Posted by topdogggbm on 6/18/2021 10:16:00 AM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 6/17/2021 10:03:00 AM (view original):
Posted by dahsdebater on 6/16/2021 11:06:00 PM (view original):
Again, you're misunderstanding what I'm saying, if not wilfully ignoring it because you don't have a satisfactory answer. I don't care if you want to remove resource allocation, but you need to explain where/how you're going to replace that element of strategy. How, in your mind, would the best players differentiate themselves from the good players?
Lol. No. This isn’t a debate, and you’re not a judge anyway. I did the “explaining“ years ago, and I’m not going to rehash it now. And in any case, your premise is flawed. Games don’t exist to sort out the “good” players from the “best” players. Those are made up constructs anyway, you’re using arbitrary ordered thinking, and it’s dumb. Games exist for entertainment. I don’t play games as a measuring stick, or to feel like I’m dominating something. I play if and because I enjoy the process. By that standard, a college basketball game doesn’t need to have *any* mechanism to satisfactorily differentiate “best” players from “good” players, as if we all go walking around with those labels attached to us just waiting for someone to recognize us. A college basketball simulation just needs to be an enjoyable approximation of the real life adventure.
This answer is like saying.... I know how to fix this game and make it perfect..... but I'm not telling anyone. Haha
It might seem like that for those who weren’t around for 3.0 beta, and who are not currently trying to rehash old arguments from those days. So for their sake, here are the broad strokes of what I was proposing, with the understanding that the specifics would have to be worked out and extensively tested (as in beta) to get desired balance and gameplay experience, if this was ever built (here or anywhere else).
The scouting process can stay the same.
There will be no recruiting budget. AD’s will always approve costs associated with recruiting effort, ie visits. Your university is not that strapped for cash.
Attention works similar to the way it works now, and is the “resource allocation” aspect retained in this model. The difference is that coaches all have the same amount of time available, it is not limited by open scholarships. It IS modified by preference, prestige, and division. As now, attention works to establish the recruit’s openness to other forms of effort, like receiving home visits and promises, or completing campus visits. The better the preference match and higher prestige/division, the less attention it will take to accumulate enough effort credit to do visits and make promises.
Once a team has reached a certain amount of effort credit, the recruit will signal a receptiveness to a home visit. Bad preference matches will need to wait much longer, and some teams may never be able to get a recruit to campus, they will simply need to hope no other teams with better matches offer a scholarship.
The considering list would not show teams immediately just showing a little interest. Teams appear on the considering list once a coach shows up for a home visit. Another tier to the considering list would also be added, a “Top 5”; these are for the schools the recruit has narrowed down, once they start doing campus visits (since recruits are still limited to doing CVs to 5 schools).
A coach would not be able to do more than one visit per cycle (home or campus, across all recruits), so if there are multiple recruits they are going after at once, they will need to make choices about how they go about it. Only so many hours in a day. One other important tweak I would consider related to this is that with the signing tendencies and timing of recruits, I would establish diminishing returns for players when you recruit them outside of their optimized windows. So if you’re going after a late tendency recruit hard early, you are giving up value to establish a foothold.
I would not install a hard limit on how many HVs a recruit will do, but since I would be increasing the value of each individual visit fairly significantly, and limiting to one per cycle, functionally you could only do so many.
The main thrust of the concept is that the recruit tells you when they are ready for the next step, and then you decide if and how you proceed with them.
**The primary objection - “But what about teams with 6 scholarships? Are you saying they’re not going to have any advantages anymore??” Well not exactly. But I do think the system should stop incentivizing that sort of roster construction. Having 6 scholarships in this hypothetical system can still have some advantages to press, if you focus on recruits with playing time preferences. Similarly “But what about distance, are you saying you can just recruit anyone without distance cost penalties??” Yes. That’s what I’m saying. Now at lower divisions, your ability to *scout* at a distance will still limit (somewhat) you effective recruiting range. But if you can find them, and if they are open to you, you can afford to recruit them.
I’m sure I’m forgetting some things, and like I said, this would require testing and tweaking, like all games and game proposals do. And I know full well this is very unlikely to ever be taken seriously by higher ups at this point, because of the massive overhaul it would be; the time to do something like this would have been 3.0, and I kind of doubt we’ll get a true 4.0 (or something with a major overhaul like this anyway). So this is mostly just a thought exercise. And dogggg, before you complain about the length of this post, just remember, you did specifically ask for it.