Players labeled "bust"

[soonermagic88]

My top lineman im scouting in my Miami dynasty started out as the number 1 ovr tackle, 86 overall before scouting. After 100% scouting he is now a -7, 79. He is not labled as a bust though? I thought that was odd.
I mean, im still going to recruit him though, he is still my highest rated lineman that i am recruiting.

[fballturkey]

There seem to be (and this makes sense) a lot more 1-3 star gems and a lot of 4-5 star busts, so if you're at WKU you're probably mostly scouting 1-3 star guys so you'll see more gems than busts. If you're a powerhouse scouting 4-5 star guys you'll see more busts than gems.

As has been said a player being a bust doesn't impact their final overall rating relative to a player that was a gem. That is to say a guy that was an 80 that busts down to 70 and a player that was a 60 that gems up to 70 are effectively the same once they get to campus.

I've seen what I believe to be the CPU avoiding busts, but I haven't noticed them targeting gems.

Also be somewhat careful deciding yourself whether someone is a gem or bust before fully scouting. I've had guys go down to -6 after scouting them half the way then back up to 0 or +1 when fully scouted. Pay attention to what ratings are going down or up. A slot WRs blocking plummeting may not effect you nearly as much as their speed, for example.


Edit: Sooner, is he 100% scouted? If he's at like 98% it won't label him yet. It seems like position players rated over 81 always end up dropping down.

[Deegeezy]

I hate the idea of someone being called a bust before they even step foot on campus. I think they could have done a tad bit better job with the wording. Ultimately though, it doesn't matter.

[The_Wise_One]

Quote: Originally Posted by Deegeezy

I hate the idea of someone being called a bust before they even step foot on campus. I think they could have done a tad bit better job with the wording. Ultimately though, it doesn't matter.

I agree. A bust should be labeled after a season or two....not coming out.

[Soonerfan14]

EA should come out with A progression rating that effects how the prospect gets better each year.

[Sundown2600]

Quote: Originally Posted by Soonerfan14

EA should come out with A progression rating that effects how the prospect gets better each year.

Or just make progression more sporadic and random for about 10% of the players on each roster. I like the new recruiting system, but I'm not sure this is what the community had in mind a few years back when we begged for "diamond in the ruff" recruits.

Regression should play a factor as well. Some guys should get worse in some cases due to injury, lack of playing time...etc.

[PowerofRed25]

Depends on the position. A "bust" offensive lineman who goes from 78 to 72 is still incredibly useful because it builds OL depth. By the time he's a Junior, he'll have 3 offseasons under his belt and be a fantastic starting lineman rated in the mid to upper 80's. I love recruiting 3 deep depth on the OL, I try and sign 3 or 4 a year, bust or not. I really don't need OL to come in and be instant contributors.

I tend to avoid "busts" everywhere else just because the reason they are usually busts is because they aren't as athletic as advertised. An mid to upper 80's speed HB or WR doesn't really do me much good, neither does a defensive player who can't tackle.

[Dshears]

Quote: Originally Posted by jello1717

What he said. A bust that's 75(-10) is better than a gem that's 70(+10).

Ok I never thought of it that way. I figured since they were busts they would play like it.