Posted by rogelio on 4/19/2017 12:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by pkoopman on 4/19/2017 11:34:00 AM (view original):
Posted by rogelio on 4/19/2017 11:05:00 AM (view original):
Posted by pkoopman on 4/19/2017 10:44:00 AM (view original):
Now you're just obfuscating, resorting to twisting words and mis-characterizing my argument.
The game is the same for everyone at D1. We all have to navigate the same odds and obstacles. So the idea that we *must* maximize AP on primary targets, or we "compromise" our chances with them is just silly. Moving 50-60 AP over the course of 15-20 cycles barely moves the needle at all on your primary target, for whom you plan to pursue with your big guns. But it has massive effect on a lightly recruited player you could develop as a backup option. Even just a point or two in the first cycle is enough to move a lot of D3s on for good. You have to decide how you prioritize, and how you execute. Your choices have to have consequences. What you're arguing for here is a game where the strategy you'd like to pursue doesn't have negative consequences. You're not thinking beyond your own nose here. Recruiting in 3.0 is like a multi-player game of chess. I understand if you'd rather be playing go fish, but you're not going to convince me it's a better game.
Also, D3 AP is discounted substantially when reaching up. It takes lots more APs to unlock at D3. High prestige D1 APs are very valuable, you should have noticed that at NC State.
Very petty. I am glad that you realize you are losing. Please send me the rules for the "multi-player game of chess", I do not think that game exists and doubt it would be engaging.
Otherwise, again, this is "Spud-like" reasoning. If I say there is not enough reasonable talent to cover in the market after a job-change or loss in a battle, then you say that I want to be assured of getting a 4 star player at every open slot. No. I am saying that the recruits that ought to still be there to pick over after the defeat are not just worse, they've already signed with D2 & D3 schools. Why? That's because the AP are not appropriately scaled to division & prestige or the Top 200 recruit is choosing to enroll at D2 or D3 rather than wait to be recruited by a D1 or be assigned to a Sim D1 team. Is it really a benefit to the game to send a Top 200 recruit to D3, when a sim-coached Big 6 team is being assigned far worse players?
Again, not thinking beyond your own nose. I'm surprised at your apparent lack of imagination. Those players are available as backups for coaches who have decided to prioritize securing backups. If they're not available to you, it's because you have not prioritized securing backups. That's your choice. Your choice has consequences. And so we're back to you not wanting negative consequences for the strategies you have chosen to pursue and employ. Is that "spud-like"? Fine. Just because he's unpopular doesn't make him wrong, not on that anyway.
Let go of the ranking or OVR fetish. It doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is how highly human controlled teams value a players ability and potential ability. If a recruit, of any ranking or OVR, is ignored by higher division teams, then the best team that values him the most is probably going to end up setting the price for him. Higher division teams certainly have the means to beat that price, if they choose. But they can't secure him cheaply at that point. If you let a lower prestige team set the price, it is what it is. It doesn't mean AP isn't scaled properly, or that there aren't enough commodities in the market; it just means you are playing in a shared universe, and there are a lot of moving parts.
Cheaply? You are forgetting that, excepting the fact that AP isn't available to unlock recruiting actions, the D1 team (especially one where the coach just changed jobs) might be sitting on a pile of cash that it would like to spend on HV or CV, but cannot.
The rankings are arbitrary, sure, but that's the system that currently exists. You either go by rankings or initial "division" assignments for the recruits or OVR ratings. It is completely beside the point that those are not a perfect measure of how effective the player will actually be. The issue is whether players are being forced to make unfortunate changes in how they would play the game to compensate for the problems covering after losses. They are! D3 users know they need to be competing in the D1 market to field competitive teams. D1 users, by and large, are realizing that they need to risk taking walk-ons and, so, are avoiding playing systems that required more depth. Those are results of market distortions.
The argument about "negative" consequences is just an evasion. Certainly, there ought to be a consequence to losing a battle and not having a backup plan. If NC State loses a battle with Duke & Wake Forest, then it might have difficulty picking up another battle with a D1 or D2 school. Your position is that NC State should be willing to accept that it loses a recruit to NC Wesleyan that was targeted as a backup option as a consequence. Really? Clemson (if Sim-AI coached) should be given default assigned players worse than D3 teams have. Is that good for the game? Does that make any sense?
Yes, cheaply. This isn't a topic about job changes, and even if it was, changing jobs is a coaching choice. You accept the price, or you stay put. People who played high D1 in the previous version are used to having those mid-level 2-3 star guys available as backups to cherry-pick. Happened to me 4 years in a row at Rutgers, where I would lose a guy to a team who already had 4 or 5 other prospects he had secured *cheaply*, because no one wanted to fight him for any of them. So he'd have ~80-100k to dump at or right before singing cycle. So players were used to that system, and it's a tough adjustment, I'm sure, to realize that teams aren't just letting them snowball anymore. 2-3 star players are often more valuable in the long term than the elite guys, because they fully develop IQs. Those are not the sort of "backup" options we're talking about anymore, and the game is much better for it.
No one is "forced" to play a certain way. You make choices. If you choose to put 2-3 APs from the beginning on that 550 OVR pg with potential you are eyeing as a backup, NC Wesleyan moves on 9 times out of 10. Don't blame the game, blame your gameplay. Is getting stuck with a choice between 2-3 walkons and 2-3 garbage players a rational consequence of following Andrew Carnegie's advice? You bet it is. The only reason people have a hard time adjusting is because the previous version wasn't nearly as rational, and people were used to cherry-picking a higher quality of backup.
Sure, sim-AI could recruit smarter, but I'm not sure we really want that. Imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth when sim controlled big 6 teams start routinely cracking the elite 8. As it stands, rebuilds really aren't as hard as people make out in 3.0. Weak sims is not a compelling reason to radically change the nature of the shared universe.
4/19/2017 1:14 PM (edited)