Recruiting Balance

Discussion in 'Thread Archive' started by Archie Griffin, Aug 22, 2011.

  1. Archie Griffin

    Archie Griffin Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,738
    I think it's time to open this up to the public. Here's my philosophy on the matter:
    • Recruiting should mirror the real game numbers fairly closely, but with some added advantage for the CPU, because they don't strategize as well as we do.
    For example, I'll take my best recruit at the position I need the most, but the CPU doesn't assess needs the same, so he'll still have gaps in his lineup even when he gets a top ten class. So, my class should be a little more restricted, but not in a huge way. This is the idea that spawned the cap and bonus system that was recently in place, the one that was changed, further restricted, and then simply thrown away.

    Now, the objections to this system came in two forms - one I disagree with, but understand, and another that I simply can't get with. The first said that the current system disables the CPU in future years by letting some schools take too many top recruits. I can see this to an extent, but we only had two top ten classes last year, and one of them was a five star school who just had enough scholarships to get the numbers. I finished well out of the top ten after signing an average class of 15. I think that's about right, but the complaints have said otherwise, and they are worth listening to, even though I disagree.

    The other complaints seemed to simply ask for heavy heavy restrictions, but only on the top schools. I don't agree with this one at all, and I kind of see it as a way to try to undo the team choices we made, or at least undo the difficulties associated with those choices. Lower tier schools are already recruiting way above their prestige level, and propping them up any more is a mistake. When those schools win titles on those subsidies, no one will see it as much of an accomplishment.

    So now I leave it to you guys. I'm doing the straight 1-7-70 thing until you guys step up and create a system you can live with. The last only only had years worth of testing backing it up. I'm sure we can find something better in a couple of days.
     
  2. jca312

    jca312 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,832
    I'm in the objection camp you disagree with, but understand. Yes, we only had two users with Top 10 classes last year, but a majority of our league make-up was not top tier programs. I strongly believe that the league is better overall if we make it harder on all of us, not just the top dogs, to give the CPU a boost. I love the fact that some of my hardest games last year were against USC, Stanford, Oregon, and Nebraska. Leagues become very boring if you know that pretty much no matter what, you're going to beat the CPU. As we move forward, more user schools are going to be gaining prestige than losing prestige. Last season, I think 75% of our schools moved up or stayed the same. With that, we will have more access to more talented prospects and our teams will get better. At the same time, we will be getting better at the game, and all of this put together equals few to no losses to the CPU. Obviously, this is just my opinion, but from my past experience, it's what I have observed.

    What my proposal would be is to find something fairly restrictive that everyone can get on board with. I don't think our focus in coming up with the restrictions should have anything to do with trying to even the playing field between upper and lower tiered schools. My class last season at 3-star Washington was a great class for a 3-star program. In my opinion, my 15 signees broke down like this: 1 elite star that will start every game of his career, 4 good players, some will see action from the start, some will redshirt, and 10 projects with potential, who either had skills I felt were underrated or provide solid depth. I think that's probably about right or a bit above what I should sign as a 3-star. Alabama, Florida, and Ohio State should get classes consisting of mostly players that would start at my school right away. That's how it is in real life and that's what we are aiming for here. Just because they can sign guys that I can't doesn't mean that we should make things fair by saying "If I can't sign those guys, you shouldn't be able to either." I chose to take Washington and build them up, that's my task. Other people in the league chose to take bigger schools and win National Championships. Doesn't make sense to tell them that they can't bring in the players they need to do that because I chose the school I chose. Those weren't the team selection rules or the agreed upon setup of the league. With that, I think the biggest thing we need to do is make sure the CPU has enough access to gamebreakers every year. In every one of my hard games last season against the CPU, they had a guy that scared me every time he touched the ball. Andrew Luck, LaMicheal James, and USC had about a half dozen of those guys. That is what I think we need to strive to preserve. If we eat up all of those guys year-in year-out, the CPU will stop having success against users. As much as the game has improved, if the only way the computer is going to score is through a major mistake by the user, or a lot of sustained drives and defensive stops, it will get to a point where we are all good enough that this won't happen.

    So, the main thing I want to see is a strict restriction on 5-stars. EA seems to have made them more scarce and increased the number of 4-stars. There also seems to be a bigger difference between a top-end and bottom end 4-star. It seems that most years there are between 20-30 5-stars. If we had a hard cap of 1, that leaves 12-18 to the CPU, give or take every year. Then, to help emulate real life, we could give each conference champion an extra one the following season and maybe allow teams that finish in the Top 11-15 an extra 4-star in the offseason, Top 6-10 two extra 4-stars, and if you finish in the Top 2-5 an extra 5- and 4- star or 3 4-stars, and if you win the NC, you can get an extra 5 and 3 extra 4s. On top of the ability to get 3 5-stars the next season, regardless of your finish in your conference the year before. Just throwing some numbers out there, I'd need more time to make a more solid system, but I think this would be a good way to reward people for success. If you win, you should get more spoils, that's how things work in college football, but I want to try to maintain the relevance of the CPU throughout the dynasty.

    Finally, the biggest thing I don't want to see is making things hard on the teams at the top now, then easing the restrictions when everyone makes the "Big Time." Let's find something fair and make it last for the duration.

    I hope this makes sense, just wrote it out at work without re-reading or organizing. Sorry if it's hard to follow. You guys can ask questions and I'd be happy to clarify what I'm trying to say...if anyone ever cares what I think ;)
     
    • Like Like x 3
  3. John Crow

    John Crow Walk On

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    230
    I didn't have a problem with the bonus recruits. Maybe we can let people rethink and rechoose their teams. IIf they are a one star and want to recruit like a 5 or 6 star team they can have another chance to select a five or six star team.
     
  4. bdub

    bdub Walk On

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2010
    Messages:
    2,065
    Personally what I have against the bonus list is this, if I happen to be in the top 3 for someone and say a 6 star school is number 8 on his list, normally that 6 star user controlled school isnt going to go for that person because they probably have better players they can go after. However, since its a bonus recruit they are going to go after them because it doesnt count against the 1 5 star or 7 4 star recruits they can get. So because of that the 6 star school is going to get that guy that he would have never gone after to begin with if he wasnt a bonus recruit.

    This is why I don't believe we should do the bonus list right now. As you correctly stated Archie it is a great system if all schools are on equal ground.

    However, when I picked Utah I knew it wasn't going to be a cake walk and that the Ohio States of the world where going to destroy me in the rectruiting wars, just like they do in real life. But also just like in real life, if I bust my butt and put together winning season after winning season then I will be a 6 star school and will be pulling in top talent to. Becasue of this I really can't complain when you pull in top recruit after top recruit.
     
  5. John Crow

    John Crow Walk On

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    230
    I understand where you coming from. I could live with the reward system you proposed.
     
  6. Brogowicz

    Brogowicz Walk On

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,334
    I like the current system (1-7-70) and I support a bonus recruit system. I like what Jeff proposed and I like elements of the current/old system. I think, however, that there should be a cap on the number of bonus recruits a team can sign. Whether we use Jeff's proposed system or some variation of the former system, I would propose that we cap the bonus recruits to 2 or 3, which would give a school the ability to sign 10-11 elite recruits per class.

    I'd like to apologize (this time publicly) for my criticism of the former system. I think it was a good system and I wasn't trying to dismiss it entirely. I just think it was missing the cap that I'm proposing above. My intent was to do this constructively, but I'm not sure I did a great job of portraying it that way.

    I recognize that the difference in the team selection is new territory for me. I'm a competitor and want to win, but I also recognize that this new scenario will help to prolong the journey and the experience for me and my personal goals. I didn't, in any way, mean to suggest that anyone had done anything to give their own team an unfair advantage and sincerely apologize if anyone interpreted my remarks that way.
     
  7. BigSmooth33

    BigSmooth33 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
    Messages:
    7,045
    We all are competitors and would like to win, but as the name of the league implies, SIM NATION, is about having things play out as true to life as they possibly can.

    Winning isn't everything neither is pulling in the dopest class in your schools history immediately either.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. jca312

    jca312 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,832
    I like the idea of capping the bonus guys too.
     
  9. Archie Griffin

    Archie Griffin Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,738
    I think this is fine, but what does the cap really do? It does nothing for the lower tier schools, and only affects the higher tier schools. Also, it makes a five and a six star school, for example, pretty much the same in terms of recruiting power. However, the six star would likely have more players to choose from, which isn't nothing. Let's not forget that all schools are recruiting above their pay grades. If we want to reign in the lopsided success of the top tier, why do we have no desire to reign in the lopsided success of everyone else?

    What is the greater problem - a six star getting too many big recruits, or half a dozen three stars recruiting like fives? One make for a much better punching dummy, but the pool of decent players is adversely affected to a much larger degree by the six three star schools hauling in large chunks of moderately talented guys that the CPU could use.

    The issue is not whether or not one school or two schools recruit too well - it's that we as a group do so. If you want to cap - and I'm all for it - then cap everyone in a way that actually affects them. Don't just go after the guys at the top and let everyone else oversign at will.

    Since I cut the list, I bet several schools ranked lower than me will out-recruit me this year. That's fine, but it's only going to happen because of the restriction and the lower tier subsidy it provides, and it shouldn't happen at all (it wouldn't happen in real life). Just watch the classes unfold. I bet five, maybe even six guys go 1-9-70. Not much of a separation, and really no reason to put in the time and effort. Also, the other schools will take the next step, and snag more than they would otherwise get. Next year, we'll all just shop for our allowed number, leaving each other alone completely. By then, we'll all pretty much be the same anyway.

    So I ask you - is that really what we want?
     
  10. Brogowicz

    Brogowicz Walk On

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,334
    I'm trying to stay constructive here, but it's tough when I get beat up for every single thing that I post. I thought I qualified the balance in my statement.

    I'll happily go along with whatever the group decides.
     
  11. BigSmooth33

    BigSmooth33 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
    Messages:
    7,045
    No worries man, not throwing punches. You qualified your statement just fine.
     
  12. Big D

    Big D Walk On

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,398
    I say that we let the 5 and 6 stars recruit unlimited like they do in real life, and place hard restrictions on 3 star schools and below because we don't want them recruiting in an un-real way. Guys should know when they take a 1 star school that they shouldn't expect to recruit on the level of the bigger schools.

    Thoughts?
     
  13. BigSmooth33

    BigSmooth33 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
    Messages:
    7,045
    If that's an honest thought out there, use real historical data from recruiting results over the past 10 years instead of no limits. That's how The Pride is set up with a max on 5* guys, 4*'s unlimited for now (may cap that in the future too) and have thought about capping based on school prestige. So there'd be a sliding scale based on how prestigious your school is. Haven't gotten there yet.
     
  14. bdub

    bdub Walk On

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2010
    Messages:
    2,065
    Not sure if your serious or not but I'm thinking not?
     
  15. Big D

    Big D Walk On

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,398
    I'm 100% serious.
     
  16. DC

    DC Shake n Bake

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    5,546
    in all honesty, I had no problem with the previous system. I wasnt even able to get bonus recruits. but it made me work that much harder at gettting that next star so i could compete. i thought it added another dimension to the OD. I think we just need to focus on the fun aspect of the game and maybe not dissect it so much. I thought the 1-7-70+ bonus recruits worked very well, and i was disappointed to see it go :(
     
  17. Archie Griffin

    Archie Griffin Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,738
    Before the cap system I had in place was created, we bonused based on the success of the previous season. Have a good year, get a chance to recruit a bit better the next. A capped system that rewards on field play would be a way for a Big Ten champ and four star school to recruit like a big dog for the next year, and a way for a school that underperforms to cap out earlier. So, say WSU has the year they had - it logically equates to a better recruiting class the next year. That kind of momentum makes sense.

    What if we allowed bonus recruits to be chosen by the players? Win a number of games, or a conference, etc - pick a kid to go on the list. It's kind of like a college draft of sorts, only we have to go and win the kid after.

    Base set of progressively increasing talent levels, and a small random pool of bonus (much smaller than the present list) guys with specifically added players to ensure that everyone can get involved. Put a three star kid on the list if you like, or whatever four star kid you want, regardless of the numbers. number of players each team can add is based on the previous year's successes. It's a bit much to get my head around, and would be a monster to implement - but it's balanced.

    It would take a little organizing, and we could restrict it for bigger schools (like, for example, big schools get the most, but may only add guys with others users in the top 3, for example, to insure competition).

    Just thinking out loud.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Archie Griffin

    Archie Griffin Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,738
    No you're not, at least not about the words themselves. I can read between the lines, though.
     
  19. Archie Griffin

    Archie Griffin Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,738
    Derek is right. Maybe we should just roll on as is.
     
  20. BigSmooth33

    BigSmooth33 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
    Messages:
    7,045
    Sounds like a great idea...
     
  21. jca312

    jca312 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,832
    I'm trying to come up with something that we don't have to change in the future. All of my suggestions are aimed at keeping the CPU relevant. I agree, right now the cap only affects the five and six star schools because the lower tiered schools don't have access to the same guys. I also agree that lower tiered schools are recruiting above their level, but I don't think things are as even as you think.

    Last year, my class had a 5-star and four 4-stars. On paper, for a 3-star school, that looks unreasonably close to what we are limiting the 6-star schools to. However, the 4-star guys that I'm able to get are not as good as the 4-star guys that the bigger schools are able to pull in. For example. My 4-stars were from the bottom end of the 4-star pool for the most part, they came in at 74, 71, 69, and 68. USC on the other hand, pulled in 11 4-stars, a majority of which are from the Top 150 of the class. The range for their prospects initial rating is 81-74. The higher end recruits come in better and I would be willing to bet my life will end up being better players at the end of their careers as well. With more time, I can give you more examples like this. There is also more evidence of this in the Boom or Bust thread. The average rating of my freshman recruits is 70.2, USC's is 75.8. Just because we are putting these limits on doesn't mean it's evening things out.

    In my opinion, the biggest problem is none of the above. In 3-5 years when there are 8 five and six star teams, then won't we want limits on Bonus List or Top 150 guys. That's when the problems arise. I don't agree that the smaller schools that are recruiting above their level pulling in mostly 3-star recruits mixed in with the 4s and rare 5s are closing the gap on the larger schools. In that Boom or Bust thread, you listed 10 recruits better or equal to my best recruit; Alabama listed 5. Your classes are still better, that is built into the game.

    I'm not asking to close the gaps between the big and small schools, I just think that strict limits are the best way to help the CPU. Again, I'm trying to come up with something that will last the duration of the OD without having to change because of users improving their programs prestige. I don't want to make things hard and then we everyone is a 5 or 6-star program say, ok, no rules now, everyone go nuts. That's not fair to the guys at the big schools. I've never been upset that Alabama, Florida, and Ohio State are getting recruiting classes that I can't pull in at Washington, that comes with the selections we made.

    I need more explanation on this part. Oversigning 3-stars? I have no problem with capping that. I don't think that all of these guys coming in between 60-68 are closing the gap, but if this is the major issue you're having, I am not opposed to that at all.

    I went after a lot of 4-stars last year and was only able to pull in the "bottom of the barrell" 4-star guys. I don't think it's as even as you think, but I will do more research over the next few days to find out for sure. I'm trying to come up with something that doesn't have to be changed and keeps the CPU relevant. Is that our goal? I think that's part of why we can't find common ground. Let me know what you think. I hope that in all of this, I haven't come across as wanting to even things out making the Team Prestige irrellevant. That is not my intention at all. Right now, being a 4-star means my class will be less effected because of the people who want to come to my school, but next year, I'm hoping to be a 5-star and wouldn't want to be allowed to get more than what I'm proposing then or any year after.
     
  22. John Crow

    John Crow Walk On

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    230
    I say we should have a hard cap of 1 five star and use the bonus list for the four stars only. That way we don't hinder the cpu.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  23. jca312

    jca312 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,832
    Another thing that would help for the class seperation and keeping the CPU relevant is bumping recruiting up to Heisman.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  24. jca312

    jca312 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,832
    Since the main point of contention is 4-star recruits, here is a breakdown of the 4 Pac 12 user's classes from last season and just the freshman because the JUCOs can skew it, plus I need more time to figure out who the JUCOs are.

    Washington's highest rated recruit: 79 overall
    Average recruit rating: 70.2

    Arizona Highest: 78
    Average: 70.1

    Utah Highest: 72
    Average: 64.3

    Washington State's Highest: 69
    Average: 60.8

    I can guarantee these are much lower than the classes of the big schools.
     
  25. PAgamer07

    PAgamer07 We're the ship without a storm

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2009
    Messages:
    22,921
    Archie, you should really take a look at the setup we are using this year in the redshirts. It's incredibly challenging for the higher prestige schools to not go over their max. Its currently in use by 2 leagues on the site and the results have been excellent.

    Scholarships will be determined using a unique formula. First determine how many points you have available. These are equal to 70 minus the number of players on your roster. Plus the number of seniors on your roster. Multiply this number by 3.5. This is the amount of points you have.

    Example: You have 65 players on your team, with 15 seniors. You will have (5+15)*3.5= 70 points.

    These points are used to sign your recruits with points being deducted as below:

    :5stars:= -5 points
    :4stars:= -4 points
    :3stars:= -3 points
    :2stars:= -2 points
    :1stars:= -1 point
     
    • Like Like x 2

Share This Page