Recruiting Anomaly

[Vegas Vic]

Is anyone else noticing teams signing an excess of players at one position?

Here is a CPU controlled team, Oregon. They have three returning QB's on the roster (One 5-star and two 4-stars). Yet they go out and sign five more QB's in the incoming recruiting class (Three 5-stars and two 4-stars).



And they go into camp with eight QB's on the roster:



In real life, they would have had to work hard to sign one additional QB with that returning class, so maybe this can be looked into.

[brooks_piggott]

The problem ends up being that once the team has enough players at all positions they start recruiting the best players they can get. There is code in there that is supposed to prevent kids from signing once you hit a certain max so I'll look at it again.

[medical3072]

In my league, it's not uncommon for high prestige schools to monopolize most of the talent at certain positions, like QB; usually Ohio State, Clemson, Alabama, etc. sign two or three 5-star QBs each class which is obviously a bit unrealistic.

If I get a commitment from a QB, are the other QBs on my board less likely to commit to my school? If not, I think that'd be one way to fix the problem--have commits affect that position's "playing time" rating.

[b1gd51]

Really bummed out that this issue can't be patched and will have to be addressed in the next game. In my current year, LSU has 9 QB's on their roster -- FIVE of which are freshmen and 1 transfer -- and an average recruit rank of 14 ovr. per recruit.

Pretty much kills the emersion and enjoyment when the top prestige schools have no limits other than available scholarships as to how many recruits they can get. And we gotta wait an entire year for this to be fixed? I feel like this should've been caught in the testing phase at some point, considering the issue of recruits taking into account who you already have on your roster at their position when making their decisions is emphasized in the guides you provide.