Posted by examinerebb on 1/6/2014 6:57:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jaxbaker on 1/6/2014 6:43:00 PM (view original):I think it's a finer line than that. How does Boise State beat Oklahoma in a bowl game? Their talent was nowhere near on par with the Sooners, but they executed plays in a way that Oklahoma couldn't deal with well enough to win.
While I somewhat agree with your theory examinerebb it makes no sense for a team that has 4 or 5 stud freshman and sophmores to lose to a team with seniors that have a higher iq but half the talent.Freshman and sophmores start and star in college all the time they don't come into real college football a bunch of dummies that don't know how to play.The only way you can gain iq is playing until your a junior or senior and that is not a way to decide games between power teams and crappy sims.Iq and playcalling should be a limit factor to the outcome of games talent should be far and away above them imo.
I am in total agreement with one point of your argument - there should be recruits who walk on campus with a good formation IQ, even if it's only a single formation. It would be very much like coaches do now - either recruit to your system, or adjust your system based on your recruit(s).
To be fair, our playcalling method on this game is not near akin to the brilliance of the Boise St. playcalling- as a simulation, there are limits.
I don't think anyone wants talent to be the ONLY factor, I think people just want to see talent as the main factor. In real life, I think that is pretty much how it goes- the more talented team is, USUALLY, the victor. That does not mean they can't be out-coached, by any means. But in every real life upset, you can point to some determining factor (be it playcalling, execution, or even luck) and GD needs to have the same sort of cause/effect relationship that is consistent enough for us to make sense of.