NCAA Football 11 Dynasty Blog: 1 of 3 - Phone Call

[fcboiler87]

I don't like the point system. It's unrealistic. I'll agree with the guy that said it should look something like rivals where it lists high, medium, low interest. The points are completely unnecessary as it really is about the same as it is now. Seems to me like they wasted time doing it.

Second, I think it is evident that recruiting logic has not been fixed based on that recruit's list. Florida? Michigan? Notre Dame (now)? These guys wouldn't recruit a fullback for anything. It doesn't fit their system. Oh but wait... he was a 5 star fullback!

Georgia Tech's flexbone offense ran by a slow, pocket passer quarterback, here we come!!

[utahman19]

I like where this blog is taking recruiting in general, but like most in this thread I really dislike the entire idea of a point system. I don't like the meters much, either, but at least that presents some element of the unknown. Just do it like Rivals does it: List each school in the top-10 by interest level, (no, low, medium, high) not some slowly creeping meter. Also keep soft verbal and add solid verbal, but DON'T make even the solid verbal absolutely binding, allow those recruits to still be recruited. Decisions should be made on signing day where there are always some surprises. The saying is that once the commitment is made is when the real recruiting begins.

Just for a real life example, last year there was this running back from Texas named Josh Huff. He was interested in several schools, but had high interest in Utah and TCU. He committed to Utah and was "solid".

Quote:

"Utah fits my style of play," he said. "I like to get the ball in the open field where I can make big plays in a big game, for my team when they need me the most. My biggest strength as a running back is my ability to cut back and use my speed."

(from a Rivals.com article dated June 1 2009)

A few months later he turned down the Utes and verballed to Minnesota.

Quote:

"It feels great to be committed to Minnesota," he said. "I feel that Minnesota is the place that will allow me to grow the most both on and off the football field. I just think Minnesota has a great environment up there with the new stadium and the excellent fan support. ... I made everything public yesterday because I really felt comfortable with my decision," he said. "Ever since my visit I knew that Minnesota was a great place and I knew that their fans really wanted me to be a Gopher. It feels great to finally let the Gopher Nation know that I am a Golden Gopher."

(Rivals.com, Oct 31 2009)

Huff's tripping didn't end there. Not much more than a month later, he took a visit to an in-state school, TCU, and committed with what appeared to be an absolute ending.

Quote:

"Recruiting is done for me," he said. "There's no more visits for me."

(Rivals.com Dec 7 2009)

However, Huff made a surprise trip late in the game and signed with a school - Oregon - that was not even on his radar until the end of the season.

Huff isn't the only one who de-committed to schools (though I will admit, I think this is an extreme example) and signs with others. There are surprises all around. A local Utah kid, Ricky Heimuli, was "known" to have narrowed his list down to Utah and UCLA. At his announcement he first dropped BYU. Then USC. Leaving Utah, UCLA, and a surprise team. Who's hat did he pick and sign with? Oregon. The year before his cousin Latu Heimuli surprisingly picked Utah over Florida and Nebraska.

Allow for some ambiguity in the ratings. Stick with "High", "Medium/Moderate", "Low", and "No" interest in schools, and for the occasional surprise competitor. I don't want to know that I'm 120 "points" up on another school. Allow for some big swings, especially later in the season when recruiting really takes off. Allow "solid" recruits to be swayed if another team plays their cards just right. This point system just seems to go further away from what really happens instead of closer to it.

Also there should be a TON of offers for the top kids. Latu Heimuli had 20+ offers. Seantrel Henderson had at least 15. NCAA Football? I've never seen more than 6 for the top kids - 5 CPU offers and then me.

[da ThRONe]

Quote: Originally Posted by utahman19

I like where this blog is taking recruiting in general, but like most in this thread I really dislike the entire idea of a point system. I don't like the meters much, either, but at least that presents some element of the unknown. Just do it like Rivals does it: List each school in the top-10 by interest level, (no, low, medium, high) not some slowly creeping meter. Also keep soft verbal and add solid verbal, but DON'T make even the solid verbal absolutely binding, allow those recruits to still be recruited. Decisions should be made on signing day where there are always some surprises. The saying is that once the commitment is made is when the real recruiting begins. Just for a real life example, last year there was this running back from Texas named Josh Huff. He was interested in several schools, but had high interest in Utah and TCU. He committed to Utah and was "solid". (from a Rivals.com article dated June 1 2009) A few months later he turned down the Utes and verballed to Minnesota. (Rivals.com, Oct 31 2009) Huff's tripping didn't end there. Not much more than a month later, he took a visit to an in-state school, TCU, and committed with what appeared to be an absolute ending. (Rivals.com Dec 7 2009) However, Huff made a surprise trip late in the game and signed with a school - Oregon - that was not even on his radar until the end of the season. Huff isn't the only one who de-committed to schools (though I will admit, I think this is an extreme example) and signs with others. There are surprises all around. A local Utah kid, Ricky Heimuli, was "known" to have narrowed his list down to Utah and UCLA. At his announcement he first dropped BYU. Then USC. Leaving Utah, UCLA, and a surprise team. Who's hat did he pick and sign with? Oregon. The year before his cousin Latu Heimuli surprisingly picked Utah over Florida and Nebraska. Allow for some ambiguity in the ratings. Stick with "High", "Medium/Moderate", "Low", and "No" interest in schools, and for the occasional surprise competitor. I don't want to know that I'm 120 "points" up on another school. Allow for some big swings, especially later in the season when recruiting really takes off. Allow "solid" recruits to be swayed if another team plays their cards just right. This point system just seems to go further away from what really happens instead of closer to it. Also there should be a TON of offers for the top kids. Latu Heimuli had 20+ offers. Seantrel Henderson had at least 15. NCAA Football? I've never seen more than 6 for the top kids - 5 CPU offers and then me.

And to add to this all recruits should be only verbal commits until NSD(which also needs to be added.)

[Potatoes002]

Quote: Originally Posted by utahman19

Also there should be a TON of offers for the top kids. Latu Heimuli had 20+ offers. Seantrel Henderson had at least 15. NCAA Football? I've never seen more than 6 for the top kids - 5 CPU offers and then me.

In the offseason in Ncaa 10 I have seen kids ranging from 2-5 stars with 12+ offers. Teams get desperate at the end of recruiting in the game and I have seen the new 5 stars added in the offseason sign with 1 star schools because they bad schools start going after them in the first week of the offseason.

[JkA3]

i hope this really makes the process faster.

[Philthephlame]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sting

I just don't feel that this is "blog-worthy" news at all. I wish the news and blogs could all come from the new guys on the EA NCAA team.

my thoughts exactly

[huskerwr38]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sting

I just don't feel that this is "blog-worthy" news at all. I wish the news and blogs could all come from the new guys on the EA NCAA team.

I agree and I am very disappointed with the blog. From what we know so far, I feel NCAA 11 just don't understand the recruiting process. Teams have recruiting coordinators and assistant coaches, etc. that recruit areas. The talent of the coaches (their recruiting ability) should play a HUGE part in what type of talent your able to bring in to your program and how well the recruits are assessed.

[BIGD419]

One thing that I would like to see added to this is that depending on your staffs recruiting abilities, you should get an "estimate" of how the recruit truly views your school and the competition. Example, If my staff is good at recruiting should get like a point estimate like 150-160 or something. and if I was a bad recruiter, I would get like 100-180 or something.