Talking Players Into Staying

Discussion in 'The Experience' started by Basis4aDay56, Aug 20, 2009.

  1. Basis4aDay56

    Basis4aDay56 Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    5,421
    Talking Players Into Staying

    What do you guys feel about a restriction on talking guys back into staying? I am talking about guys leaving for the Pro Draft, and not transferring.

    - Can talk all SO(RS) back into staying
    - Jr.'s rated over 92 cannot be talked back, and 91 and under can

    Just something to think about. Remember that this occurs way before progression, so if you talk back a 91-ovr guy, chances are he will be at least a 95-ovr after progression. Talking back a 95-ovr guy that WANTS to turn pro just doesn't seem realistic to me.

    Thoughts?
     
  2. DatNDaz

    DatNDaz Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,072
    Did they fix the bug related to this?

    Regardless, I wouldn't mind skipping it altogether. Or at a minimum we should strictly limit it - maybe everyone can try to talk one player into staying, or a limit on time we can use. The problem is that the cost of talking these guys into staying is recruiting minutes, right? We're not exactly hurting for those in the offseason. Usually most of us leave a ton of recruiting minutes on the board in the offseason.
     
  3. Basis4aDay56

    Basis4aDay56 Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    5,421
    Yeah bug is fixed, however, only one attempt can be made to talk him back. I wouldn't be in favor of any more limitations than the one I listed above. After all, with the addition of new recruits being added to the pool and the fact that you will have to replace the player leaving early, it seems about even in my mind.

    Transfers should be automatic because they might not have understood your future plans for them, and need some talkin' to! ;)
     
  4. JHeb

    JHeb Sooner Magic

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,696
    I want to keep Sam Bradford!! Are you crazy???
     
  5. Archie Griffin

    Archie Griffin Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,738
    I'll go with whatever you guys want, but I'd rather see the number at 90 rather than 92.

    But if you want my opinion, I say we let 'em all go;

    1: We're all going to be A+ teams soon.
    2: We get the best recruits.
    3: We should build this kind of thing into our recruiting style. I recruit a certain number of threes just so I have less to worry about when it comes to guys needing the ball or needing time. If you get a bunch of studs, and don't play them, you should lose them. That's what happens everywhere but at USC, it seems.

    Want that big stud? Better find a role for him to play, I say. Rely too much one one or two guys, and there should be a price to pay.

    Just a thought, but if I have depth at a spot, I recruit in the three star range, pick a skill or two I like (3-star WR's with great hands are my favorite) and let the guy develop. Or, I just leave that position alone until I need a guy.

    If you're recruiting only fives and fours, plan on a mass exodus in a couple of years when you can't play them all, especially if playing time is one of their big pitches.

    Just a little prediction.
     
  6. JHeb

    JHeb Sooner Magic

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,696
    Reality says Bradford is GONE after his Jr. season...I probably shouldn't be able to keep him for his Sr. year unless...Well, I won't go there.

    I'd be fine with whatever the majority wants...If we lose more guys then it should put more of a focus on depth and recruiting. Those are good things, and will make this even more fun.
     
  7. DatNDaz

    DatNDaz Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,072
    I agree with AG and JHeb. Unless for some reason there are more transfers/players leaving early than in prior versions of the game, then I say we let them all go.
     
  8. Basis4aDay56

    Basis4aDay56 Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    5,421
    I disagree. Players leaving in the last version of the game was totally random. What if you have a junior, 89 overall, that was a role player as a LOLB and didn't have "pro worthy" stats that wants to turn pro? He is a retard. These are the kinds of things that randomly happen.

    When my whole team leaves, expect Florida to gobble up all of the "offseason only" recruits.
     
  9. DatNDaz

    DatNDaz Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,072
    I always felt like some of the players leaving early were random, but usually it made sense. Keep in mind that in real life, sometimes even a #1 or 2 guy will transfer for random reasons. It's rare, but I think it's pretty rare in the game too. And there are guys every year who shouldn't declare early for the draft but they do.

    If there were a real cost to talking players into staying, I could be on board with it in a limited way. Recruiting time in the offseason isn't a cost. What if we allowed one player/year, but if you talk a guy into staying, you subtract a 4* from your recruiting budget the next season? Maybe a 5* if he's 90+ ovr. Would that make sense / be too complicated?
     
  10. jello1717

    jello1717 "Those who stay will be champions." -- Bo

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,617
    In my past offline dynasties (in '09 and '08) I've never allowed myself to talk anyone into staying. I did this as a way to keep my team's talent in check, but I also didn't put recruiting restrictions on myself. With us only getting 1-3 :5stars: I'm not sure if we should just let them go or not.

    I agree that there isn't really any cost in talking a guy into staying, especially if we only have a couple of schollies left to fill. If we did add a cost, Dat's proposed cost seems awfully high which could be a good or bad thing depending on how you look at it. I know that I would certainly not want to give up a :5stars: kid who'll be a very good player for 3 or so years so that I could keep a stud around 1 more year, but if that guy was a Sam Bradford, maybe I would. Who knows?

    I do, however, think that we should decide on this soon. If we do decide to not allow us to talk anyone into staying (and how do we check to make sure noone does?) then we'd need to know now as this could change who we recruit now (since you can have a pretty good idea of who's going to leave early).
     
  11. DatNDaz

    DatNDaz Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,072
    If you have an 83 rated #2 QB, and Sam Bradford is leaving, and you think that otherwise you've got a great team to make a run in the next season, a 5* might be worth it. If Clausen leaves this season, I'd possibly trade a 5* for a 3* to keep him, and I have a pretty solid #2. There needs to be a significant cost so that it's not an automatic easy decision to just bring back your best player leaving early every year. Trading a 4* for a 3* to keep Bradford another year isn't really that tough a choice.

    There are really only 2 ways we make the CPU challenging - sliders & roster management. As we get better against the CPU (and we will, we're only a month past release), I think this is a good way to keep our teams a bit thinner. I say we either don't allow it at all, or make it so there's a real cost/benefit decision.
     
  12. JHeb

    JHeb Sooner Magic

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,696
    It'd probably be easier to just not allow it...Couldn't AG just skip that week of the offseason? If so, that cuts out any worries about who does what and I trust AG all the way to just skip it by and not work on his own guys before he advances it.

    Plus, if we lose guys unexpectedly it adds to the stuff we can bitch about and speculate on, etc. It leads to more stuff to write about for the blogs, etc.

    I kind of hate to say it b/c I'd stand to lose a lot, but I say we just let guys leave if they want to leave. I mean, I'm already recruiting for what I expect to happen and what COULD happen. I mean, I'm likely going to lose DeMarco Murray along with Bradford, maybe Travis Lewis (OLB), etc. I'm planning ahead right now.
     
  13. jello1717

    jello1717 "Those who stay will be champions." -- Bo

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,617
    This sounds good to me with my vote probably leaning towards not allowing us to talk anyone into staying.
     
  14. DatNDaz

    DatNDaz Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,072
    I'd rather just skip it as well.
     
  15. Archie Griffin

    Archie Griffin Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,738
    Now, it's likely that a team unexpectedly losing stud at a certain position would have an advantage at that position on the recruiting trail.

    What is we allowed a coach to recruit ANY player they want AT THAT POSITION over the off-season, regardless of their numbers. It's still a tough situation to be in, but we don't necessarily force a guy to fill in with a 3. If Bradford leaves, the top QB recruit in the nation might be more interested in going to OU. So, free up OU to recruit any player they choose to fill that specific void. It's something we'd need to track (which is a pain) but it seems like an interesting cost/benefit kind of thing.

    Anyway, I thought this might be interesting. If we decide to add some kind of system, though, we'll have to communicate well about it. That, or we just stick with the no-talking-them-into-staying approach.

    Thoughts?
     
  16. Colemanchu

    Colemanchu GOAT SPLITTER

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    7,707
    Not another restiriction. If we keep adding restrictions every week I'm going to need to hire an assistant to track them all. :) I say if we are going to limit it we just say you can talk a certain number of guys. Say I have 5 guys who want to leave I can sway 2 if less than 5 then 1. Either way it looks like my good juniors won't be seeing much playing time in the second half of ball games.
     
  17. jello1717

    jello1717 "Those who stay will be champions." -- Bo

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,617
    I'm not for what AG suggested. If we wanted to make it easier to recruit a vacated position, then maybe allow him to recruit offseason guys (assuming that we are not allowing them in the first place), but still have to keep within their recruit limits. IE. if Bradford leaves, and there's a :5stars: QB added in the offseason, OU can grab him, but only if they didn't already sign their 1 :5stars: guy.

    That being said, I'm still in favor of not talking anyone into staying, or at least not talking NFL draft guys into staying. I don't know if I'd have a big issue with talking transfers into staying.
     
  18. Archie Griffin

    Archie Griffin Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,738
    I'm actually more opposed to talking transfers into staying, since most of the time (but not all) they transfer because of the way the coach runs his team. That should be on us.

    I'm keeping a number of guys on the line in case I get a transfer or two. I could see myself losing a TE (I have 4) so I keep a few guys on my board, but I don't offer them. This is why I dropped Wilcox, by the way. If I got him, I wouldn't be able to do anything with him, and I'd just lose him. I'm recruiting a QB in case Pryor's backup transfers, a three star MLB in case I don't get all the guys I'm currently leading on, and a couple O-Linemen and a DT, just in case.

    My real opinion on the matter is that we shouldn't be able to sway anyone. Smart recruiting is about more than signing the top guys. Late in the year, when I see guys not using all their time, I just chuckle. There is always someone to talk to. I say we don't sway anyone, but I understand that guys like Basis might get hurt more by this than others. Having nine studs at each position makes it hard to keep guys, or to anticipate who might leave. But then again, having nine studs at each position also puts you in a pretty good position to go all the way. I'd suffer a mass exodus if I got a trophy first. ;)

    AG
     
  19. Basis4aDay56

    Basis4aDay56 Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    5,421
    I am going to need a decipherer for all of the restrictions pretty soon. Between no talking guys back, and limits on the new guys opened up for the offseason, to our recruiting system, to our different scenarios in gameplay rules, this is starting to be too much.

    We either talk guys back with MINIMAL restrictions, or we don't and we don't restrict the signing of newly opened up recruits in the offseason. That is how I see it. Chances are everyone else sees it differently, which is cool, but you might need to find a new Florida owner. It isn't an ultimadem (sp?), but it is intentionally over dramatic to convey the point that these restrictions are killing my interest in this league. Do this, don't do that, blah blah blah, yet there are still gameplay issues that are more detrimental (sp?) in my mind that go unaddressed.

    You have heard my piece. I have been drinking, so take that into account :D
     
  20. Razcalking1978

    Razcalking1978 OFFL TeamBuilder Commish

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,830
    I say we can talk to a guy if he's below 90 overall, otherwise he's gone. Simple.
     
  21. Archie Griffin

    Archie Griffin Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,738
    I also think the idea that we not talk anyone into staying, yet open up the off-season guys completely, might just strike a good balance. It's simple, and the guys who get hit hardest have the most scholarships to give. Easy. Guys leaving will still hurt more than the new recruits will help, since it's likely we'll be losing starters and replacing with underclassmen, even if they're good underclassmen. Might just work.

    Barring any number issues, I'd be in favor of this. Does it present any big recruiting problems anyone can see?

    AG
     
  22. JHeb

    JHeb Sooner Magic

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,696
    I agree that we do need to restrict our restrictions...It could get to be too much.

    My vote is to straight up just let the guys go who want to go...Some studs will leave but some will stay. If we all know what's up right now, we can recruit for what we need and what we may need.

    If you or I get stuck with an unprepared MLB starting b/c the stud junior left for the pros, so be it...We'll all be able to deal with it and keep playing. Plus, like I said earlier, it gives us more to post about, more to blog about and more to look forward to.

    Ban the sway, all the way...
    Ban the sway, all the way...
    Ban the sway, all the way...
     
  23. BRUCE80

    BRUCE80 Let the dirt just shower over you..

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    I second this.
     
  24. Geauxlden

    Geauxlden Walk On

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Messages:
    211
    I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with not being able to talk anyone into staying for a few reasons:

    1. The penalty for talking guys into staying is recruiting minutes, so if I blow all of my week 1 minutes, then someone in this dynasty will benefit from that.

    2. Highly rated players do return to school. Just using last year as an example you saw Tebow, Bradford and McCoy return even though they could have all gone to the NFL. Hitting closer to home, Charles Scott, Brandon LaFell and Ciron Black were all projected to be 1st or 2nd round guys and they returned to LSU. It happens!

    3. I'm especially against the proposed ban on swaying transfers because the auto-sub feature in the game is BROKEN. If anyone is getting defensive players to sub automatically, please share your settings because I've never seen anyone claim that they could get this to work. If the game had a true formation sub feature where I could have my backup LOLB be my nickel backer every single time, then yes it would be my fault that my backups didn't get enough time.
     
  25. DatNDaz

    DatNDaz Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,072
    Geauxlden, to your points:

    1. Every season there are more than half of the users who are done recruiting prior to the postseason. Of the rest, maybe only 1 or 2 actually use all their recruiting minutes each week. Recruiting time in the offseason is plentiful, and not a cost.

    2. The game already accounts for that. It's not like every 90+ junior is going to declare for the draft in our league. I'll bet less than 25% do.

    3. I see your point here, but we all know what leads to transfers in the game, and it mimics real life. If you have 5 RB's on the roster and a 87 rated sophomore is 3rd-4th string, even if you get him 10 carries a game he might transfer, just as he might in real life (e.g. Emmanuel Moody)


    I think the idea of tying players leaving to recruiting makes sense, but I don't think it would work. To Basis' point, this is probably the most complicated solution (would take some work to track). My biggest problem with it is that on average even if we each just have 1 guy leaving (and I'm guessing it will be more), that's 12 recruits we're allowing to come off the board. The new offseason 5's and 4's won't stand a chance of landing on a CPU team.

    I think the game does a pretty decent job of deciding who's going to declare/transfer. In a few cases it's random, but that's true of real life as well. Simming straight through is not going to kill any of our teams. We're still going to be very good. If there's a concern that we're going to be in situations where we'll lose a key guy that we just can't live without, then maybe we give a limited ability to talk a guy into staying, but there has to be a real cost.

    Look at it this way, the CPU doesn't get to talk their players out of leaving. To whatever degree we do this, we're giving ourselves an advantage over the CPU, which is the last thing we need since our issue has always been making the CPU more competitive.
     

Share This Page