Walk-on quality

[Your_Imaginary_Friend]

There are too many good walk-ons in this game, and often too tall. Anyone good enough to walk-on and play meaningful minutes at a big school should have been good enough to be offered full scholarships at lower level schools--and would have taken those offers.

That there are 4.0/5.0 rated walk-ons that the AI starts is bad. Either the players really aren't that good and the AI is making a huge mistake in starting them, or they are better than than real-life walk-ons, which is also bad. the game generates walk-ons to fill positions, I think, but that isn't what happens in reality.

Scouting error accounts for a big chunk of these, but why? Why should a coach consistently over-rate a kid who should be riding the pines and managing the equipment? This gets back to my opinion that by the time a player's first season starts we should have an accurate assessment of his current abilities. Only potential should be the subject of debatable scouting error.

A tall kid will get a scholarship offer somewhere. I'm reminded of a 6-9 kid who lived on my street about 20 years ago who wasn't all that good in HS but still got a scholarship to Radford where he sat on the bench after playing a little his first two years. His parents went to VCU and hoped he'd get an offer from there, but going there and walking-on was never seriously discussed.

My conclusion is that walk-ons should be short and crap and NEVER any good.

[markprior22]

Agreed. They definitely need to be toned way down. I can be a pretty bad recruiter and still have a decent team due to walk-ons.

[PointGuard]

I'm not seeing 4.0/5.0 walkons, but there may be a few of those...not sure. I am seeing a lot of 3.0 and 4.0 potentials for walk-ons and agree that even that is too high. So I agree that walk-on talents should not be high.

I'm also seeing too many teams with more than 2 walk-ons, even some high prestige teams...and that seems also needing of correction. Gary improved upon this in CB2018 (and that probably carries over to CB2019) but it still needs further tweaking.

[jfsolo23]

The walk-ons definitely need to be toned down, and a couple of other should things accompany this change.

Teams should get the scholarship back immediately when a player declares for the draft.

Somehow Grad Transfers need to be in the game.

Both of those things should help ameliorate the number of walk-ons across the board, but especially on power 5 teams, IMO.

[Wayne23]

When I get a walk on who is way better than he should be I cut him. There's no penalty for cutting a walk on. Also, walk ons often don;t play up to the level of their ratings when their rated highly.

[jfsolo23]

I've changed my mind on reducing the quality of some of the high level walk-ons. It's not realistic at all for them to be as highly rated as they are, but currently it is necessary as a counterbalance for teams not getting the scholarships back immediately when a player declares for the draft. If an elite team unexpectedly loses a couple of underclassmen who they don't think are ready for the pros(1.5/5.0 perceived ratings), they would immediately be able to fill those spots with at least a couple of high 3 star players. The team would obviously not be as good as if those others players had stayed, but they would get players who could contribute. Without the schollies being available however teams are dependent on the walk-ons during the next season. If they were rated as poorly as they should be, then those top tier teams would be much more depleted then they would be in real life, so the juiced up WOs are actually really needed to prevent certain teams from having an artificially very weakened squad.