Posted by jcfreder on 6/15/2012 12:41:00 PM (view original):
I like the idea of considering credit because it does make sense intuitively --- IRL you hear quotes all the time from recruits who at least pay lip service to the idea that being on a guy early is a good thing. Plus, putting money into a guy for more than one cycle feels more like you are actually "recruiting" the guy rather than buying him at the last minute.
The idea about giving extra credit for a coach who spends *every* cycle makes sense if the recruiting season lasted weeks, but not with the current system that is only a matter of days. I don't want to have to set an alarm to get up at 1 am just to put in my effort for that cycle. Not to mention all the cycles that people miss for all kinds of other reasons.
With regard to the comment that RL recruits "decommit" more than HD recruits, I think the flaw with the current system is that there are not *enough* battles. And I mean that in the sense of multiple schools being all over a guy from day one, not in the sense of there not being enough "poaching." There is probably too much of a sense of "entitlement" that people get about "their guys" because the system has evolved to the point where the vast majority of recruits are not battled for. And the reason there are so few battles are because (1) coaches generally keep their powder dry for their top options; and (2) coaches don't want to look vulnerable by having 10 guys considering them.
The system could be better by not rewarding coaches for only having 1 target, which is pretty far removed from real life. You could probably make things better by giving teams a certain number of absolutely free effort. If each team could get 5 guys to consider without actually blowing the budget, you'd end up seeing a lot more battling. But then again, I tend to be more of a "real-lifer" than a total "whatif every school was completely even" person.
Agreed w. all of this, Fredericks. Surprisingly good insights from a Minnesota fan.
The biggest reason there aren't more battles is because if you lose a battle in HD, you're completely screwed. In real life, if UNC and Kansas both go after the #1 pg and UNC gets him, Kansas is still going to be able to land a strong player in his place. In HD if that happens, Kansas is looking at either a subpar player or a walk-on. When the penalty to losing a battle is that incredibly heavy, it's going to discourage people from battling.
I don't have a bright idea on how to fix that part of things, but until they do, they were always be fewer battles.