The PlayStation Effect

H

HuskerJen

Banned
Okay, so I've been kicking around this thought that I just can't seem to shake...allow me to clarify.

The rationale is that the way we recruit on that video game has an impact on the way we perceive how recruiting should go in real life. There seems to be much angst, gnashing of teeth and general complaining among certain sectors of Nebraska fans about how recruiting has gone thus far and that has me wondering about the "PlayStation2" effect.

Now, on PlayStation2 in order to even be competitive when simulating games in Dynasty Mode you have to recruit nothing but 5 :star 's and the absolute highest rated 4 :star 's that you can.

This, in my opinion, leads certain segments of the Husker fan base to believe that if we are not signing every kid that USC, Florida and Texas wants then there's no way we'll ever be able to beat them or even be able to compete with them. Personally, I think this line of thinking is pure and utter hogwash. Here's why: Go back and look at the recruiting rankings from 2004-2007 and contrast Nebraska's classes compared to our two biggest north rivals, Kansas and Missouri. According to the recruiting services Nebraska was far and away the better team talent wise. And yet, during that time Nebraska suffered more embarrassing lop-sided losses than almost in the entire history of the program.

In NCAA College Football I recently deleted a dynasty I had been playing. I simulated 20 seasons: won 18 national championship, 20 conference championships and signed the #1 class 17 out of 20 times. The other 3 times I had the #2 class. Now I ask you...how fricking unrealistic is that? Of course the question is rhetorical because anyone with a half way functioning brain knows that kind of success is literally impossible. And yet, I get the impression that that's the kind of success, both in terms of recruiting and on the field that certain fans have come to demand and expect.

Maybe this idea of the "PlayStation2 Effect" is hogwash itself, maybe there's some truth to it.

Thoughts?

 
I've never really played those NCAA games and I'm somewhat of a "star gazer." I think it has more to do the correlation between good recruiting classes and success on the field, namely National Championships. It's the talent behind the stars I think everyone's worried about; we don't want to get lesser talent when we should be pushing for the best. And whether or not you disagree completely with the rating system, being in the top ten of recruiting looks a lot better than being in the 30-40 range regardless of how accurate it is. Bottom line is that people want good players and good talent to work with as we continue to push for the top.

 
I got the new one for 360 and my last Dynasty class had 10 five stars with many of them being the number one player at their position. I suppose this would be pretty realistic after winning five national championships in a row. :)

But to your question, does it skew recruiting expectations? Maybe. It might when we look at it in conjunction with the increased presence and emphasis placed on recruiting services. But the numbers don't lie, either. You look at the top programs in college football right now that are there consistently and they are hauling in tons of four-star athletes every single year. Is this required to beat these teams? No. But if you want to be at the top consistently then you have to bring in top talent consistently. So far I've been pretty impressed with Pelini's recruiting. This summer has been a bit of a setback in my opinion, but last year we didn't see much activity until the season, either.

But we've all got to relax and take stock of the fact that football is so much more than getting the fastest or most skilled high school athletes. Notre Dame brings in all the talent in the world but is incapable of developing it. As far as coaching and development, we are in very good hands––just look at our defensive line from 07 to 08. As everyone knows, winning solves everything. Start winning big games in a greater number and the rest, as Pelini always says, 'will take care of itself.'

 
I agree with Jen. I also think that game skews perceptions of other parts of the real game as well. For instance, in the video game you have to decide which players are going to redshirt before the season begins. But in real life, any player who did not play and has a redshirt available can be redshirted AFTER the season. Also, players in the video game are very similar to each other and have no intangibles (like leadership). The team is simply a collection of individual players. In real life intangibles matter a great deal to the success of the team.

 
I for one think your spot on Jen.

The problem isn't just with fan expectations either. Players these days see the game through xbox eyes too. It seems to me that in order to be considered by top atheltes these days a program has to have ESPN, and Ea Sports speak highly of them. Many kids see their rankings on rivals or scouts the same way they see player ratings on these game systems and seem to expect that they should translate to success at the highest level regardless of effort.

Conversely, those kids whose stats and highlights aren't in the spotlight enough simply don't get recognized and thusly not pursued as agressively by the "big name schools". These are often the kids that make up the bulk of most teams in the FCS.

IMO one of the biggest problems with the star system is the tendency to fed these already inflated egos. These 5 stars often seem to come on campus expecting not only to be football players, but famous stars in their own right. People have become wiling to sell their very souls for their 15 minutes of fame so its hardly supriseing that these same people would want to be on the biggest stage possible, as determined by Rivals, Scouts, ESPN, EA Sports etc. as that is how they have come to know the people they have considered stars before them.

 
TheCheshireCat said:
I've never really played those NCAA games and I'm somewhat of a "star gazer." I think it has more to do the correlation between good recruiting classes and success on the field, namely National Championships. It's the talent behind the stars I think everyone's worried about; we don't want to get lesser talent when we should be pushing for the best. And whether or not you disagree completely with the rating system, being in the top ten of recruiting looks a lot better than being in the 30-40 range regardless of how accurate it is. Bottom line is that people want good players and good talent to work with as we continue to push for the top.
Click to expand...
I agree with your post in theory, however I do want to point out a few things here...

Mark Mangino at Kansas, Gary Pinkel at Missouri, Dan Hawkins / Chris Peterson at Boise State, Urban Meyer and now the current coach at Utah, etc, are all examples of schools who have achieved success consistent on the field despite recruiting "lesser" talent.

Now I do realize that there is somewhat of a connection between a higher rated a class and the potential for success.

The part in red: Nebraska has never been a recruiting power. Oh sure we've had some excellent players come through here, but for the most part Nebraska's recruiting classes under TO were usually ranked in the mid 20's or lower. You can literally count one one hand the number of times a recruiting class of TO's was in the top 5. Heck, numerous former players have openly said that, even during the 90's when we had our dominant run that there were many times the opposing team had better talent across the board and yet were beaten 56-7 because they didn't work as hard, prepare as well or put forth the kind of effort for 4 quarters that the Husker did.

Then, our former HC, whose name shall not be uttered here, started bring in lots of 4 :star rated talent and we, as Nebraska fans, saw more lop-sided losses in four years than we saw in the previous 40.

Here's the way I look at it: Recruiting the best talent and combine it with great coaching you get USC, Florida, et. Recruit the best talent and mix it with poor coaching and you get Notre Dame.

The part in green: I think if we lived in a perfect world every five and four star kid would be heads above every three or lower star rated kid. However, since we don't live in a perfect world we have numerous instances were a two star nobody ends up being an all-american and playing on Sundays.

The part in blue: I agree 100%. However, are we taking our coaches view or the recruiting services view? For example, Tyler Evans from Waverly, Nebraska. He's currently rated as a two :star player. What if the recruiting services evaluate him and decide he will remain a 2 :star ? Does that mean Nebraska has just given a scholarship to a marginal player? What about the 4 and 5 :star WR's who never pan out?

(I honestly think that if the recruiting services honestly evaluate Evans he'll be a 5.6 or 5.7 rated 3 :star . He could have the potential to be a 4 :star but he's a kid from rural Nebraska...no way in Hades he gets 4.)

The part in purple: I agree 100% that we live in a society/culture where flash is more important than substance.

In summary, I think that the NCAA College Football video game has skewed real life perceptions of how recruiting should go. I mean after all, on the game it's relatively easy to sign 5-7 5 :star 's and the rest of the class be 4 :star 's so why can't it be done in real life?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Even more specific than recruiting in general, I think that the NCAA games have given alot of those that play it unrealistic ideas about 40 yard dash times. Virtually ALL effective corners on the game have a 4.35 40 time or lower. Those times are VERY rare in real life, but I've seen people on here and other boards get VERY concerned that a CB's 40 time is 4.5. I think alot of people don't realize how fast a 4.5 40 actually is. I've recruited a player with a 4.16 40 time on there before, who ironically was a 3* RB. A high school RB with a 4.16 40 time? Really?

 
BigBL87 said:
Even more specific than recruiting in general, I think that the NCAA games have given alot of those that play it unrealistic ideas about 40 yard dash times. Virtually ALL effective corners on the game have a 4.35 40 time or lower. Those times are VERY rare in real life, but I've seen people on here and other boards get VERY concerned that a CB's 40 time is 4.5. I think alot of people don't realize how fast a 4.5 40 actually is. I've recruited a player with a 4.16 40 time on there before, who ironically was a 3* RB. A high school RB with a 4.16 40 time? Really?
Click to expand...
Yeah, a high school kid who runs a 4.16 in real life would have a jet engine strapped to his back.

 
Husker_x said:
But to your question, does it skew recruiting expectations? Maybe. It might when we look at it in conjunction with the increased presence and emphasis placed on recruiting services. But the numbers don't lie, either. You look at the top programs in college football right now that are there consistently and they are hauling in tons of four-star athletes every single year. Is this required to beat these teams? No. But if you want to be at the top consistently then you have to bring in top talent consistently. So far I've been pretty impressed with Pelini's recruiting. This summer has been a bit of a setback in my opinion, but last year we didn't see much activity until the season, either.

But we've all got to relax and take stock of the fact that football is so much more than getting the fastest or most skilled high school athletes. Notre Dame brings in all the talent in the world but is incapable of developing it. As far as coaching and development, we are in very good hands––just look at our defensive line from 07 to 08. As everyone knows, winning solves everything. Start winning big games in a greater number and the rest, as Pelini always says, 'will take care of itself.'
Click to expand...
This will solve the perceived recruiting woes that many a Husker Fan frets about. It isn't any video game dream, although it is an interesting hypothesis, it's the fact that recruited kids these days have no clue what was given every fall and that being Nebraska would win 9 games, be in the conference title hunt, play in a good bowl game, and be in the conversation more likely than not about national contenders.

Yes this is a what have you done for me lately society and being ESPN's flavor of the month helps. These things aren't currently in NU's favor as well as being a "cold" climate and not being a huge metropolis. Both are factors that play in a 17/18/19 year old head. Weak negatives, but with some kids too much.

However it all falls back the bold print above if those prognosticators want to see bigger star powered classes.

PS I hope all those who whip out like 20 seasons in a Dynasty are college students, because that was the only time I could pull that off.

 
Red Storm Brewing said:
PS I hope all those who whip out like 20 seasons in a Dynasty are college students, because that was the only time I could pull that off.
Click to expand...
Well the 20 seasons I recently deleted occured from the time I bought NCAA '09, when it came out, to about a month and a half ago. So it's not like I did this in a couple of weeks.

 
It should be noted that this topic of debate is exclusively from the "Nebraska" perspective because obviously fans of teams like USC, Texas, Florida, etc don't have these kinds of worries.

And really here's another way I think that recruiting on the video game NCAA College Football skews perception of how things happen in real life:

The recruiting class rank.

I need a volunteer to conduct an experiemnt...

Here's the setup...

1. Start a new Dynasty Mode.

2. Use two teams in the same division of the same conference to ensure they play every season: Nebraska-Missouri, Oklahoma-Texas, Florida-Tennessee, etc.

Oh, and to even the playing field even further pick the same type of offense and defense for both schools.

3. Take one team and recruit predominantly nothing but 3 :star 's and lower. Then, with the other team, recruit 4 and 5 :star 's exclusively.

Do at least 10 seasons to get some good trend analysis.

4. Simulate all the games because if you play it skews the outcome.

My hypothesis is that the consistently recruited 3 :star squads will be 7-5, or worse, consistently while the 4 and 5 :star 's will be consistently 10+ wins every season.

Track the head to head record between the teams, conference and overall W-L records. If you really want to get in-depth track PPG, YP, YR, and total YPG.

The purpose: To see just how much it matters on a video game in signing consistent 1-3 versus 4 and 5 :star classes.

Any takers?

P.S. Please note what platform and version (year) of the game you're using.

And, if someone else wants to run a concurrent 10 year stretch with the same year version but on a different platform and track the same results that might prove to be an interesting academic discussion.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm 18 and the only game consoles I have ever owned are the nintendo 64 and the original xbox. I just dont enjoy playing video games that much. I prefer real life high school football. Anyways, at my friends' I have played the 09 NCAA numerous times and I agree with Jen and others, it's ridiculous. EA sports clearly inflates recruiting 4 and 5 star plays just as much as half of the members of this message board do.

However it is hard to argue with the stats. The below teams have have had the best recruiting classes per rivals. According to the Playstation effect, USC should have won the last 2 nation championships. And Alabama should win in 2011 or 2012. Florida was somewhat of an exception, because I know all 22 starters last year weren't true freshman. LSU however proved that the best class can equal a NC.

08 'Bama

07 Florida

06 USC

05 USC

04 USC

03 LSU

I have said it before and I will say it again. Physical tools only go so far. If you have a 4 :star athlete who barely passed high school, and you had a 3 :star athlete who had a great GPA and ACT score, i would pick the latter of the two. The smarter kid tells me that if he can work harder in the class room, he can work harder on the field as well as pick up the playbook faster.

Just my .02

 
Like you said, anyone with a half functioning brain understands that video game recruiting is unrealistic.

 
lilred said:
Like you said, anyone with a half functioning brain understands that video game recruiting is unrealistic.
Click to expand...
But does the playing of this type of game skew a fan's perception specifically towards how one views recruiting? If yes, why and if no, why not?

(There's no "wrong" answer here...I simply want your well-thought out, rational opinion.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jen,

I would have to agree with you.

The opinion of people are skewed by the 5* player attributes in the game. I have heard people say certain receiver aren't good or fast because they he only runs a 4.5. A lot of people have lost touch with how fast a 4.2 and a 4.3 is. They also seem to think that a 4.6 or 4.7 receiver cannot get it done.

The one thing I will say though is even in game recruiting I still find my self recruiting speed. If the player has behavior problems and runs a 4.1 or 4.2 I know people will still offer him a scholarship. Its the same thing in real life yet people act like it should be different. 5* recruit with a history but he runs a 4.2. The coaches and administrations at most schools will sell their souls to bring that player in.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top