Recruiting Stats

Discussion in 'The Experience' started by edge7771, Feb 12, 2012.

  1. edge7771

    edge7771 Walk On

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,944
    As most have seen GoGators, Jello, I, and others have been talking about this in the recruiting thread so I think it needs its own. I'm not trying to put words in Gators mouth, but I think he's talking about schools like NIU, ECU, USF, and Fresno, shouldn't be killing it on recruiting over us. Not when you have Oklahoma, Texas, USC, OSU, PSU, Bama, Aub, UF, LSU, and all the other traditional power houses not pulling their weight. I agree and pulled some numbers from the 2015 recruit board. In 2015 the user teams pulled in 80 5 and 4 start recruits not counting Wisky, Ark, and Stanford who didn't have numbers for that year. But since all three are powerhouses and Ark was a user and is now I say 30 more for those three and Washington has none. So that's 110 5-4 kids for 11 schools at an avg of 10 per school. Now looking at this year’s class there is 263 5-4 star kids for 119 D1 schools. I know it's not an accurate number but I think it's pretty close to what's happening and why we need some recruiting limits. If you were to take those 110 kids out of this year’s 263 you would have 153 blue chips for 108 schools at an avg of 1.4 per school. Now granted not every school will get a one of these kids, but the big time programs no matter what their record is will get their share no matter what. If take 36 teams out that didn't sign one in real life this year that's still only 2.1 avg per school. Now factor in not only are we taking most of blue chippers we are also taking a majority of the top 3 star kids also to water it down even more. I know this year's class is pretty much locked but I think we need to put something in place for the following class. Not only will this balance the rest of 2012 out but we can put something in place and use it going into 2013 right off the bat. I've put my plan out their that one league I was in used and still does. Some others have listed ideas to so I think we need to look at everything. Remember it's not a measure to limit the top user schools from the spoils of winning. Also with a recruiting plan it won't limit us on team selection which I can't stand.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2012
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Masler

    Masler Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,961
    Fresno pisses me off. They are on more than half of my recruits and always steal at least one from me. This does need to be fixed. I don't mind competing with a smaller school for recruits but I should expect to see USC or Oregon trying to take my 5 star over Fresno. I don't know why I RARELY see USC on my high caliber recuirts, it seems like they are on my 3 or 2 stars more than anything. EA will not change this guaranteed.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. GoGators

    GoGators GT: KSherm

    Joined:
    May 19, 2009
    Messages:
    7,893
    LMAO! This is precisely what I'm talking about. I just knocked out my recruiting for this week and something came to my attention. Over the past couple seasons, there's one team I've dominated on the recruiting trail........friggin Oklahoma! NIU takes me to the woodshed for recruits, but I can out recruit Oklahoma on the regular. I'm owning them on a couple guys this season and I know I've done it in the past as well. That shit doesn't make sense!
     
  4. GoGators

    GoGators GT: KSherm

    Joined:
    May 19, 2009
    Messages:
    7,893
    The things Edge has noted, there definitely needs to be something to tighten up the recruiting though. Right now the five stars shake out like this:

    Wisc 6
    UGA 3
    Stan 1
    MSU 1
    ASU 1
    AZ 1

    CPU 5
    Total Users = 13 for 6 teams that's crazy!

    This has to be addressed for `13.

    There's gotta be some way to make this more realistic. Rarely do you ever see a recruiting class have more than 4 five stars in it and typically there's only 1 or 2 in a top tier class. The top tier user teams in this dynasty however pull 3+ routinely. I think Masler hit the nail on the head though. Why don't teams like USC, Texas, UF, etc. hold up their end of the bargain with signing their share of 5 star guys? How can we address that? Is it because they are scheduling visits on weeks they typically get beat?

    Also, as Bill pointed out in the other thread, making sure the CPU NEVER wins a BCS is silly. All that does is cripple the cpu more. It should be entirely possible for a CPU vs CPU BCS game.
     
  5. jello1717

    jello1717 "Those who stay will be champions." -- Bo

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,617
    1 problem I think a lot of you have is that your minds are stuck in 2011 when it's 2017 now. You mention schools like Fresno and how they shouldn't bring in top recruits. Fresno is a :5stars: . You mention how aOSU and PSU should be bringing in better recruits, but (thanx to them playing in a user conference with 4 teams that have probably beaten them every time they've played thanx to easy sliders) they are :4stars: schools. A school like 5* Fresno SHOULD outrecruit the 4* schools of the world. Fresno is more prestigious than and NIU is just as prestigious as aOSU, PSU, USC, Alabama, LSU, and Florida. (From edge7771 's list, only OU, Texas, and Auburn are still :5stars: schools and there are no 6* CPU schools). From Edge's list of "shouldn't be able to recruit" schools, they're all at least a :4stars: schools with ECU and Fresno both as :5stars: schools. These schools have continued to win lots of games, which is why their prestige is high (just like how TCU and BSU have high prestige on the default game due to what they've accomplished in recent years).

    Don't think of these teams as the 2004-2011 Fresno or Ohio State. These are the 2011-2017 Fresno and aOSU. The game doesn't keep track of user coaching records correctly so there are some users with better records that aren't showing up (IE. I'm 76-14, but the game shows me as 53-7) but Fresno's HC has the most wins of any coach in our OD. The 2017 version of Fresno state SHOULD be kicking ass on the recruiting trail!

    EDIT:
    I see that Masler mentioned that Oregon needs to recruit better. Well, thanx to them getting beaten up routinely by users, Oregon is a :3stars: school. There's no way in hell that 2017 Oregon should be able to compete with ASU, Stanford, Arizona, Fresno, etc on the recruiting trails as a shitty :3stars:
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2012
  6. jello1717

    jello1717 "Those who stay will be champions." -- Bo

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,617
    EA doesn't need to change this and I hope that they don't. 2017 USC is only a :4stars: recruits which is why they aren't going after the same :5stars: and :4stars: recruits as your 6* team. This isn't the Pete Carroll USC team. This is a shitty :4stars: school that has had 3 coaching changes in 4 years.
     
  7. jello1717

    jello1717 "Those who stay will be champions." -- Bo

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,617
    As I mentioned a couple of seasons ago, OU has been my nemesis. Not Georgia. Not Wisconsin. OU has signed more recruits that I've pursued than any other school in the game. That was all before I got OK as a pipeline though, so hopefully I can compete with them now.
     
  8. jello1717

    jello1717 "Those who stay will be champions." -- Bo

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,617
    1. Those :5stars: recruits are getting signed by the 6* schools which is how it should be IMO. 11 of those 13 are on 6* schools. The problem here is the we don't use sliders to make the CPU teams competitive so only users are still 6*s.
    2. OU and UT have it easy as they're in their own conference with no users so they're both still :5stars:. The rest of the (should've been) strong CPU teams are in user conferences where we never lose to the CPU so they have no other option but to lose prestige. Then they bring in crappier recruits (which they should as a crappy prestige school) which make them lose more (now to the CPU as well and not just users) which makes them lose more prestige (IE. Oregon, who started as a 6* is now a 3*).
    3. Tougher sliders so the poor CPU has a shot against us.
    4. One HUGE issue with recruiting is that outside of the Red River Rivalry and the Cocktail party, the CPU will almost always schedule visits late in the season. Meanwhile users schedule them as early as possible and the vast majority of recruits that users pursue are signed before they ever get to visit the CPU. EA needs to implement logic to determine the optimum time for a visit (which at its most basic is before the fucker will sign with someone else) and schedule visits then. Or, we have a rule where no one can invite recruits before week X. This would greatly reduce the possible user visits though. Another issue is that the user schedules first while the CPU has to wait until after and then schedule them on what's available. So, if OU would've have someone in for their UT rivalry game in week 7, but I schedule my visit for week 7, unlike users who can have the same guy visit 2 the same week if they both schedule him during the same week, OU has no choice but to choose a different week, which is likely after I'll already sign him.
    5. I agree with this 95% with just 1 small issue. I have 0 problem with AQ schools getting to the BCS. But, I have a big issue with a 12-0 Troy or Kent State (when they were still in the Sun Belt and MAC) playing in the NCG over a 1 loss UGA with 5 top 25 victories compared to Troy's 0. In real life, UGA gets the bid, but in this game Kent most likely does. Therefore I think that mid majors should play a user to prevent that, but I have no problems with OU, Texas, Clemson, even Syracuse or Duke not playing a user and making it to the NCG.
     
  9. edge7771

    edge7771 Walk On

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,944
    Tougher sliders won't matter if the users have 70% of the talent while the other schools have 5%. The only thing that will do is make the CPU even more ridiculous and the game not enjoyable to play. This is not a knock on Randy or a slight in any way so please don't take it that way Randy. Look at Washington and what the CPU does against him and don't tell me it's because of Randy. It's because his talent level isn't on par with the CPU or the other users. No just think if we weren't able to hoard all the best players and had to battle all the CPU teams traditional power or not with rosters that aren't loaded? OU and Texas are still up their but don't even come close to the classes we as users are pulling in year in an out. Just imagine if Randy was on par with the other users it would be a 50/50 split or 55/45 in favor of 12 schools. Just look at this years class as of now there are 200 5-4 star recruits signed with 80 of them going to users with only 60 left to sign. And like I said that's not even counting the top 3 star kids. There is no way anyone will convince me that 11 schools should be able to bring in 40+% of the top level talent every year while 108 schools split the other 50+%.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. jello1717

    jello1717 "Those who stay will be champions." -- Bo

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,617
    You missed my point. My point was that users get all the recruits because we have higher prestige because we win most of the games because we always beat the CPU because our sliders are too easy. Likewise schools like Florida, Ohio State, and Oregon don't sign good recruits because they don't have high prestige because they lose too many games because they lose multiple games to users every year because our sliders are too easy.

    With tougher sliders ASU doesn't always cream the CPU and isn't a 6* program and thus doesn't kill on the recruiting trails n
     
  11. Big Suge Knight

    Big Suge Knight Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    Messages:
    6,237
    Featured Threads:
    1
    Part of the issue with recruiting IMO is that all these :5stars: guys seem to always pan out. I can't say I've seen one not have really good ratings once on campus. There are no busts
     
  12. GoGators

    GoGators GT: KSherm

    Joined:
    May 19, 2009
    Messages:
    7,893
    Edge is dead on. The difficulty of this game is silly. I don't know how many times I've considered giving this thing up when I check a game recap email on my phone. MSU takes down Nebraska 66 - 20 last week.....really? Like what's the point? I'm not calling out JC, but this is the typical score we get in this league and it's horrendous. I mean I took down UF an A+ team with my B team at home by two scores.

    I've lost the second most games to the CPU in this dynasty with only Washington doing it more frequently than I have. But why should I keep taking losses to the CPU when no one else is. Watch the score recaps as they come in. Whenever a user is down through a couple quarters, you see the scores start to inflate and games end up with basketball scores, 54-48 where the users just go ape shit trying to come back. It's ridiculous. This season we have one loss on the year to the CPU right? Arkansas vs Florida.


    This is a different topic, but one remedy to all of this could be what one of the Madden leagues did. Every third season they sim an entire season. I'm almost positive the majority in here wouldn't be on board with something like that, but it is intriguing from the perspective that it'd keep the CPU and users in line a bit more.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. jello1717

    jello1717 "Those who stay will be champions." -- Bo

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,617
    I'll use ASU as my data point for my sliders claim. ASU's prestige/recruits are as follows:

    YEAR PRESTIGE 5* 4* 3* <3*
    2011 3* 0 2 16 4
    2012 4* 0 7 8 3
    2013 5* 2 7 7 1
    2014 6* 1 11 3 0
    2015 6* 2 11 3 0
    2016 6* 6 6 3 0


    I never signed a :5stars: until my school's prestige was a 5*. I never signed a ton until I had been a 6* for a while. When my school was a 3* my class was turrible. When I was a 4* it wasn't bad, but I still didn't have a single :5stars: signing. People like GoGators will say that they think I'm pretty good at recruiting, yet I still didn't pull a :5stars: until 2013. Because of my poor initial recruiting classes, my team was always pretty mediocre. For the first few years I had the 2nd worst user team. My team last year was a 94 OVR and that was my first year in the 90s. This is because of my poor recruits (duh!).

    Now, if we had tougher sliders, I actually lose some CPU games (I think I've lost 2 this OD) and I stay as a 3*, 4*, and 5* for a lot longer (I sure as hell don't go from 3* -> 6* in only 3 years). Just imagine what my team would look like now (and consequently teams like USC and Oregon that don't keep losing multiple user games per year) if you replaced those last 3 years of recruiting above with the a duplicate of the 1st 3 years. That's what would've happened if we had tougher sliders.
     
  14. edge7771

    edge7771 Walk On

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,944
    No I think you missed my point and I think the same most user have the same sentiment at sliders as I stated above. The only thing that will do is make the CPU even more ridiculous and the game not enjoyable to play. But like I said there is no way 11 or 12 schools should have 40-50% of the top players sign every year sliders will not fix that.
     
  15. GoGators

    GoGators GT: KSherm

    Joined:
    May 19, 2009
    Messages:
    7,893
    jello1717 I love this data that you keep.

    Best guess, how many CPU losses do we average a season out of what......96 user vs CPU games played in a season?
     
  16. jello1717

    jello1717 "Those who stay will be champions." -- Bo

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,617
    This sounds like you're supporting my point, not Edge's. This sounds like it's agreeing with me that the sliders are too easy. Edge is saying that our teams are too good due to recruiting, but you just said that you had no problems with Florida, yet you're constantly complaining about your recruiting being poor, so it's not because you're killing the CPU teams in recruiting. It's because the sliders are too easy.

    As for your comment about the 2nd half, that's the #1 thing I want fixed about the gameplay for '13. You seem to think that it's users doing everything in their power to make sure they win the game, but I think it's piss poor programming on EA's part. I've played TONS of games vs the CPU and I'm convinced that it's scripted for the CPU to suck ass in the 2nd half. I don't know about others but I don't do anything different in the 2nd half at all, yet the CPU sucks balls in the 2nd half. Their defense seems to be the same to me, but their offense is wretched. I'd guess that probably 90% of the CPU scoring is done in the 1st half against users. I can honestly say that if a CPU team is playing me tough in the 1st half, I know that all I have to do is make it to half time and it's game over. I know with a very high degree of certainty that the CPU will score at the very most 7 points in the 2nd half the vast majority of the time. Again, this is without me changing anything I do on either side of the ball, and I'm talking about both this OD and my offline.

    I've lost count of the # of times a phrase similar to this has appeared in a game recap, "and then <insert user team here> took over after halftime and completely shut down <insert CPU team here>." From experience, I'm very convinced that this isn't due to users deciding to go into cheese mode to make sure they win, but because the game is scripted to have them suck ass in the 2nd half.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2012
  17. jello1717

    jello1717 "Those who stay will be champions." -- Bo

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,617
    Way less than I do in my offline with my own sliders. (y)

    EDIT:

    Here's my ASU team:
    [​IMG]

    Only 3 of those 14 losses were to the CPU. I lost to Illinois, Colorado, and USC.

    Here's my Michigan dynasty where my team has been a 99 OVR for probably the last 7 or so years, whereas my ASU team has only been above a 90 twice with a high of 97.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2012
  18. edge7771

    edge7771 Walk On

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,944
    So you find no problem with 12 taking 50% of the best players year in an out while the other 107 split the other 50%?
     
  19. jello1717

    jello1717 "Those who stay will be champions." -- Bo

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,617
    I have no problem with every 6* and other 5* schools taking 50% of the best players every year, no.
     
  20. edge7771

    edge7771 Walk On

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,944
    Also how do you think everyone would do if half of their recruits had to be 3* or below every year and has to recruit based on need and not stock pile talent.
     
  21. jello1717

    jello1717 "Those who stay will be champions." -- Bo

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,617
    I just looked at UofCWildcat 's recruits and he, like me never signed a single :5stars: kid until his school became a 5* school. The only difference between his team and mine is that his stayed as a 4* for much longer than I did. If the sliders were such that the rest of us stayed at lower prestiges for longer, our teams would look similar to his.

    EDIT:
    Even with as ridiculous as blLL flo 's recruiting classes have been, he too never signed a :5stars: unless his school was a 5*.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2012
  22. edge7771

    edge7771 Walk On

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,944
    Well it looks like you want to keep hoarding all the kids so their is no changing you mind set.
     
  23. jello1717

    jello1717 "Those who stay will be champions." -- Bo

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,617
    I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but I think this happens naturally if our schools aren't doing as well and we aren't as prestigious. Just look @ my recruits I posted above from when I was a 3* and 4* school. Way more than 50% of my recruits were 3* and below and I sure as hell wasn't stock piling talent as I wasn't even signing talent. On top of that, even as a 5*, nearly 50% of my recruits were 3* or less. Again, using UofCWildcat 's team as another example, while he was a 4* and below, he always signed at least 50% 3* and below.
    I think that it's perfectly acceptable and even expected for lower prestige schools to sign lower prestige players, and that's exactly what happens already in the game. I do, however, have a huge problem with a 6* school that's won at least 1 national championship in the past 4 years having to sign tons of 3* kids.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2012
  24. jello1717

    jello1717 "Those who stay will be champions." -- Bo

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,617
    This is correct. I believe that I've worked hard enough and earned the right to sign good players.
     
  25. edge7771

    edge7771 Walk On

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,944
    It's not about signing a 5 star kid it's about 12 users signing over half the top players every year.
     

Share This Page