Recruiting

Discussion in 'The Experience' started by DatNDaz, May 3, 2009.

  1. DatNDaz

    DatNDaz Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,072
    Recruiting

    I'll throw up the first idea for a rule change. Although it partially depends on what changes are made to recruiting in NCAA 10.

    Recruiting restrictions will probably still be necessary for long-term CPU viability, but I think we should do it in a way that ensures we'll have more user vs user recruiting battles. One thing I noticed in our current season of OFFL West is that there may have been an unintended consequence of our recruiting limits, which is that guys aren't really competing head to head for many recruits. Especially at the top.

    So the idea I had was to limit the recruiting pool artificially some other way. I haven't thought it out too far or done any math, but I'm thinking a simple solution might be to restrict guys we can recruit to only those with an odd-numbered overall ranking.

    I like it because it's very simple, and it would make for more competition between users by shrinking the pool. More competition=more discussion of the same recruits. CPU gets at least half of the top guys, probably more than half, so limiting 5*'s and such may not even be necessary. I think going this route will also give a wider range of recruiting success, rather than everyone having relatively identical classes.

    Assuming recruiting is as easy in 10 as it has been the last few years, this would probably make for a good balance. If they make it tougher, maybe we struggle to sign great classes in year one and so we loosen up.

    Thoughts? What potential problems could this create?
     
  2. Basis4aDay56

    Basis4aDay56 Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    5,421
    It really seems that a lot will be fixed in this release of the game. There will be many more variables involved that it will be tough to cheat the system, so I think we may be able to roll with no restrictions.

    We will see obviously, but it would be great to have more competitive recruiting.
     
  3. DatNDaz

    DatNDaz Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,072
    That's what I'm hoping as well, but I can't remember a version of this game where it wasn't easy to land a top 5-10 class every season. Multiply that by 12 users and the CPU isn't left with much.

    Year 1 recruiting is one of the reasons we folded the old OFFL league and started over after 2.5 seasons. I think we might be better off going in with some very simple restrictions in year 1 and then loosening up if it seems like they've truly fixed the recruiting in '10. Hopefully the game previews will shine some light on this topic so we're not going in blind though.
     
  4. Razcalking1978

    Razcalking1978 OFFL TeamBuilder Commish

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,830
    With us all running with fairly high-prestige teams, we could take all of the 5-star recruits quite easily if we allowed ourselves to.

    I'd be more in favor of safe-than-sorry, and keep our current restrictions until we see how it rolls. Worst case scenario is that we have a bit more challenge.
     
  5. Archie Griffin

    Archie Griffin Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,738
    My experience with EA (as opposed to 2k, for example) is that they do a really poor job of making recruiting competitive vs. the CPU, leaving only other players to recruit against. If the CPU were more of a challenge, we wouldn't need to amp up user vs user competition.

    I agree that the more we compete the better, and I think the new game will have some new options for us to use.

    I suggest we "lab" the game for a few seasons while we're waiting for the roster to come out and the first adjustments to be made. We try gameplay on our own, but run seasons just to recruit, maybe in groups of two or three, simming the games and manually recruiting, doing this quickly, and seeing what kinds of recsults we can come up with. A few seasons with guys who know what they're doing, and we'll have some idea where we're at. Then, I think we can talk about how to adjust the rules a bit.

    How's this sound?

    AG
     
  6. Shaun Mason

    Shaun Mason Somebody you used to know.

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Messages:
    24,887
    Featured Threads:
    5
    I will end up with the game about 5 days before release if this year is typical.

    So, in that time, I can simulate a dozen years or so and see how easy it is to recruit.

    I can get a pretty good feel by using a good team and a bad team for a few years and seeing how good of a class I can get.

    We then have a baseline to make assumptions. For example, if I take the Buckeyes and sim 6 season, and get 6 5* average per year, it is safe to say we will kill the pool every year. Now, if that average is lower, or there is less variance between a "good" recruit and a "bad" recruit, it may be OK.

    Something I like about recruiting is that there will be more boom and bust players, from what I have read.
     
  7. DatNDaz

    DatNDaz Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,072
    Yeah, that makes sense. Forgot we'd be waiting on rosters, so we'll have time to mess around a little and test out recruiting and other things. Good idea.

    Raz, I'm with you on the better safe than sorry approach. I'm throwing out this idea out there to see if we think it has potential to give us the same safegaurds we have now, but in a simpler fashion. While also making recruiting more interactive between users (interaction being our main goal here).

    Let's take the element of changes to '10 out. If we just started a new league with 09 right now, would this idea work? All users are limited to the #1, 3, 5 overall recruit and so on. If there are 40 5*'s, that means the CPU is getting at least 20. And users are battling for a pool of 20 instead of 40. Right now in the East and West, the pool is 40 and so everyone just goes for a different guy and we all land our 5 star without a challenge. With the new system we're going head to head more. The other issue we had was the top classes landing 8 5*'s. With this rule, you'd cut it at least in half on average, probably more given the heightened user competition.

    While I like our current limitations in many ways, it does take a bit of the fun out of recruiting. We basically avoid recruiting against each other and then we all end up with essentially the same class. I'm thinking the idea I'm proposing keeps the CPU viable, increases user interaction, and gives us some separation between the quality of our best and worst classes.

    Maybe it goes too far, or not far enough in accomplishing the goals. I'm just wondering if anyone can see any potential problems arising from it. Or if it seems like it might work, ways we might want to tweak it. Maybe we put some "training wheels" on it in year one (like a hard cap on 5 & 4 stars to make sure no one gets way too many). It seems over-simplistic in a way, but the more I think about it, the more I like it. So I'm inviting everyone to try to knock some holes in it.
     
  8. Razcalking1978

    Razcalking1978 OFFL TeamBuilder Commish

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,830
    Interesting thoughts.

    One thing - this year in the East, I ran with Pitt. Only 1 5-star player in the nation had me in his top 10. Imagine if he was the #4 player, and I wasn't allowed to go after him. That would mean that I would have no chance at ANY 5-stars that year.

    They aren't all Notre Dame, you know ;)
     
  9. Archie Griffin

    Archie Griffin Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,738
    I think it's a good idea. The only problem I have is that there will be time when that ONE guy you want is off limits. Say I need a HB, and there's a guy from Columbus, top of the heap, and so on - a guy I have no logical reason to pass up, even if I am restricted in the number of guys I can take. The only issue I see is that there will be guys who we see as "the one guy I need" who would not be available. The downside is measurable.

    It's still an interesting idea, just one that I know will backfire, if only occasionally.
     
  10. Razcalking1978

    Razcalking1978 OFFL TeamBuilder Commish

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,830
    Listen to Notre Dame and Ohio State talk about the difficulties of recruiting :p

    How about if you were, say, Colorado. No one wants to go to Colorado. Then out of the blue, this gleaming hope of a RB actually has you ranked in his top 3. Ooooh, sorry, he's #5 on the board.

    It's easy for you guys that could get 6 5-stars to take your chances and only have access to 3 of them. What about poor Colorado? He gets none.
     
  11. DatNDaz

    DatNDaz Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,072
    I hear you guys on that point. The problem is that psychologically it could be frustrating to see your team at the top of a list and not be able to go after him under any circumstances. It's definitely not ideal. But neither is our current system.

    When you look at the classes from top to bottom this system would affect all the user teams equally. Teams like USC, ND and OSU would still have their advantages, but I don't think our goal is eliminate those. Colorado probably shouldn't be able to sign a top 10 class in year 1, but with our current system they probably have an easier time than if we had no recruiting limits at all. That's because the big boys are forced to leave alone most of the guys that have interest in them so it's much easier for a Colorado to find a 5* who nobody's going after.

    I'm not suggesting this because I want to give my team its recruiting advantage back. But in the long run, the most successful teams should be better positioned to sign better classes. Our current system has incentives designed to create this, but what it really does is guarantee better classes since users just aren't having to compete for recruits. The recruiting competition is watered-down, and fewer head-to-head battles also means less discussion.

    Maybe my idea isn't the best way of doing it, but I think finding a way to limit the pool, rather than just putting caps on the classes, is the better way to go.
     
  12. Basis4aDay56

    Basis4aDay56 Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    5,421
    I think after seeing the recruiting data we will be able to make a better-informed decision. I am talking amount of 5* recruits, and the spread in overall contribution that a 5* gives vs. a 4*. Based on how this game is going to work, I really don't think that we will need restrictions, but I have no way of knowing that for sure right now.

    One thing is for SURE: WE MUST TEST THIS SUCKER OUT! I am NOT supportive of launching our leagues until sliders have been developed, until any potential recruiting restrictions have been developed, until any necessary gameplay rules (hopefully none) have been developed, and until the first Roman Caesar ROSTERS have been developed. If we jump the gun and launch too early, there will be far more problems than if we wait and get everything developed to the best of our ability. We will still have problems, but they will be fewer and more spread out, and the kind of problems that can be adjusted on the fly -- not the kind of problems that require a restart of the entire league.
     
  13. DatNDaz

    DatNDaz Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,072
    Agreed Basis. It's going to be very tempting to jump in as soon as possible, but we need to make sure to hold off until we have a pretty good feel for the game. Especially with recruiting, which can create problems that last several years if it's not kept in check.

    The best possible outcome on recruiting is that it's been fixed and we don't need any restrictions. Hope that's the case. But like Raz, I think we also need to take a "better safe than sorry approach". So unless we're 100% convinced it's fixed, we need to go in with some kind of guidelines for year 1.
     
  14. Juggernautblitz

    Juggernautblitz Carbon glutton

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    2,157
    Agree with Basis that we need to have everything possible in line before we start the 1st season.
    I agree with Raz about Dat's idea, the less prestige schools could get F'd if the only 5* star guy(s) are in the banned list.
    If we are unsure of what limits we will need on recruiting in year 1 the easiest way to address imo is to take half the 5* stars and divide by 12 and probably round up. 40/2 = 20/12 = 1.66 rounded up to everyone takes 2. So we account for 24 of the 40 which is pretty realistic considering we will have 12 of the top 20 programs in the country. I would love an unlimited year 1 because being a 6* prestige program is all Michigan will have going for it for the first year or two but probably not the best way to do it.
     
  15. Shaun Mason

    Shaun Mason Somebody you used to know.

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Messages:
    24,887
    Featured Threads:
    5
    I want to say that I am against the even/odd idea.

    I think there are easier ways to ensure the computer gets some 5*. I am against it for exactly the reasons Archie and Basis have laid out.
     
  16. DatNDaz

    DatNDaz Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,072
    I'm fine if we don't want to use this idea, just throwing it out there for discussion.

    I think Basis' point is just that we need to see how recruiting has changed in the new version of the game before we make any decisions. I totally agree. I'm discussing this hypothetically under the assumption that recruiting won't drastically change from the last several years. If it does, I'm very happy. If not, I'm just tossing this out there as an alternative to our current system.

    Everyone seems to be echoing the same concern, which is "what about the guy who likes my team that I really need but can't go after?" That would be the most obvious downside of this system, but it's really just a psychological one. What really matters is, what would our resulting classes look like? If we're getting realistic numbers of 5's/4's/3's in our classes, and we're doing it with more interaction and less hassle/work, then we shouldn't care about the even numbered guys - they just wouldn't exist to us.

    And keep in mind that statistically speaking, we'd all have the exact same limitations. It doesn't affect the 6* programs any more or less than the 4* programs. We often think about a whole class in terms of "how many 5*'s did they get", but what really matters is the numbers signed and rankings of all the players. But if having a 5* is still a concern for the weaker teams, there are solutions like allowing them to sign an even numbered 5* if no others are available to them. To me, the real question is whether or not cutting the pool by 50% is the right amount. It's kind of arbitrary at this point.

    But it seems like I'm coming from a different point of view than most of you guys in that I see some significant problems with our current system. It accomplished exactly what we wanted it to, but at the unforeseen cost of making recruiting less exciting in my opinion. Our "caps" on number of 5's and 4's turned out to be more "allocations" since now there's little challenge to hitting them. As a result, our class strengths are almost 100% predetermined at the beginning of the season, and we avoid going head to head because what's the point when there are plenty of other guys to grab. I'll leave this one alone for a while, but just give it some thought as you finish out the '09 East & West leagues. Look at the classes at year end, and think about if it feels like you're actually being challenged to do anything other than manage offers. And are you competing with other users for recruits like you did before the caps went in place? That's going to be one key element to fostering discussion in this type of league.
     
  17. Archie Griffin

    Archie Griffin Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,738
    This is a valid point. I've been thinking about it a bit, and I haven't been able to think of anything except this:

    What if we restricted recruiting in way that limits the states we can recruit in? It's likely that the "one guy" we can go after if we're a lower prestige school is in a pipeline state, so he wouldn't be restricted. However, schools with competing pipeline states, like ND, UM, OSU, PSU for example, would have to take their top guys from those pipeline states rather than going to Nebraska for a guy they only have to beat the CPU to get.

    It's the first thing that came to mind. It doesn't ensure competition, but it might get us closer to where we want to be.

    Also, it might give me incentive to develop other pipeline states. Maybe I take a couple two or three stars from Kentucky or Tennessee in order to create a pipeline, so I can have a shot at the player of the year a few years later. See what I'm getting at?

    Let's just keep in mind that competing against ND in recruiting is seldom a smart move. Some of the diminished competition is a result of team choice. It's a result of all the other factors mentioned as well, but we need to understand that the ND coach asking why no one will compete against him in recruiting is a bit, just a bit, like Chuck Norris asking me why I don't want to fight him. "Dude, your F-ing Chuck Norris!" if you know what I mean.

    That's overstating it a bit (though I find it hilarious) but I thought we should at least address that fact that some of the avoidance (I avoid Dat like the plague when it comes to recruiting, and I coach a recruiting powerhouse) comes from the fact that you are who you are. If I know the outcome is rarely if ever going to be in my favor, I go another direction. It's an old Sun Tzu thing from the Art of War. If I want to use my time wisely, I avoid banging heads with the biggest kid on the block. Guys avoid me as well, and many times, they are smart to do so.

    Anyway, I just thought I'd get that out there. Let me know what you guys think.

    AG
     
  18. Razcalking1978

    Razcalking1978 OFFL TeamBuilder Commish

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,830
    One thing - while a lower-rated team can beat a higher-rated one on the field, the higher-prestige team will absolutely dominate when it comes to recruiting. EA has said that this will be even more prevalent in 2010. If we force teams to compete in recruiting, the higher-prestige team will win over and over.

    If I can't avoid competing against Notre Dame, then I'm only going to bother looking at teams with 5-star prestige.
     
  19. Basis4aDay56

    Basis4aDay56 Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    5,421
    They do in real life Raz. I see your point though, CREATING compeition is a bad thing -- there should be natural competition based on the fact that most of you guys wanna play in the same exact area.
     
  20. DatNDaz

    DatNDaz Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,072
    Good stuff. Ha!

    You make good points though. I considered that it might just be me experiencing the lack of competition, but I didn't think about this being the reason. Makes sense and probably factors in.

    I can honestly say that in the original OFFL league that after my dominance of recruiting in year 1, I struggled in year 2 to sign a good class. It was still good, but not sure it was even top 10. OSU and Georgia were in much better positions to sign huge classes than I was. I don't think ND is any better off in the game than the other 6*'s, but Blitz and I covered this one to death long ago...

    I kind of like the idea about pipeline states. So you're saying that we could only go after a 5*, or maybe 4's and 5's if they're in a pipeline state? Leaving open the possibility of creating new pipeline states with 2's & 3's? Very interesting. Although ND has pipelines in almost all the good states right off the bat (IL, OH, CA, TX, FL, GA, PA), so I think this is one rule that might actually favor them more than anyone else.

    I'm up for anything, I just want to make sure that we keep recruiting challenging and competitive, in addition to keeping the CPU viable.
     
  21. Archie Griffin

    Archie Griffin Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,738
    A rule like this would likely benefit ND more than other teams (OSU has pipelines in OH, MI, PA, and FL, I think, for a total of four, and other schools have less) but this is also a very real advantage they hold.

    None of us really tried developing pipeline states last year, though it is something that can be done. If we come up with something that encourages competition, and also adds a layer of strategy to the process, I think we might have something.
     
  22. DatNDaz

    DatNDaz Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,072
    I guess I understand where people are coming from if they plan on using a 3-4* program. These teams can make great classes out of avoiding the big boys.

    So maybe we don't want to create more competition, but the system we have now seems to eliminate it. Maybe it's just people avoiding ND like AG mentioned, but I can tell you that even as ND I definitely avoided players that had other users after them. There's no need to compete with guys when you know there are plenty of highly ranked players that no other user will be after.

    God, wouldn't it be great if EA just made recruiting a little bit tougher? Can't they just put in a recruiting slider or something?
     
  23. Archie Griffin

    Archie Griffin Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,738
    A recruiting slider would be great. Here's a thought:

    What if we limited people to pipeline states, except for lower rated recruits. If a coach wanted to gain entrance into a new state, he would have to do so by taking weaker talent. If I wanted to make, say, California a pipeline state, I would have to take 2-star guys until I "earned" the right to recruit there. Since the number determine the pipelines, we couldn't just cut the guys - we'd have to keep them on the roster. That would take some of the fives and fours off our rosters, unless we are happy with what we have. I think it would also give smaller schools a way to get guys the rest of us can't.

    (Just postulating here. I'm building the potential beginnings of a process.)

    Let's use me as an example. Let's say I want to have a shot at the best guys in Kentucky each year. The "price" for entry into that market is a number of two star recruits equal to the number I need to create the pipeline. Now, guys will develop faster in my system than in a number of others, so I might actually use some of these guys a bit, but it's still a hefty price to pay just to have a crack at guys no one else does (since I would probably seek to do this in markets no other user had access to). It's a kind of strategy. I would have to maintain my pipelines, develop new ones, AND duke it our with the other regional powers. It doesn't do exactly what Dat is looking to accomplish, but it is a new layer or wrinkle in the scheme.
     
  24. Razcalking1978

    Razcalking1978 OFFL TeamBuilder Commish

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,830
    Not sure that things like this would last long enough to make sense. If we're likely to get through 6 seasons, is it worth having a bunch of 2-stars for 4 years to get access to a guy in year 4?

    And again, it's the teams that don't start off with a bunch of pipelines that would get hammered. Notre Dame could very comfortably just stick with the pipelines they already have. In fact, any team that had one of Florida, Texas or California wouldn't need to bother.
     
  25. DatNDaz

    DatNDaz Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,072
    I think it's a very interesting idea, but I'm thinking it might work better more as a bonus or supplemental aspect of a system like we have now or the one I proposed.

    If we made the pipeline idea the whole system, I think there might be too much imbalance in the early seasons. There's also potentially the ability for the user teams to grab the majority of the 5*'s, espcially if we have teams in different regions (which we will). I like the potential strategic element of it though.

    I think we should just continue to think about this and discuss ideas as we get closer to '10.

    Another variation on my idea just to keep feeling you guys out:
    What if you took the odd/even idea, and just added the caveat that if you don't sign any other 5*'s, you have the ability to sign 1 5* guy who's an "even". This doesn't benefit the better recruiting teams, because once they sign an "odd" 5* they're ineligible. Gives the lower rated programs a shot at the full pool of 5*'s. Also creates the potential for a situation for anyone where you might pass up 2-3 lower 5* guys for 1 who is at the top, or who you really need.

    Other ideas if odd/even makes it too difficult would be to add a bonus "even" 4*, or maybe open up 3*'s entirely. Or instead of odd/even, prohibit a last digit of 7, 8, or 9 in the ranking to only cut out 30% of the pool. Possibilities are there for tweaking.
     

Share This Page