Posted by jetwildcat on 10/31/2013 6:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by acn24 on 10/31/2013 3:21:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jetwildcat on 10/31/2013 2:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by acn24 on 10/31/2013 9:23:00 AM (view original):
Posted by jetwildcat on 10/31/2013 8:36:00 AM (view original):
I'm similar to dacj in terms of checking as well, try to double-up the cycles to get the total checks down. but the very specific checking windows make for a good number of inconvenient times.
i'm not necessarily saying the current setup is terrible...besides the 2-hour first cycle. that is terrible.
are we so sure the game would be worse with half as many cycles? you can check 4 times per day more at your leisure or check twice a day strategically. twice as much is now happening each cycle (at least in theory, could end up being more or less than that).
also it would be nice to go to bed knowing that missing the 2am-5am EST cycle won't potentially hurt your team
I think reducing the number of cycles gives a bigger advantage to high prestige/big money schools, and those schools definitely don't need any more advantages.
Why are people so concerned about missing cycles, beyond the first couple? If you're in a battle and you miss the 2-5 EST cycle, just double up during the 5-8 cycle. Or add in extra effort in the 11-2 cycle before you go to sleep. Almost all battles are resolved at either 11 AM EST the day after signings or the 8 AM EST cycle the last day of signings, so you've got room to miss a cycle or two.
How fast someone wins a "battle" has a lot to do with how much someone is winning by. The typical decision times you're referring to probably apply for true 'battles' that are close.
This situation is 100% possible:
2:00pm - Bobby Brown only considering you
5:00pm - Bobby Brown only considering Syracuse (Cuse obviously dumped a ton of cash before 5:00pm)
8:00pm - Bobby Brown signs with Syracuse
If you miss the 5pm-8pm cycle, you can lose a recruit and never be the wiser. This applies most directly to when signings start, but it's also possible on Day 3 that Bobby Brown is your backup option to another player you're battling. It can happen.
That scenario you describe is extremely rare, and the only times I've seen it happen generally fall into some combination of these 3 categories: 1) you're trying to sign a guy too cheaply and leave yourself vulnerable or 2) you've targeted a recruit that is a bit above where you should and 3) you didn't check local schools to anticipate their moves (Hey Syracuse has 4 openings and only 1 guy considering them, maybe they'll move on a recruit on my list). All of those are coach errors, not flaws that need to be fixed.
You didn't address the extra advantage it gives to big prestige schools. Say you're an A- school and an A+ shows up on your recruit. With so many fewer cycles now you can't wait to see if the A+ picks another fight and makes themselves vulnerable. You have to decide immediately, do you fight and hope that the A+ gets another battle or do you go and throw big money into a B+'s target? I would guess the second instance happens a lot more often. I don't think that anything that makes it easier for elite schools to recruit is a positive change.
They're only coach errors because the coach also couldn't check the 5pm-8pm cycle. Hence those strategies are viable if you have a way of guaranteeing a check every cycle...but much less viable if you can't. I don't think that's much fun.
And as far as the second scenario is concerned, isn't the A+ also getting into other battles more quickly? The A+ is also more likely to make "wrong" decisions with less cycles and more action per cycle. I can see how less cycles makes it a little bit more likely that the reacting coach is screwed, but I don't believe it would happen every time.
Also this one is just a postulate, but might be true: less cycles could condenses recruiting, which helps newer players learn the ropes more quickly as they move up. a more educated body of below-A+ coaches would hopefully create A+ coach churn, which is basically non-existant right now.
No, they're coach errors because they're coach errors. If you're going to try to sign somebody on the cheap you have to accept that somebody can blow you off easily, same way if you're reaching, you need to know that a bigger school can come calling. If you're not scouting local teams at your level or above then you're just not trying to play the game as well as you can. There is no reason not to know the number of openings, potential budgets, potential targets, players considering and any battles of the teams around you, other than not trying.
Perhaps the A+ is getting into their battles a little quicker; but given a prestige advantage and quite possibly a big money advantage they have significantly more room for error too. Taking a walkon or two at an A+ is not a huge deal - I've done it the last few seasons at Duke. Just take my openings to the next season and recruit more 4 and 5 stars. At an elite school, in an elite conference, as long as I can get into the NT and win a game or two, that A+ isn't going anywhere, especially given how the top teams dominate the draft (Allen is in season 67, in the past 25 drafts, seasons 42-66, only season 43 has had a draft that didn't include a Blue Devil. 10 drafts have had 3 or more). But lower prestige teams can't gamble like that. Maybe it doesn't happen everytime, but I bet it happens at least as often as a coach loses a recruit because they miss one cycle.
I don't understand at all how reducing the number of cycles shortens the learning curve. It seems the opposite is true, it makes it longer, or if they happen to get lucky once, they learn the wrong thing.
I find it interesting that in your concern about missing a cycle you are going to make it SIGNIFICANTLY more important that coaches hit each one. Yeah, if they're 6 hours it will be easier, but there will still be coaches who aren't able to, and if you're only going to have signings on the 9th cycle then it is super important to hit them all.
Churn under the A+ schools is going to require adjustments to recruit generation to make the top recruits not quite so much better than other recruits (cue gillespie to show up and talk about my man
Donald Pierce, 8 games into his FR season and he's already tied for 12th highest rated player in the Pac-10 and the 20th highest rated SF in Tark. Still High in SPD, REB, and ST), to adjust the DI money situation (at least make DI scholarships and NT games played the same amount like it is in DII/DIII), or something even more radical. Cutting the number of cycles won't touch it.