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

[huskerwr38]

Quote: Originally Posted by mcarta

Stanley Havili is an great example

I think it's so funny how much attention a 5 star FB is getting.

[splff3000]

Quote: Originally Posted by RynoAid

but you don't know A. How many points you will get because pitches are random. B. How many points he will get because pitches are random and you also have the possibility that he could be competetive recruiting against another competing team that is not you. This will drive down the top end of how many positive points he can get. You get more positive points with straight pitches than competetive recruiting. C. How many people are competetive recruiting against the #1 team for that player and driving down any green points he got from his own recruiting. So yea, there will be some players you can look at the numbers and know it will be hard to make it up and it's best to drop out... but there will be others that are somewhat competetive that you will stay in on and the numbers could go either way based on a myriad of factors.

I keep seeing you bring up "competitive recruiting" ie the negative recruiting from last year, but I have to ask you something. Does the "competitive recruiting" work better than the negative recruiting? If not, you might as well not even bring it up anymore because the negative recruiting didn't work hardly ever. Nobody ever used it because it didn't work most of the time. I think, in 7 or 8 seasons in an OD, and 3 or 4 seasons offline, the negative recruiting worked maybe 4 or 5 times for me. That's it. Recruits hung up waaay too fast when trying to negative recruit. That's because to keep them on the phone while negative recruiting, there had to be an enormous difference in grades.

For example, if you were an A in one category and the other school was a D, you cold negative recruit just fine, but if that other school was a C, the recruit would hang up on you real quick. Even though there's still a difference between A and C, it wasn't great enough to keep the recruit on the phone. If they still hang up fast like they did last year, then "competitive recruiting" will be as useless as negative recruiting was last year.

So, having said all of that, is the competitive recruiting better than the negative recruiting last year? If not, you can just scratch C. off of your list because nobody will use it, just like nobody used the negative recruiting last year.

[jello1717]

Quote: Originally Posted by splff3000

I keep seeing you bring up "competitive recruiting" ie the negative recruiting from last year, but I have to ask you something. Does the "competitive recruiting" work better than the negative recruiting? If not, you might as well not even bring it up anymore because the negative recruiting didn't work hardly ever. Nobody ever used it because it didn't work most of the time. I think, in 7 or 8 seasons in an OD, and 3 or 4 seasons offline, the negative recruiting worked maybe 4 or 5 times for me. That's it. Recruits hung up waaay too fast when trying to negative recruit. That's because to keep them on the phone while negative recruiting, there had to be an enormous difference in grades. For example, if you were an A in one category and the other school was a D, you cold negative recruit just fine, but if that other school was a C, the recruit would hang up on you real quick. Even though there's still a difference between A and C, it wasn't great enough to keep the recruit on the phone. If they still hang up fast like they did last year, then "competitive recruiting" will be as useless as negative recruiting was last year. So, having said all of that, is the competitive recruiting better than the negative recruiting last year? If not, you can just scratch C. off of your list because nobody will use it, just like nobody used the negative recruiting last year.

I could negative recruit just fine against other teams (except for the NDs/Floridas of the world). If you mix in some recruiting for yourself with some negative recruiting against another team, you could keep the recruit on the phone for a long time.

[RynoAid]

Quote: Originally Posted by splff3000

I keep seeing you bring up "competitive recruiting" ie the negative recruiting from last year, but I have to ask you something. Does the "competitive recruiting" work better than the negative recruiting? If not, you might as well not even bring it up anymore because the negative recruiting didn't work hardly ever. Nobody ever used it because it didn't work most of the time. I think, in 7 or 8 seasons in an OD, and 3 or 4 seasons offline, the negative recruiting worked maybe 4 or 5 times for me. That's it. Recruits hung up waaay too fast when trying to negative recruit. That's because to keep them on the phone while negative recruiting, there had to be an enormous difference in grades. For example, if you were an A in one category and the other school was a D, you cold negative recruit just fine, but if that other school was a C, the recruit would hang up on you real quick. Even though there's still a difference between A and C, it wasn't great enough to keep the recruit on the phone. If they still hang up fast like they did last year, then "competitive recruiting" will be as useless as negative recruiting was last year. So, having said all of that, is the competitive recruiting better than the negative recruiting last year? If not, you can just scratch C. off of your list because nobody will use it, just like nobody used the negative recruiting last year.

yes, competetive recruiting actually WORKS right this year. It's not the same model as negative recruiting in '10, totally different in presentation and functionality. It gives you realistic results based the ratings you have versus the school your recruiting against in the specific catagory that is up for talking about with the recruit. You see green points for you and red points for them... it's right in front of your face and it's nothing like negative recruiting this year.

[fcboiler87]

Quote: Originally Posted by RynoAid

Mike Alstott? just sayin'

Mike Alstott was NOT a 5 star fullback. He was barely even recruited. You are just aware of how he turned out to be.

Here is a link to the class of 2010 fullbacks.
http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73...pid=13&yr=2010

There are three 4-stars and eight 3-stars. If you look at this year's class, the class of 2011, there are eight 3 stars and that is it. There's just very few big time fullback recruits. Just because they turn out to be good, doesn't mean they were recruited as such. Go back through all the years and there is NEVER a 5-star fullback.

[ConVick]

Meh...Blog didn't increase my hype, but hey, its something different...I think

[splff3000]

Quote: Originally Posted by RynoAid

yes, competetive recruiting actually WORKS right this year. It's not the same model as negative recruiting in '10, totally different in presentation and functionality. It gives you realistic results based the ratings you have versus the school your recruiting against in the specific catagory that is up for talking about with the recruit. You see green points for you and red points for them... it's right in front of your face and it's nothing like negative recruiting this year.

OK, that works for me.

[JAS07]

Quote: Originally Posted by fcboiler87

Mike Alstott was NOT a 5 star fullback. He was barely even recruited. You are just aware of how he turned out to be. Here is a link to the class of 2010 fullbacks. http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73...pid=13&yr=2010 There are three 4-stars and eight 3-stars. If you look at this year's class, the class of 2011, there are eight 3 stars and that is it. There's just very few big time fullback recruits. Just because they turn out to be good, doesn't mean they were recruited as such. Go back through all the years and there is NEVER a 5-star fullback.

In this video he you will see that he really wasnt even Purdue's FB. He also is thier all time leading rusher.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFBeSOyzC8g&NR=1