Posted by bagger288 on 9/16/2015 1:00:00 AM (view original):
Posted by stewdog on 9/16/2015 12:06:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bagger288 on 9/15/2015 11:00:00 PM (view original):
People are so worried about early entries but honestly I think they should be after post-season after the 1st period. We have the draft big board to show us what might happen, but what about this... Can we increase roster size/Redshirt amount? The current NCAA Average D1 roster size is 16 and Athletic scholarship amount is 13, can we increase redshirt to 2 and get an extra spot? This might alleviate greivances and create more fun. Also can we maybe get a max roster of 16 with only 13 scholarships and sign kids beyond just the available scholarships? Put enough effort that a guy wants to go to your school to earn a scholarship?
Here is my reference http://www.scholarshipstats.com/basketball.htm
This would make the rich even richer. I think that's what we are trying to fight.
No it wouldn't because he is taking power from D1 big 6 post season cash is going away... read the way that scholarships are working, you get points now and not post season... Your point is invalid... The fight everyone is trying to fight is that they would be so hamstringed from EE's that is what i'm trying to combat is that you won't and the point others are making is the EE's should give more notice and that isn't needed. The draft big board is what the notice is for. Maybe make it more clear but EE's should stay after post-season like it is realistically and another point seble made was that this change is for realism. 12 people on roster is not realistic nor is it a lot...
Don't take what I'm about to say the wrong way, please... I have no idea how often you get EE's or if you're one of the "rich"
But you are 100% wrong.
My Georgia Tech team in Iba is what most would consider "rich." We have been to 7 of the last 11 national championship games and have won 4 in a row. I only say this to give you perspective. We are the super team this update is aimed at dethroning because it makes it hard for everyone else to compete. I get it. For the last 4-5 seasons, we have hand picked the players we have wanted and gotten all of them. (5 person classes usually). For the past five-Six seasons, we have lost 26 to the NBA draft. We currently have 10 underclassmen on the team and 8 are on the "projected" list.
* I have averaged over $100,000 LEFTOVER each of the last five years at the end of recruiting. The amount I had LEFT at the end of recruiting is more than most people's dream budget.
* Because I have so much leftover and such a high prestige (4 straight national championships), it is not in the best interest of anyone to really challenge me for a player.
* The last couple recruiting seasons, I have had my class lined up with 4 great players who will play immediately (which is realistic) and one developmental guy. And I have CHOSEN to be nice and not dump my developmental guy and take a top recruit from other teams because I see the frustration. And I could typically steal a 5 star recruit from an A+ school with the cash and prestige I have had.
* If you give me 4 more scholarships, Georgia (B?), Alabama (B+?), Mississippi (Bish), etc. would get destroyed because I would take their top players as my bench guys to develop for a few minutes their senior year. The rich would get richer. The other ACC teams would destroy the entire SEC in our world as well as all the smaller conferences around us.
I understand you are saying after these changes it wouldn't work this way any more. You are right to a degree. But if you don't think high prestige schools will still beat lower prestige schools, and that AL, Auburn, Miss (all good schools just a step below) would hate teams like me having spots to "stow away" extra players for a rainy day, you are wrong. In another league where I am an A- team, I would HATE it as MD, UNC, and others would kill me.
As to EE's. I'm assuming you don't really have much experience here?
The draft big board tells you who is likely to go but is probably only right 65% of the time. I've had top 5 projected guys stay the same year a #85 guy went. Its not a science. But that doesn't even matter. If I have a go actually go but I have no scouting money or recruiting money to replace him- that's a big deal! If I have 3-4 go with zero scouting money or scholarship money given to replace him, that's a bigger deal!!! In real life, Coach Cal knows he's losing 5 underclassmen and he has the resources (and booster money and backpayments to uncles) in place all season long to replace them. The proposed system (as seble sees, which is all that matters here) does not give us the opportunity to replace players until the good recruits are gone.
A few things that I think are more realistic to help prevent superteams like mine from making the game not as fun for everyone else:
1- the reason I am so successful at GT is simple. LOCATION. You get a good coach in a prime location and he is set.
* Iba SEC is down a bit (sorry guys). I go north or west up to 360 , to TN, GA, AL, and MS and the other ACC coaches can't reach as far which leaves me cash to battle them for good players nearby & I have ridiculous carryover plus prestige.
* Kansas, Texas A & M, etc. can't quite reach me to battle for most MS or TN guys.
* Other ACC teams like Duke, UNC, Wake, NC St, etc. are battling each other for guys in their 360.
The solution is not to take money from the ACC, Big East, and Big 12 & give it to the little sisters of the poor conference. That punishes success which will cause GREAT PLAYERS TO LEAVE! Communism never works in real life in the long term! It sounds great on paper to some, but it is not how college basketball or competition games work well. Yes, it will weaken the ACC, BE, B12, SEC, etc... but it will cause great coaches to leave the ACC/ BE to go to said crappy conference where they play sims and don't talk on the message board and the gameplay throughout the season will be boring and people will leave. Further, it is no where NEAR reality and I thought this was supposed to be a sim. Where coaches build a dynasty. So we want to blow up dynasties? Because its not fair? We want to punish good coaches that play good competition and encourage them to play more sims? weird.
The solution is to get good schools to go long ways to compete for good players... and more hidden gem higher potential guys.
In real life college basketball, the rich schools will stay sorta rich if they have the right coaches. That's OK... but in real life, underdogs sneak in EVERY YEAR. Stud emerge on average teams EVERY YEAR. ACC and BE get more tourney money and prestige EVERY YEAR. Coach Cal cheats EVERY YEAR (sorry).
But another thing that happens is this. Kentucky battles Duke battles UCLA battles Kansas for a top 20 recruit (missing from this game). Which allows lesser schools to discover and get hidden gems (missing from this game). And mid majors have seniors that gel and make deep runs pretty regularly (missing from this game).
* Love the scouting changes. In real life teams have to really search for sub top 100 players. In real life, late bloomers make differences for lower level programs. In real life, local schools know the local players who were injured their junior year that the scouting services missed. In real life, players that didn't play for big travel teams emerge and make a difference. International players are discovered with major potential. Love this.
* Love the fact that I can know the O/D of certain players before I start recruiting them.
* Love the fact that players have quirky preferences (but don't overcompensate here too much)
But recruiting isn't fully broken. Don't trash a good product. Tweak it.
Recruit GENERATION needs more tweaking than recruiting money. You're on the right track with scouting and hidden guys. But generate more high potential guys!
The MAIN THING BROKEN IS THAT LOCATION IS EVERYTHING in this game!
* Fix that by having certain players who will cost the same whether you are 10 miles away or 1000000 (that'd be a feat).
* Extend the mileage on recruiting cost breakdowns. (maybe its the same in d3? Extended in d2 and really extended in d1?) (Maybe its only a few players who wanna play far from home?) (Maybe there's an across the board change in milage cost breakdowns where instead of 0-199; 200-360; 360+ it is 0-360; 361-1000; 1001-2500).
Maybe you give a sliding scale of milage costs based on your total prestige (d3 low prestige has major costs to go far away like in real life; higher d3 schools cost a bit less to extend the range; low prestige d2's cost a little less; high prestige d2 cost less; low prestige d1's cost less to extend the range and D1 A prestige schools have a huge milage discount... based on a sliding prestige scale. From low d3 to high d1. That is realistic. Kansas can recruit more national players than Ok St than d2 USI than d3 UT-Tyler. And that would encourage local recruits who are average to stay closer to home (pretty normal unless they are discovered) and encourage great D1 athletes to go cross country. And instead of me getting anyone I want from MS, AL, GA, and TN- I will fight Virginia, Kansas, UConn, and Texas for key players... which would keep me from being awesome primarily because of location... without totally hamstringing me for being good.