Prestige questions

[DocStevens]

Something I do in recruiting that seems to work (based on my earlier posted recruiting results) is that the first week I spend all of the money on scouting players and do not recruit anyone until I know what pitch I should use. I am not sure what the cpu does, maybe it recruits from week 1 but I always wait until I have more information.

[Twincitiesfan]

I have also been trying to work with lower prestige teams, there are a few things that seem to work. 1) When recruiting scout as many players as possible to find the under rated players. You may have to stay in your home state to do this. As the previous post stated after the first couple of weeks you should be able to figure out the correct pitch to go after the player. 2) This was on another post, when you get to the last week of recruiting look around for two or three star players (usually in your state) that have not been offered a scholie yet and offer them a scholarship. Sometimes you get players that only have an interest of 5,6, or 7 to commit to your school. The past couple of seasons I have gotten several good players this way, one is my starting ILB who is already a 3-star after two seasons and tackles everything. 3) Adjust all the player training yourself, I played several seasons using the "suggest all" button for training and its not very good. The problem is that the suggest all puts to much emphasis on adaptability, if you are not changing positions for a player then adability is not important. Plus the players I recruit are usually good students, so this frees up more time that can be spent on football skills or building up strength. These are just a couple things I have noticed, let me know what you find. Thanks

[udlb58]

[QUOTE=Ragin Cajun;175607]The big problem is that if recruits transfer in order to play more (which I believe is the main reason) then a low level team would be a sure thing for more playing time. I rarely, if ever, have a player on the transfer list with anything more than LOW for an interest rating. The other problem is that I lose money off my weekly amount available for recruiting whether I sign a player or not so I can offer out 10 to 12 scholarships but then I face recruiting with no money available to scout or actually recruit players. Tough call to go this route.[/QUOTE] Transfers can be very important to lower level teams. I started a career with DII Northwest Missouri St. moved up to D1 (I just added them to the Independents with a prestige of 24 which is lower than any other team). During my first few years we stayed around .500, give or take. Then in my forth year I signed a killer SS transfer. I ran a 46 which features the SS as a blitzer. He was Indep. defensive player of the year and 1st team All-American 2 years and then declared before his Senior year. While I had him my defensive recruits seemed to get better, especially my safties, including a FS who was an All-conference player all four years and a two time All-American. The year my stud SS declared for the draft, I got another stud SS transfer. My defense is rated in the top 20 regularly and my prestige has risen to the high 30s in about 8 years. It could have been dumb luck, but getting that one transfer carried my team. But somehow I lost the .sav file and have to start over:mad: A thing to remember is small programs do not become nationally visible with high prestige very easily in real life. Just look at Boise State. They have won their conference 7 of the last 8 years, and have won their bowl games 5 of 7 times over that same stretch; won 31 straight home games; and is the nation's winningest program since 1999; yet they have been in only one New Year's day, and BCS, bowl which was this year. This just shows how difficult it is go get national recognition.

[Ragin Cajun]

I'm not really worried about the prestige for my part; I'm more worried about not being able to recruit and/or be competitive for conference championships or winning records.

[udlb58]

The point is, you won't be able to recruit big name players for a while. Look to see what kind of players are coming out of LA and your region (lots of power backs, scat backs; lots of pocket QBs, or scramblers; fast receivers or big possession ones, etc.) and taylor your systems to meet your available recruits. You can get lesser recruits who are one dimensional and can be "system players." Another thing to look for are Athletes, designated by the (A) next to their position during recruiting, especially QBs. You may find a player who is not rated very well at the QB position, but has above average hands or running ability and good speed.

[QuikSand]

So, there's at least one element of my earlier concerns that still arises with my ever-improving team. After BGSU has gotten promoted to the C-USA, and has two straight 10+ win seasons each capped off with bowl wins, we start off the next year with nine players indicating some degree of frustration with the team's current performance. Comment lines like "John is letting the team's recent struggles impact his mood in the clubhouse. Other players are tiring o his antics." If I am to take this kind of thing seriously at all (and if not, why put it in the game at all) then my team is presumably suffering from this sort of discord. And why? Because my 53-prestige team *only* performed at a 60 or 65-equivalent level last season? Once again, it just seems like the whole system is designed from the viewpoint of a top program, and that certain elements just don't make any sense if you're not in that circumstance. Honestly, on a team that is playing this well for its level, having both conference and postseason success, and ssing its prestige now rising each year as a result of that -- I just don't see how it make sense for players to be upset about the team being "in a rut." Sure, for USC it would be disappointing to post whatever accumulated result amounts to a 60-prestige level for that year... but for a team below that level, there ought to be nothing but bubbling optimism on this roster, it seems to me. In future iterations of this game or a similar offering, it just seems to me that the entire orientation ought to be around the program's current level of prestige. If the team put forth a season good enough to send the prestige upward, that ought to have a positive effect on the team in all the relevant ways. And the reverse should be true, also.

[Arlie Rahn]

There's a "default" state fro morale at the start of every season. Things like offensive/defensive scheme, spot on the depth chart (ie, are they starting? Or even are they starting at their natural spot?) and health/suspension state impace their early morale. It could be that a CB with a high opinion of himself is healthy, OK with the scheme, but upset to be the secondary starting corner instead of the primary. Therefore, his morale is *slightly* worse than normal. After a good game or two, usually their morale improves. If it really bothers you, you can tinker with the depth chart or keep your top players in mind when choosing an offensive/defensive scheme. Honestly, this is one area I would like to improve on in the next system. Early season morale does not have a significant impact when a handful of players are close to normal (like the above comment). But, there should be more feedback on what's causing it and how serious it really is. For now, I wouldn't worry too much (especially if it clears out after a couple games).

[QuikSand]

Arlie, I certainly understand the general idea that a player might start out the season with a ding in his morale for a number of reasons. Are you suggesting that some of the players on my team who pretty explicitly say they are bummed because the team isn't doing well are instead bummed because they aren't slotted as starters (or other reasons not connected to team performance)? I don't mind having frustrated players if it's for reasons that make sense to me (like playing time), it's the specific feedback I'm getting that they are upset about how the team is doing... when by any realistic measure, I believe my players ought to be just thrilled with the team's performance.

[QuikSand]

Post script... my BGSU team has finally had its major breakthough, it seems. In the 2018 season, a few years after being promoted to C-USA, we had a senior QB and Heisman-winning senior RB peak at the right time, and ran off a perfect record to a win in the C-USA Championship game, and a 13-0 regular season record good enough for a #6 slot in the polls. In the Orange Bowl, we thrashed #1 Nebraska pretty easily, and ended up #1 in the polls, and #5 in the GDCS. I've never had any occasion to pay much attention to the polling and ranking routines in the game (though I have read critics) but I'm a bit put off to see Maryland, the *loser* of the supposed title game, end up as the #1 team in the GDCS... but regardless, it was a great run for our guys. Hope the ones who return start off next season pretty happy.

[QuikSand]

FYI, starting the following season, after running a 14-0 record and finishing up #1 in the computer polls, BGSU has *nine* players on the roster who are explicitly frustrated about the team play. (This is not counting guys who are frustrated about lack of playing time, a list which incidentally always includes every guy who transfered in and had to sit out a year) I'm glad to hear it's not a big deal... but at the same time, if it isn't, why bother with it? In any event, still having fun.

[Arlie Rahn]

[QUOTE=QuikSand;188379]Post script... my BGSU team has finally had its major breakthough, it seems. In the 2018 season, a few years after being promoted to C-USA, we had a senior QB and Heisman-winning senior RB peak at the right time, and ran off a perfect record to a win in the C-USA Championship game, and a 13-0 regular season record good enough for a #6 slot in the polls. In the Orange Bowl, we thrashed #1 Nebraska pretty easily, and ended up #1 in the polls, and #5 in the GDCS. I've never had any occasion to pay much attention to the polling and ranking routines in the game (though I have read critics) but I'm a bit put off to see Maryland, the *loser* of the supposed title game, end up as the #1 team in the GDCS... but regardless, it was a great run for our guys. Hope the ones who return start off next season pretty happy.[/QUOTE] GDCS doesn't mean anything after the bowl games are played - and it doesn't get recalculated for those results. The poll is setup to determine the champ game/playoffs only. After that, the media and coaches' poll (coaches specifically) determine the champ. It's the same way in real life as the final BCS poll shows Ohio State as No. 1: [url]http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/BCSStandings[/url]

[Arlie Rahn]

[QUOTE=QuikSand;188386]FYI, starting the following season, after running a 14-0 record and finishing up #1 in the computer polls, BGSU has *nine* players on the roster who are explicitly frustrated about the team play. (This is not counting guys who are frustrated about lack of playing time, a list which incidentally always includes every guy who transfered in and had to sit out a year)[/quote] There is an issue with comments for frustrated players not always being 100% accurate. It's something I will certainly look at adjusting for the next version. Also, the morale of redshirted or transfer players does not impact your team morale or team performance. [quote]I'm glad to hear it's not a big deal... but at the same time, if it isn't, why bother with it?[/quote] I probably should have excluded transfers/redshirts from the comments since they don't play. The original plan was to have their comments give feedback on potential transfers, but I didn't think to include cases for transfers. [quote]In any event, still having fun.[/QUOTE] That's always good to hear ;)

[QuikSand]

Thanks for the feedback.

[mcsimfan]

[QUOTE=Arlie Rahn;175449] That would be a sure fire way to improve. But, more generally, I would state that if you can finish in the top 40-49 and get a recruiting class in the top 60-65, you should see an increase. If you win your bowl game, it may be even higher. [/QUOTE] First of all, I love the game and am glad that you involved with these boards as actively as you are. It will only help make the game better. My problem is with your statement above where recruiting class seems to have such a big inpact on prestige. I know you say that it only has a same impact, bt that is not what I have seen. I play with low prestige (28-32) schools and I recruit to a system. Thus, my recruiting classes are generally poor and in the range of 100-110. I am active however in recruiting transfers. It seems like transfers do not have an impact in judging recruiting classes. With my system and transfer strategy, I have been able to consistantly win 9 games a year, get to a bowl game and play a team from a bigger conference and usually lose by a TD or less. My CPU rating gets me into the top 40 in most years and yet my prestige only goes up 1 point per year. If I have a bad year, my prestige may drop 3 points or more and thus puts me years behind again. I think that wins should be a bigger factor than recruiting class or start to count transfers in the ranking recruiting classes. Just my 2 cents worth.

[Arlie Rahn]

Performance vs recruit is split about 80-20 in impacting your prestige. So, while recruits only impact your recruiting class, performance is the main factor between the two. From a performance aspect, here are the things to keep an eye on: 1. Votes in both polls - easily the biggest aspect 2. Did you win your bowl game? 3. CPU ranking So, there is no part of prestige gain/loss based only on wins. If you won 9 games from a weak conference and finished without a vote in the polls (that includes non-ranked teams with votes), lost your bowl game and finished with a CPU rank in the 60s, you might not see an increase from performance. To compare, if a big conference team finished 8-4 but got a handful of votes in both polls, ranked in the low 40s and won its bowl game, that team would be treated as a much more successful team when it comes to prestige. The key thing to remember is this about "prestige". The primary way to gain national prestige is to get votes in both the media and coaches poll (even if you are not in the top 25) and have good national recruiting classes. Both of these items generate an increase in the prestige of your program. If it was just about getting 8-9 wins and being competitive in a mid-level bowl, a team like Tulsa or Southern Miss would have seen a major jump in the past 3-4 seasons.

[mcsimfan]

Arlie - Thanks for the clarification. I understand and agree with your logic. I have seen some really weird inconsistancies it prestige. I track the prestige for each team in my conference each year and some teams gain more points than I do when they have a worse year. Example: my prestige was 28, recruiting class 103, 9-4 season (SOS of 105), lost my bowl game by 7, finished with CPU ranking of 46, didn't check the polls but wasn't in top 25. Prestige moved to 29. Another team in my conference started with prestige of 29, recruiting class 105, 4-7 season (SOS 84), no bowl game, CPU ranking 85 and they gained 4 prestige points to 33. It would appear that because they scheduled better teams in non conference, they got a boost. But, they didn't win any of those games and in fact got blown out in all but 1 of them. I don't understand how prestige moves when you lose to good teams. Winning should still be more important than just playing playing good teams and still losing. Is it also true that it is easier to lose points than it is to gain them or is that just something that is I perceive as happening.