Posted by tianyi7886 on 7/20/2012 12:40:00 AM (view original):
Posted by professor17 on 7/19/2012 8:50:00 PM (view original):I provided a fairly straight forward way to punish "Reload U" for breaking promises: you break promises, you drop in prestige, with the drop based on how severely you broke the promise. You get a prestige bump for getting a player drafted (you train him well, played him well, etc. and got rewarded) so when you do the opposite, you get punished.
"Interestingly, alot of the anti coaches in this thread are the stockpilers themselves. Sorry, but its true and relevant to the argument."
If by chance you're referring to me, I did offer an alternative solution that I believe would accomplish similar objectives, and would definitely scale back the ability of Reload University to continue such practices. I'm not an "anti coach" with regard to the concerns you bring up; just with the method by which you would seek to rectify the problem. Reload U. will be fully capable of offering starts to any player they really want, and there's no real downside to breaking promises if they choose to do so. They won't be so willing/able to commit $15K each to 4 or 5 elite guys off the bat, under my minimum recruiting effort suggestion.
About coaches not putting in 15k to a 4/5 star? How often is a top tier 4 star or a 5 star not "very tight" with a top program or not in a battle? 10% of the time?
It doesn't take anywhere near $15K for an A+ program to get a recruit to be "very tight", and many programs don't even bother spending the extra money to get to that level because they know no one's going to mess with them anyway. A major reason there are no battles is because the elite A+ team can often lock up all their players for less than 10% of their budget, leaving the other 90% to fend off any would-be challengers, who know better than to go up against that kind of prestige and bankroll.
Let's consider an example of an A+ school with 4 openings and a budget of $100K.
They'll typically recruit by jumping on 3 or 4 local 4-5 star guys, spending a total of maybe $10K. They're in no battles and are sitting on $90K. Obviously, no one bothers them. Then as signings approach, they either use that $90K to poach someone for their last opening, or if they already have their 4 guys, they'll get a cool $22K to carry-over into next season, and the cycle repeats.
Now, what if we had minimum recruiting effort in place? That team is now committed to spending $60K of their budget for those same 4 players. They've only got $40K left in reserve. Now they're not nearly so invincible for being challenged. It will promote more battles. It will reduce their ability to poach players. And it will drastically reduce carry-over. All of these things will help with competitive balance.
Changing topics back to mandatory starts... what is your biggest criticism of using a multiplier to other recruiting efforts as a way to increase the value of promises? If you promise a start/minutes, all your recruiting efforts get multiplied by "X". The value of "X" would certainly be open to debate... it could be 1.25 or 2.00 or whatever. But just as a concept, this would work to significantly increase the value of promises, while eliminating the "magic bullet" nature of offering a start and instantly getting $20K of effort in. I could see teams throwing starts at 20, 30, 50 guys, just hoping it sticks somewhere. Just curious as to what your fundamental beef with the multiplier concept is?