Posted by ettaexpress on 5/3/2014 6:05:00 PM (view original):
I actually think FSS (and scouting) gives you too much information, and free information is too plentiful. I got a guy taken from me last cycle that was 20 miles from campus, no one had done anything with him until right before signings, and then USC-Upstate of all places (my team is in michigan) comes in on him.
It's even worse in D3. Most of the time IRL, D3s recruit locally and regionally, or they use a standout academic reputation to attract players. Of course, that's another issue with D3 on this game (that you can offer scholarships, which is not accurate). Most D3s IRL wouldn't have any clue what players were on the other side of the country.
I knew a coach IRL that recruited a lot like nick -- basically he relied on a network of people he trusted to provide contacts, and then did a lot of calling and mailing and tried to get them to visit campus. If he got to that point, he usually got a commitment from the player. It's not as common these days but worked well for that hall of fame coach.
But back to FSS and potential. I think it would be much more effective to have potential be a function of current ability, work ethic, IQ (which needs ot be completely overhauled in its own right), maybe more ratings than that but you get the idea.
thats how it used to work, where there was no potential for each rating. growth ran off practice plans, work ethic, and playing time. this allowed you to basically mold players however you wanted. every 60 per player with decent work ethic could graduate with 90 per. every big man could go up about 30 passing unless he started god awful, every guard could gain 30 lp unless he started god awful (or had bad work ethic).
in general, we feel its more realistic to have variance in the growth curves of a given player, for different ratings. it was totally unrealistic the way it was before, not every player can go up 10% from the line, not every player can greatly improve their jump shot, not every player can greatly improve their defense, or athleticism, or speed. not to say the current model couldn't be improved upon, but what you suggest has no difference for a given player, on their growth curve, for any rating. to me, that is grossly unrealistic. but really, i don't care all that much about realism, but strategy and enjoyability, and the current method has way more strategy in terms of team planning and all, than the old method or your suggestion. the combination of strategy, enjoyability, and realism, is why we have the method today, instead of the old method, which is much like what you are suggesting.
in this game, d3 is a training ground for d2 and d1, its like a place to practice. its important, for that reason, that d3 has similar mechanics to d2. you could change "offer scholarship" to "offer spot", but that is basically nitpicking semantics, isn't it? we all know you can't give athletic scholarships in real life, but if you did that in HD, it still makes no difference on the levelness of the playing field for d3 schools. i'd have no problem if they just reworded it to "offer spot" but i also couldn't care less if they don't.