed and accel and much better pass block ratings.

[Roggie]

Quote: Originally Posted by stcloudgopher

Yes, this sucks. However, a little tweak within the system works for me. (I rarely run the spread, but when I do...) Do not recruit a FB in your first season. Then, remove all FBs after season 1 and switch a 3rd/4th/5th string RB to FB. I try to find a good pass blocking RB (they are rare) to plug in there. Or, if I don't have a RB that works for me, I'll throw a TE in there. Most of the time, no matter the offense, I'll put a blocking TE in for my FB. The TEs tend to have better speed and accel and much better pass block ratings.

This is basically what I do. I'll recruit an extra TE and make them a fullback. If I'm short on TEs, like in my current season in my OD, I converted a RB who wouldn't play much/get redshirted to a FB (I signed 4 4 star HBs this season. Converted one of the 2 that would be redshirted to FB. Was the better overall one at FB).

I run the Pistol. Indiana's version. Only time my FB is in the game is in the goal line. I have no I formation, so I definitely don't need a FB. So it makes sense for me to do this. If I'm playing a pro style (as I do when I'm Va Tech), I like to recruit a 2 or 3 star FB, because they come in as a decent overall (due to FBs being rated lower recruit wise).

[redbird294]

I agree with this. I run the R&S with Hawaii's playbook (I like it a little bit more than SMU's. Not a fan of SG Y-Trips) and I don't know why I'm required to recruit FB's and TE's. They don't see the field. I'm in 4 wide all the time. In the goal line set, I usually take my taller backup WR's and use them at TE, and throw a backup lineman in there at FB.

[65South]

Great idea by OP.

Quote: Originally Posted by BROman

no doubt. i end up having the cut a decent player b/c i have to keep some crappy walk-on as my fullback or 3rd string linebacker. i don't expect it to change, we'll get moving wind socks instead.

This! Two thumbs up BROman.

I can't stand the fact that I have to have a crappy walk-on on my roster that'll never see the light of day but he forces me to cut someone else or depth at another position only because I "have to have" two fullbacks (or substitute any other position) on my roster for it to be in compliance.

[UniversityofArizona]

equally frustrating is having to recruit a kicker and a punter when you really only need one if that guy is good enough. i also find it annoying that i can't red shirt a young punter because the kicker is a senior... considering the fact that we already have smaller rosters than a typical school, it becomes even more frustrating that we are required to recruit for unneeded positions