Posted by gillispie1 on 7/31/2015 1:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by rogelio on 7/31/2015 10:50:00 AM (view original):
Posted by andystender on 7/31/2015 7:59:00 AM (view original):
I agree that we should lower the number of elite recruits, but I would take it one step further and make those recruits national recruits. National recruits would basically be an international in terms of distance being the same for everyone no matter where they are from. IRL an elite recruit out of Texas would be recruited by UNC, Duke, Kentucky, Michigan State, etc. It is silly that they are left to whatever Texas team has the A+ currently. I would also make a minimum spend to get the elite recruit. If it cost a minimum of $30k (those elite recruits need to feel that love) that elite A+ school would have to put a lot more thought into the way they use their budget. One of the biggest problems with recruiting, in my opinion, is when a team dominates a region so fully that no one ever challenges them and they pick whatever recruits they want in the region, sign them for cheap and then have huge carryover making them even more dominant the next season.
Not against the idea of "National" recruits (similar to International costs), but I don't think you need to over-cook the fix right away. The reason that A+ schools dominate is that they do not need to spend much of their budget to get top recruits. If the layer of top-tier recruits were simply thinned out, with a few recruits with max potential showing up with low initial ratings, then those A+ prestige schools would be forced into actually battling more frequently. They would end up with far less carryover and far more risky results for those teams.
It dawned on me some time ago, that there were A+ teams that no one would fight. Over time, that means that they amass enormous carryover budgets. Good luck battling them for a recruit, if they only have to battle every 3rd year! That also becomes hard to track, but you need to take into account whether the opponent has a fat wad from the season prior. With that depleted, you'd see different results over time. [One fix that might be painfully fun would be to have the AD raid the carryover budget from time to time to fund, say the women's gymastic programs trip to Beijing! That would also promote battles, since there would be a risk that the carryover would take a random hit from time to time.]
your idea has one flaw - and that is that the natural advantage inherent in a potential battle often dictates the winner before the fight ever starts - and reducing the number of great recruits does not change that. all over the place, recruits only have 1 a+ school within 200 miles, or 1 a+ school within 360, or even if there are 2 one has a much bigger budget... and its pretty much guaranteed if that coach is savy hes going to know that and take that recruit. more people might be willing to fight uphill battles if they are more desperate for good players but fundamentally the change needs to change the slope of that hill.
international recruits are a great example, because there are often big battles for the top ones. other times they go to someone for next to nothing, because there are good local recruits in enough places. if you pulled out a bunch of those local elites and added some international ones (whether actually international or national so people could see FSS but they were distance-agnostic, preferably the latter), it would really heat up competition for those players - because there are many people who would be eyeing them from similar positions of strength.
the carryover does matter but usually the reason teams have carryover is because nobody fought them in the first place... so slashing that carryover really does nothing to address the root of the problem.
good ideas - i just think the way they would play out isn't exactly how you are hoping.
There are a lot of variables that you may be disregarding. I agree that the change I am suggesting would have an uncertain outcome. Maybe it would work, maybe it wouldn't go far enough. However...
When you are a B+ prestige team trying to sign 3 players, and 1 of those 3 is a semi-even fight that you think you can win, then a lurking even or better prestige team may read the tea leaves and take away one of the other 2. If an A+ is willing to just go after the 1 local recruit through signings, then you are probably right. However, if that team, as they often do, want to sign 3 or 4 top tier players, then the fight may attract attention like the lower prestige fights do. There would be a good deal of peril to pull in the reigns on those that try to lock down 4 or 5 Top 10 players in a recruiting cycle.
That said, I don't mind the idea of taking Top 5 players at each position and flattening the cost scale. However, I do think that the changes needed to this game, from a recruiting-game-play persective, are not huge. A little change might go a long way.