NCAA Football 14 Recruiting Guide

[Locke888]

I was doing some testing with recruiting...
Offensive tackle Eric Berg had me at #1 at the beginning of week 2.
He was 29% locked.
I put 1045 points on him (345 bonus, 700 Pts)
The next week I was still #1 and he was 44% locked.
So if you do the math 1045=15%. The approximate # of points needed to sign him would be 6975.
So I should sign him by week 8. This should put me over 100%
But this did not happen. I maxed him out every week and eventually signed him in week 12.
The only thing I noticed is that by week 6 or 7 it had changed from"lock%" to "we made the cut".
Does anyone have any insights into how all of this works? Anymore info?

Another thing I found out is if you do not offer you cannot get above 73%(I think we all know this) but any points you put on someone after you get to 73% may as well be thrown in the trash, they go towards nothing. You could be maxing out points for a few weeks and finally offer him and he won't commit due to banking all those points for 3 weeks he will only go up 10-15%

[Locke888]

I was giving this more thought, I think what happened is that I got Eric Berg to 100% locked but since there was another team still within x # of points it then turned into a "battle with another team". What is x? 2000 points? I have to test it to see. But then what determines when a player commits to one of the schools in the battle for him? Interesting system ea created here.
I love figuring these things out. I've had the game only 6 months and really have just been having fun with it.

[Locke888]

More testing.....
I have found out the answer to my question in my previous post.
Example: let's say you have a recruit you are going all in for and you know by the next week you will get to 100% locked. You know the point total to get is 6000ish. The next week comes and you find that you are "in a battle"/"made the cut" with 2 other schools. You are still in the lead but UCF is -550 and Miami is -1100.
EA is using a system where you must be ahead by 25% of the total lock points to sign a guy outright, so.....6000(.25)=1500
If any team is within 1500 points of the leader after lock has been achieved then that team is considered to be "in a battle".
If any team finally does achieve a 1500+ point lead on the 2nd place team they will then sign the recruit, per my example.

You'll see the note "must stay within ____ to stay in".(at the cutoff line) If you multiply that # by4 that was how many points was needed for a100% lock

[Locke888]

Some strange things occur during recruiting...
I was doing more simming and at 1 point,
1.OSU lead
2. PSU-1500
3. Locked out Michigan(did not see points behind)
The very next week
1.OSU
2.Michigan -800, gained +8300
3.PSU locked out at -1550

Some really random stuff. To use the lock pick you need to be within2000 points of the last place team right? Because if that's true how did Michigan gain on me +8300? Random stuff is good because you don't know what will happen but I'm glad it's rare.

[Locke888]

I purchased the recruiting reports feature and took a look at offseason recruiting.
This is only 1 season of data.....
75% of all teams will divide their points up between 5 recruits.
So a team with 10000 points will put 2000 on each guy. They seem to offer anywhere between 1-5 scholarships at this time also. So to see 1980 points on 5 guys means they offered 2 scholarships to random guys as well at 50 points a pop.
20% of all teams will divide their points between 4 recruits.
3% will divide between 3 recruits. So some odd stuff though. Akron and ULL only used 6000 points out of 10000. Not sure why. Could just be a glitch.
2% (3 teams)will put all points on 1 guy. Doesn't seem to matter the caliber of recruit either. They're not always going after the 5 star with this.

I assume the weekly bonus still applies towards recruits in offseason so checking the coach info/coaching skill tree/offseason point bonus(of other coaches you are battling recruits for)and then doing a little math would tell you how much you would need to put on a recruit to land him(figuring a team will divide points between 5 guys)

[Locke888]

Looking at the offseason #s again.....

The games logic seems fine when teams are putting points on 1 or 5 players. But it seems off when they only put points on 3 or 4 players. These teams are leaving a lot of points unused. It doesn't make sense. Has anyone Ever figured out what is going on with it?

[Locke888]

Apparently scholarship offers mean nothing in the offseason. Only thing that matters is who is in the points lead at the end.

Then this.... I am -180 on a WR and in 2nd place. I put 3300 points on him. The result is I lose by 4435 points and I am now in 5th place. The team that won put 0 on him and the others put approximately 2000 towards him. Makes no sense.

[JHamilton9]

Quote: Originally Posted by Locke888

Apparently scholarship offers mean nothing in the offseason. Only thing that matters is who is in the points lead at the end. Then this.... I am -180 on a WR and in 2nd place. I put 3300 points on him. The result is I lose by 4435 points and I am now in 5th place. The team that won put 0 on him and the others put approximately 2000 towards him. Makes no sense.

Was the team that won in first place going into the offseason? It does seem like a huge margin to miss a recruit by.

I had something similar happen with one recruit, but I lost him by under 200 points. The only thing I could figure out is the weekly bonus you get with your recruit is now 5x bigger. The offseason is compressed to one week in NCAA 14, but older versions would have you manage your points on a weekly basis.

In NCAA 14, I thought it applied the bonus once for the offseason, but it might apply the bonus five times to simulate the 5 weeks of recruiting. I lost my recruit to a school who was "Close to Home" and had high "Conference Prestige," which were 2 of the top 3 recruiting pitches for him. I didn't get any bonus points for either one of those pitches, even though I was in first-place going into the offseason.

I didn't research it any further than comparing my team to the winning school, but it was my closest logical explanation.