Posted by shoe3 on 1/4/2017 4:03:00 PM (view original):
Posted by zorzii on 1/4/2017 1:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 1/4/2017 12:58:00 PM (view original):
Implementing caps on divisions effectively eliminates the concept of pull-downs. I don't think that would end up being a popular choice. Certainly doesn't add realism, if that's what bothers people about D2 occasionally beating a D1 for a recruit.
The best scenario, IMO, is that people ultimately accept that effort is part of recruiting (because most people want it that way) and adjust their gameplay *and expectations* accordingly.
Just so you know two teams, a+ and a-, are on a recruit, a legit future D1 player, but a d2 has been going all out to get him and leads now. None of these two teams can spend money ( capped by the way so no real
advantage there) if they want to be able to battle D1 schools on other prospects, so now, witty d2 teams are going on d1 options or developing d1 project. The kid has 87 ath to start.. but needs practice elsewhere.. maths don't add up. We can't battle each others and need to pour at least 50 % of what a d2 has put in to hope to get that team to moderate, which isn't a sure thing. We don't have enough.. and getting us more would destroy the strategy so the real sol is to get d1 as an incentive huge incentive for d1 recruits. A pref. Wants to play D1...
As long as it's an effort-based system, if a D2 is the only one willing to go all out on visits and promises, why shouldn't they be in contention? This is the mindset of 2.0, where people were used to cherry-picking among certain levels of recruits. Gameplay can adjust, but expectations have to adjust along with it.
Here's how I see it.
Seble stated that it was one his goals was to encourage battling among top recruits. He said too often that the team on a recruit first gets him. I think we can all agree on this - yes?
I think what happens here is that you are
discouraging battling and making coaches as risk averse as before.
If I'm D1, I'm encouraged to battle other D1 teams, right? If I'm at NC State I shouldn't just let UNC or Duke just have a recruit for no effort. That was the whole point of a lot of the changes. However, what if I lose that battle? Well I move on to a backup plan. Well let's see, this backup guy who maybe I've invested 10 APs on every cycle has a D2 team on him. I unlock all actions and a scholly offer but I'm still behind. I send in 5-10 HVs but I'm still behind. I can't send in 20 HVs because I already spent most of my money battling Duke (which the new system is encouraging me to do, right?).
So now here you are, back where you started. Teams don't want to battle anymore because losing is too risky. I have to worry about some fiddle fart D2 team who happened to pump 100 APs into a recruit for 10 cycles and built a huge lead.
This does not accomplish one of their goals of encouraging battling for top recruits.
WHY? Seriously, why does it have to be this way. Let D1 have their game. Let D2 have their game. Let D3 have their game. This is just stupid to have the system designed this way.