Posted by bbunch on 2/20/2017 5:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/20/2017 5:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bbunch on 2/20/2017 4:57:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/20/2017 4:53:00 PM (view original):
WifS wanted to get away from "most resources always wins recruit" game. There really is no debate. Even if HV caps are removed(CV should not in the name of "realism"), the multi opening users dumping 54 HV to the single opening user's 20, will not guarantee a win. You still have the "luck-filled snoozefest". What happens when that 65% loses?
Your example is different. That's not a luck filled snoozefest at all. I accept that probability is a part of 3.0 and I like that aspect for the most part.
I don't like that D1 coaches are too limited in options to allocate effort.. They max out what they can do, then have to sit around and wait .That is the snoozefest.
When 65% loses, I accept it....but I want more control and less limitations as a D1 coach over recruiting effort.
OK, bear with me. It's been 10 years since I was at D1 and that was probably under 1.0.
Let's say there is no HV cap. You have three openings, I have one. I know, at that point, that you have more resources. Even under the current system, I know you can double my AP every cycle. But, under the "no HV cap" system you're pushing, I also know you'll be able to offer more HV. I calculate that I can offer 22. I estimate that you can offer 48(maybe it's 46, maybe it's 53). I look at your team with 4 JR, 4 SO, 1 FR. I check your boxes and notice you really only utilize 10(one redshirt, one player gets 3.4 MPG). So I assume you could take two walk-ons and be just fine. Is there any reason I would fight you for this recruit? Uncapped HV would turn this into "more resources wins" and discourage battles. Which is the game WifS CHOSE to do away with.
And, with uncapped HV, what would stop you from offering all HV you could in the first cycle possible then still have to sit around for the "luck-filled snoozefest"?
Your situation sounds like using sound strategy to inform your decisions to me, Mike. And personally, I would say, with more HV or at least higher caps, I personally wouldn't be running a roster with 2 walk-ons every season.
But lets assume I would. Sure, you joining that particular battle would not be wise. However, that also sounds like a pretty specific and detailed hypothetical to support your argument. I would doubt that a huge percentage of potential battles would apply to your hypothetical situation at all. Your situation requires a lot of things to happen. Most coaches with multiple openings would not opt for this strategy always IMO.
Again, I'm not about discouraging battles.....I'm about the battles being meaningful and strategic. It's not a battle when both coaches just put in 100% of resources and then wait endlessly for the weighted dice roll. This is common in D1. It's not a DII or DIII issue.
It will definitely discourage battles. This is exactly what made D1 so dysfunctional in the previous version. If I know you *can* vastly outspend me on HVs for any single recruit, battling you would be suicide. So we're back to superclasses.
I know some people think the dollar/recruit ratio is in favor of fewer scholarships, but that's a rationalization, and this game has never played out that way at the high levels. Gillespie and a few others found a way to sometimes make this work in 2.0 by keeping tabs on who the top teams were all going after, and watching for when they got challenged. Once you got challenged for one guy in 2.0, you were likely to get challenged for everyone of value. Of course, that's not available to mitigate the total resource advantage the 6-opening team would have in 3.0 recruiting, because now you can't easily see who other teams are recruiting (for good reason).
Uncapping HVs would be a huge step backward, for very little gained. It was capped for a reason (and no, it wasn't to stop sniping or "poaching", because it doesn't). Having teams with lots of open scholarships being able to bid more doesn't add real strategy, it just marks a turn back toward the previous version where one particular strategy worked better than all others.
ETA I get you think it's boring at the high levels of D1, we just disagree on that. It mimics real life very well, where UK and Duke put their chips on the table, make the best pitch they can make, then wait for the recruit to decide. There is strategy involved in jockeying for position, particularly with APs.
2/20/2017 9:00 PM (edited)