Swaying

Discussion in 'Thread Archive' started by Archie Griffin, Aug 7, 2011.

  1. Archie Griffin

    Archie Griffin Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,738
    Guys,

    I didn't know if we wanted to start this discussion here. In the past, we never swayed anyone. I'm fine with it staying that way, but I thought maybe we might be able to open up a discussion, since we're having real difficulty out there, and it might not unbalance the game to allow a mulligan.

    Up to you guys, but I was thinking of something pretty restrictive designed to give us another shot at that injured guy who transfers, or the next in line at a position who shouldn't really transfer, or that "not quite good enough to go pro" guy who leaves for the league with a rating in the low 80's.

    I was kind of thinking - one guy, sub 90, no awards, maybe non-starter, etc. Or nothing at all. Whatever you guys want, but given the fact we're getting knocked around a bit, I thought it might be OK.

    Thoughts?
     
  2. Brogowicz

    Brogowicz Walk On

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,334
    I think we should be allowed to convince the guys to stay. This seems like a natural thing that is already built into the game. I think this is even more necessary for the teams that are not able to sign 5-star talent as these recruits need more time before they can play. I'll go with the flow here, but this rule seems like one that strongly favors the 6-star programs.
     
  3. Archie Griffin

    Archie Griffin Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,738
    You might be right, but we also want to make sure that the guys who overuse players and go-to plays pay a price. This is one way to do that. Now, the downside to this hads been that sometimes the CPU just decimates a team for no recognizable reason, and I don't want that happening, either. I'm not looking to give anyone back the focal point of their offense or defense, but that role player that could start the next season - I could see talking him into returning if you can. No one should be able to talk Andrew Luck into staying, or Lattimore if he wins a bunch of post season awards, but if your back-up QB walks when he is a sure starter next year, that can be frustrating. I could see making an allowance for that.
     
  4. carolinaeasy

    carolinaeasy Walk On

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,418
    Devil's advocate, you have a team full of Lattimores, I have one. If he jumps early I'm up the creek. I play two backs and try and get carries spread, but when I need tough yardage I have to go to the stud. I think if we slow swaying we should allow everyone but the Major award winners.
     
  5. Big D

    Big D Walk On

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,398
    That's true but he's probably going to do that in real life too I'm guessing.

    I really don't know what we should do here. I'm totally open to this one. It'd suck to lose Marquess Wilson should he decide to go pro after this year. . .but I'm for whatever the majority decides.
     
  6. Brogowicz

    Brogowicz Walk On

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,334
    Lattimore is only a soph so he's not going anywhere this year. You can bank on him leaving after his junior year, however.

    I think we can come up with a couple guidelines here that balance the pros and cons of this. I'd propose any combination of the following:

    • Players with a rating over X can not be swayed. I'd put X at 92 or 93, but that's a number we could work to establish
    • Players winning major awards (can not be swayed) seems like a good one. That would work to counterbalance Archie's concern about go-to guys
    • There might be something worthwhile in distinguishing between redshirt sophomores and other upper-classmen. I'm not sure what that looks like, but it could warrant some discussion
    • I would also advocate a system where transfers could be talked into staying, but only in situations where the transferring player is going to be a starter - a commitment the team would have to make
     
  7. Big D

    Big D Walk On

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,398
    I'm not sure if I like this. In the above outline we could conceivably have the 5-6 star programs out there hoarding a bunch of 85-90ish overall guys and swaying them to stay.

    I'd say keep it simple. Anybody 91+ or who has won ANY national award cannot be swayed. Plus you only get 1 sway per season. Simple, effective, will stop the hoarding.
     
  8. Archie Griffin

    Archie Griffin Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,738
    I bet you're rated higher than me. I'm B+ across the board. I do have a big recruiting advantage, though. But given the numbers, there's no way the real life Lattimore stays. But I'm not interested in balancing our teams as much as I am in getting realistic results. If we do it, the goal would be to make it match the real as much as possible, and the CPU can really throw things out of whack with transfers and jumps to the NFL that don't make a whole lot of sense. If we make it about numbers (like sub 90s, no starters, sway any K/P, champ gets no sways, etc.) then it all becomes about numbers and use. I think that would be fine.

    In the past it was a way to penalize guys for throwing to the TE 99 times in a season, or running the same back 35 times a game. I liked it, even when I had to deal with a half dozen guys leaving now and then. I don't think it's about evening user teams, or else we're just better off leaving it alone.
     
  9. soxandgators

    soxandgators The Gator Nation

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2010
    Messages:
    2,713
    Tried to put some thought into this and want to get this initial idea out there see what you guys think. My idea would be to allow the 1-7-70 bonus recruiting to stay as is. Teams who start the season as 6 and 5 star programs will not be able to sway anyone. But all teams who start te season 4 stars and below will be able to sway anyone they choose. This will allow the big programs to maintain realistic recruiting and realistic players going pro. And will also allow the saller programs to get players longer whic will allow for a deep program giving them fair abiliy to rise to a 5 or 6 star school
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Archie Griffin

    Archie Griffin Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,738
    This makes sense, though I'd like to see the number lower, like 89 and under. I also like the "only one" idea as well, though I would extend this to "only one successful." We don't always make the case. I could see letting us try on a second guy if we fail on the first.
     
  11. Archie Griffin

    Archie Griffin Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,738
    This is clever. I kinda like it.
     
  12. DC

    DC Shake n Bake

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    5,546
    It could be different this game but last year I rarely saw any of my players leave if they were rated Under a 90.
     
  13. bdub

    bdub Walk On

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2010
    Messages:
    2,065
    This seems like the best plan if we want to keep things realistic.
     
  14. carolinaeasy

    carolinaeasy Walk On

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,418
    I think sox's idea has some great merit, but listen to this proposal; everyone gets to sway one player regardless of rating >95, from there you get a sway for every start you are under six stars. Example: OSU would get one sway because they are six star. Penn State would get two sways because they are a five star.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Archie Griffin

    Archie Griffin Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,738
    Translation = I want to keep Lattimore. :D

    I'm just messing with you. I think we could do a number of things. Do I see our first poll coming in the near future?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. DC

    DC Shake n Bake

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    5,546
    I like soxs idea. It may be something we need to reevaluate once we all get a higher prestige as well
     
  17. carolinaeasy

    carolinaeasy Walk On

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,418
    You are damn right I do, I'm a run first team, my guy averaging 129 a game is huge to me.
     
  18. egofailure

    egofailure Sim habits die hard!

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    3,309
    Lattimore is only a sophomore, so he'll be back next year. Meanwhile, you'll be a 5-star program after this season. You'll have NO problem finding the next beast to fuel your offense - trust me. I have to get running soon, but I'll post the full extent of my view on this matter later tonight. I hope you and Sox get a better game result. Good luck.
     
  19. egofailure

    egofailure Sim habits die hard!

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    3,309
    Okay, I have more time than I thought. Here goes:

    Sox's idea sounds nice on the surface, but then we still have the problem of keeping the CPU relevant. I'd prefer to keep these two issues separate for that reason and think a hard-cap (or stricter soft-cap) is absolutely necessary.

    That being said, I'm okay with keeping last year's no-sway rule. It's not perfect, but for the most part, it makes coaches utilize their players more intelligently. When players go, it's usually because they've performed extremely well on the field. Sounds sim, right? Also, keep in mind that transferring can also result from not keeping promises as a coach. The last thing I'd like to see is a coach abusing the use of promises to bring in top kids, while knowing that the consequences
    will be easier to avoid.

    The problem? By not allowing coaches to sway, we're taking away a built-in portion of the NCAA game, whether we like it or not. I'm convinced that sometimes a player decides to leave or transfer simply to make us use this feature. Haven't we all had that 83 OVR HB, who rushed for 500 yards in his junior year as a backup, decide to transfer for his senior year, even though he now owns the starting role at his current program? It's frustrating.

    Here's another league's rules:

    Swaying Players:

    A player may not be swayed into returning if he meets any of the following criteria:

    Rated 95 & Up: Players trying to leave cannot be swayed

    Rated 90-94: Players cannot be swayed if they won any major award or been named to the 1st Team All-American Roster (In that current season)

    Rated 89 & BELOW: These rated players can be swayed back regardless of accolades or awards.

    Doesn't this accomplish exactly what we want? The very best rated players leave if they want to, and those who have performed well enough to earn awards, are allowed to take advantage of their spectacular seasons.

    Don't forget, also, that just because you can sway a player, it doesn't mean you'll be successful. I lost a lot of players in last year's version despite valiant efforts to make them stick around.
     
  20. Archie Griffin

    Archie Griffin Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,738
    I like this also, but I think it's a bit too lenient. Even with Ohio State, the only 95+ guys I had (note the word "had" cuz I cut them) were seniors. Now, last year the ratings climbed significantly, and by year four there were a lot of 90+ guys, but I'm not sure we're going to have that this year. Anyone know how many guys are 95+ this year? It feels like a kid would have to come in in at an 80 and redshirt in order to be a 95 by his junior year. That's not going to happen much.

    How about:

    Rated 90-99: Players cannot be swayed.

    Rated 89 & BELOW: Players can be swayed if they won no awards, and do not appear on any All-American Team.

    Kickers and Punters excluded. We can sway these guys whenever we want.

    That would make our rules tougher than others, but still allow us the ability to sway guys who can be stars in the next season. A guy rated 88 is going to be a stud in the next season, so it's still a significant kid to sway, but it's also going to sting a bit when some guys leave.
     
  21. carolinaeasy

    carolinaeasy Walk On

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,418
    I think your additions are a bit strong, but I can live with it.
     
  22. Brogowicz

    Brogowicz Walk On

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,334
    I'm good with that. I'd set the bar a little higher (91 or 92) and exclude 2nd team all Americans, but I still think this a significant improvement.
     
  23. egofailure

    egofailure Sim habits die hard!

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    3,309
    Arch', I like it. Like Brog', though, I'd be okay if we kept it to just 1st team All Americans.
     
  24. John Crow

    John Crow Walk On

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    230
    I

    I like this rule the best. i think we we should be able to sway certain players. The ones that have excelled and can go pro need to go. That's more realistic.
     
  25. John Crow

    John Crow Walk On

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    230
    I could agree with this.
     

Share This Page