Date: Tue Oct 3 22:29:20 2006
Sender: Andy Dolphin
I've had several suggestions to prevent teams from cutting players who have
decided to (or are likely to) transfer. As most of you know, there is no
prohibition against players returning to their former schools, and thus this is
pretty much academic... But, it certainly FEELS like a team is getting ahead
by cutting transfering players rather than letting them go elsewhere.
So, my question is if teams should be (a) prohibited from making cuts during
the offseason, (b) prohibited from making cuts at any time except recruiting,
or (c) allowed to make cuts under the current system. I suppose that
transfering non-scholarship players would be cut just before the title game if
(a) were adopted, so realistically I think the option is between (b) and (c).
Any opinions?
Date: Wed Oct 4 04:28:53 2006
Sender: Kent Ostby
I'd opt for "d": You can make cuts during the offseason except to players who
are planning to leave your program anyways.
Date: Wed Oct 4 05:19:40 2006
Sender: Matt Opaskar
I would not be in favour of 'a'. Lots of people like to clear as much roster
space a possible for walkons.
Date: Wed Oct 4 05:21:49 2006
Sender: John Henry
How about e)
Would it be possible to have cut players go back into the next recruiting pool?
I think that eliminates the issue of players disappearing with no penalty to
the school that cuts them. I am not sure what effect this would have on the
overall talent pool over time.
I know that tier 1 programs routinely cut guys that the lower tiers would love
to have.
Date: Wed Oct 4 06:55:25 2006
Sender: Jay Schlegel
While I would also like to see option (e), it has come up before and isn't
being offered as a viable option here. Option (b) sounds best then. While it
is unfortunate that cuts would not be allowed prior to walk-ons, that is
probably not a crisis if it closes this loophole.
If option (f), allow cutting of all players except players with promises or who
made demands this season, is possible, that might solve it also.
Date: Wed Oct 4 07:27:23 2006
Sender: Kent Ostby
Jay, how is your (f) different from my (d)?
Date: Wed Oct 4 09:36:17 2006
Sender: Scott McEntire
Sticking to the three options posed by Andy, I would think that (b) would be
the most viable. I can not see why a college coach would either want or need
to cut a player outside of the recruiting window. We don't have to deal with
"off the field allegations", or "the breaking of team rules", so my opinion is
that cutting players is only necessary during recruiting.
Now, venturing outside of these three options, if there was a way to
incorporate cut players back into the recruiting pool, I think that would be
beyond fantastic.
Date: Wed Oct 4 10:34:42 2006
Sender: Loren Smith
For Andy's options, I'd say "b". I do tend to cut a few walkons from prior
years to try for better walkons in the current year, but that is a pretty
marginal issue in order to have people restricted from cutting players who will
be transferring.
Ideally, I would like to see Ostby's "d".
Date: Wed Oct 4 10:40:20 2006
Sender: Laurent Boudias
Scott talked for me. No reason to cut players, except during recruiting. As for
myself, I cut only walkons that I don't want to keep and rarely a player from
the roster when I have the opportunity to sign a player who would be better.
Date: Wed Oct 4 10:53:04 2006
Sender: Kent Ostby
Laurent and Scott, the answer is in Loren's post.
Entering a new team, especially, it is useful to cut non-scholarship players to
increase your chances of good walkons.
Date: Wed Oct 4 11:09:19 2006
Sender: Kevin Caery
It makes sense to keep us from cutting transferring players, since they could
be of use to other teams in recruiting, but there's no reason to keep us from
cutting our other walk-on scrubs at any time during the year.
Date: Wed Oct 4 11:25:02 2006
Sender: Kent Ostby
Actually, cut players going back into the pool is the "simpliest" (from a
process point of view) method although I doubt that it is easy to do since as
Jay points out, it has been requested on numerous occassions.
A couple of the Tier I programs that I've scouted in CCEL as possible jumps
(providing my team doesn't fall apart) have some excess at certain positions
and a couple of their walk ons would be cut targets for me, but they would make
fine Tier II players in the mean time.
Date: Wed Oct 4 12:46:30 2006
Sender: Laurent Boudias
Why would you cut a walkon scrub during the year?
If you kept him, he was worthy of something. And if he were not, why can't you
wait for season init to cut him? It's not like you can replace him during the
year and if he's that bad, don't make him play, simple as that.
When a new owner takes a team, he can cut whoever he wants before walkons
(except players w/scholarship of course).
I just took a new CCEL team (during recruiting - after 2 first rounds) and I
got a bunch of really bad players. So what? I wait for next season recruiting
to cut the ones I don't want. Cutting them before would make no sense anyway.
There're no FAs. :)
Date: Wed Oct 4 12:48:44 2006
Sender: Kent Ostby
Not mid year.
Between end of season and initialization.
Date: Wed Oct 4 13:27:07 2006
Sender: Laurent Boudias
That's going to the point where I need to ask this question.
Are walkons a big part of people recruiting... or better asked, should walkon
be a big part of people recruiting.
I don't particularly like the fact that people would like to make room in their
roster with the hope to get great walkons.
A walkon is a player who was not recruited in real life. How good can a walkon
be in real life? There might be some good ones, but a school recruiting
strategy should not focused on walkons.
Like I said I don't cut for walkons, I cut walkons that aren't good, which is
most of the time the case. Why should we be allowed to cut with the hope that
walkons will be good?
Date: Wed Oct 4 13:37:42 2006
Sender: Michael Schoknecht
I cut players all the time in the offseason beofre season init. Not
transferring players, but players who didn't develop from last seasons camps
that I want to get rid of in order to get a walkon instead. Tier I in all
sports is so competitive now that a star walkon can take you from also ran to
National Champion. So many of us make cuts to get rid of a career back up in
favor of the future star. I think you have to leave me/us the ability to make
these cuts before init or change the way walkons are done.
Date: Wed Oct 4 13:40:30 2006
Sender: Laurent Boudias
That's this kind of behavior I am questioning.
Not that I think it's bad. But should we be able to cut players for the hope of
a star walkon?
Date: Wed Oct 4 13:49:15 2006
Sender: James Warren
Not trying to change the subject but since "star" walk ons has been mentioned,
I'd like to see that change as well. How many programs have talent level walk
on to a school like we do in tier I? These programs have to go out and try
their best to sign these guys. Very rarely do you see a star player walk on to
a team. Now that would make the sim alot more interesting if all coaches had to
put 100% into recruiting and not count on getting super walk ons. Sorry for the
interuption.
Date: Wed Oct 4 13:57:31 2006
Sender: Laurent Boudias
Well I join Warren about this subject and I think depending on the answer,
Andy's b solution could be sufficient or partial.
So I don't believe James is out of context.
Date: Wed Oct 4 14:22:07 2006
Sender: Gregor Ellis
I vote for leaving things the way they are (c). I travel a lot for work and
anything that reduces the windows I have to manage my team means that I'll
undoubtedly run into a season when I can't do something important (I've missed
Inviting and Recruiting Rounds 2 & 3 several times, I've had to input game
orders in 10 minutes at public terminals in airports while my plane was
boarding, etc). While this may only affect me, it just doesn't seem to be a big
enough problem to justify making the game even more time critical than it is.
Laurent:
Walkons in DEL do not just represent RL walkons but also players who have a
really strong desire to go to a particular school. There are a bunch of threads
over the past several years that explain this.
As to the reason, I believe that without this element the coding of the
recruiting process would get sufficiently more complex that Andy just felt it
wasn't worth it. You would need to have every recruit carry a preferred school
attribute and have some way of indicating this in the display. The current
auction process seems fairly straight-forward and I'm sure that would be made
more complex as well - at least to the point where the sim would have to use
different code for the Pro league waiver wires and the college league
recruiting which would be a big hassle in terms of maintenance, QA, etc.
Date: Wed Oct 4 14:31:20 2006
Sender: Scott McEntire
For clarification purposes to my earlier note, I was viewing the recruiting
period incorrectly. It is absolutely correct to cut flop walkons prior to the
initial inviting period, in hopes of landing better walkons. All of us have
had a walkon that we took a chance on flop like Ryan Leaf.
So, viewing this in the "correct" light, I say that if our only choices are the
three Andy initially listed, keep it as is. If we TRULY have choices (d), (e),
(f), or whatever... let me know.
Till then... I'm out.
Date: Wed Oct 4 14:47:14 2006
Sender: Laurent Boudias
Scott,
I believe b wouldn't prevent you to cut a player before first inviting round.
Gregor,
Did Andy confirm the intend to simulate school preference within the DEL walkon
process? Or is it a group of coaches who decided that was that? I always
separate what Andy intends to do and what we consider it does.
Date: Wed Oct 4 15:45:24 2006
Sender: Dave Wick
Laurent,
Yes, Andy has indicated that DEL walkons are not true walkons, but also
include players that have already decided where they are going to school to
simulate those players with the life long dream of going to a particular
school.
I think you do have to be allowed to make at least some cuts prior to
initialization. Now, in CCEL you have large teams and probably always have
some guys graduating or leaving, so it might not be a huge deal. But, in CBEL,
it is conceivable that you might not have any graduating players in a
particular season. You would need to be able to cut at least one or two
players in case you got a good "DEL walkon" that season. With a smaller team,
you really can't afford to miss a good walkon in CBEL.
As far as those wondering why you would have a player on your team, but want to
cut him later.....some of you must have never had a bad training camp and had a
guy bomb out. Most of us have, and that borderline player is now a total slug
that you want to cut.
I'm a big fan of (e) and have suggested it before, but I'm guessing that must
be difficult. So, I guess I'd be inclined to go with (c).
My question would be, if you have a player transferring, why would you cut him?
Are coaches cutting them just because they are mad that he is going elsewhere
and not coming back to play for them? Even if you want to be vindicative and
try to prevent that player from helping someone else, you are only hurting
yourself. Having that transferred player in the "no region" region only
creates more solid players in the recruiting pool that other teams might invite
and try to recruit. If other teams are trying to land them, there should be
less competition for the guys you want. So, it only makes sense to leave them
on your team and let them transfer to increase the recruiting pool overall.
Date: Wed Oct 4 16:35:11 2006
Sender: David Rogers
Ahem, as one of the simulations top recruiters...
I would love to see players cut show back up in the recruiting pool. (Just
like guys that leave for PT or Scholies do now) On the other hand, I have been
burnt before with a new team where I forgot (shame) to shut off Auto-GM and Bob
slyly handed them scholies. So to play it safe, I generally cut players
demanding scholarships (not always).
I think non-scholarship players should be allowed for cutting at any time.
When you cut them they do not "disappear" though, as they do now, instead a "C"
is placed in their "Scholarship" indicator. At Season init and every
recruiting phase these players go back into the no-region recruiting pool.
(Except for F F players who will decide to concentrate on their academics)
This does a few things -
Allows coaches to manage their teams when they have time.
Allows coaches to scan other teams for who might be walking.
Makes transfers more common (see RL).
Adds a big dose of fun in rounds two and three of recruiting.
Date: Wed Oct 4 18:15:45 2006
Sender: Bill Howard
I'm with David on this one. While we're discussing cuts though, if it would be
possible, it would be great to have conditional cuts during recruiting.
Meaning, if I bring in a kicker in recruiting, the existing walkon kicker that
is a '1 1' would be cut, allowing the chacne to pull in another recruit in the
first round.
Date: Thu Oct 5 07:39:42 2006
Sender: Don Keefe
I really like the 'cut players go back into the recruiting pool' idea... if
that's feasible, then I really think that's the best way, otherwise I'd just
keep it the same as it ever was in regards to this particular issue...
Date: Thu Oct 5 11:06:19 2006
Sender: AJ Perko
if it's not....
lets allow cuts to free up walkon space, but not of transferring players.
which option was that?
Date: Thu Oct 5 12:28:04 2006
Sender: Kevin Caery
"Ahem, as one of the simulations top recruiters..."
I agree with most of David's comments, as I think it's most unrealistic that
cut players simply disappear forever; but I must note I find the quoted portion
quite irrelevant.
Date: Thu Oct 5 13:02:59 2006
Sender: Kent Ostby
That would be my "d" option AJ
Date: Thu Oct 5 14:31:05 2006
Sender: David Rogers
Hey self agrandizement is my middle name!
Date: Thu Oct 5 15:43:58 2006
Sender: Gregor Ellis
1) Cutting transferring players does not, to my understanding, affect the
talent pool available for recruiting.
2) Whether they go into the pool after being cut (my pref) or not doesn't make
a real difference to any coach per #1.
It seems that this is a no harm, no foul situation that really doesn't cry out
for any change unless you want to 'clean up' the realism and continuity of the
game.
Date: Thu Oct 5 18:01:02 2006
Sender: Kent Ostby
I disagree with the assertion of #1. I know that Andy has said it, but its
just not factually correct.
The no region pool is made up of transfer students.
If there was an Louisville Sr B A QB who was going to transfer for PT and an
LSU Sr B A QB who was going to transfer for playing time and Tom D, cut his guy
before he transferred, there were would be one less SR B A QB in the no region
pool.
Would that mean there might be one more C A frosh in some region than if Tom
wouldn't have made the cut? It might. But that does not mean there isn't an
effect on the talent.
Top seniors in the no region make a huge difference for the 2nd level Tier I
teams who aren't dripping in talent all the way down the org chart.
Also, putting more players into the No region adds to the flexibility of the
Tier II teams to get some good players with playing time promises instead of
the standard (for instance) D C Fr who wouldn't want a playing time promise and
might end up instead at the bottom of a Tier I roster.
Date: Thu Oct 5 18:01:37 2006
Sender: Kent Ostby
I disagree with the assertion of #1. I know that Andy has said it, but its
just not factually correct.
The no region pool is made up of transfer students.
If there was an Louisville Sr B A QB who was going to transfer for PT and an
LSU Sr B A QB who was going to transfer for playing time and Tom D, cut his guy
before he transferred, there were would be one less SR B A QB in the no region
pool.
Would that mean there might be one more C A frosh in some region than if Tom
wouldn't have made the cut? It might. But that does not mean there isn't an
effect on the talent.
Top seniors in the no region make a huge difference for the 2nd level Tier I
teams who aren't dripping in talent all the way down the org chart.
Also, putting more players into the No region adds to the flexibility of the
Tier II teams to get some good players with playing time promises instead of
the standard (for instance) D C Fr who wouldn't want a playing time promise and
might end up instead at the bottom of a Tier I roster.
Date: Thu Oct 5 20:09:44 2006
Sender: Tom DeSanctis
Although I like both D & E, if Andy cannot spend the time to program either of
those, B has to be the obvious option to get this rule changed to avoid me
cutting my Sr BA QB. ;)
My vote is for one of D or E or B -- in that order.
Date: Thu Oct 5 20:47:11 2006
Sender: Laurent Boudias
Once again, in college you shouldn't be able to cut a player unless he's a
walkon during recruiting. That's not the spirit.
Date: Thu Oct 5 21:35:57 2006
Sender: Dave Wick
Not the spirit? Non-scholarship players have to earn their spots on real life
teams every season. They don't just get to hang on if they aren't helping the
team.
But, on a different note, it appears the majority of those posting are looking
at the issue in relation to CCEL teams. I think recruiting is so different in
CCEL than it is in CBEL that this issue plays out differently in the two
sports. I think the issue plays out differently on a 65 player roster than
with an 18 player roster. But, all sports should be considered when making a
decision on recruiting changes.
Date: Fri Oct 6 09:01:57 2006
Sender: Gregor Ellis
IRL scholarships are year-to-year and can be, and are occassionally, pulled
(the player is cut) especially when a coaching change happens. Of course IRL
players frequently transfer for reasons not related to football as well. We
don't play that way and I like that part of DEL.
But (b) is an option that would change the game drastically just to fix a
'problem' that really isn't IMO. Tier II teams and lower Tier I teams count on
the odd D C or C B walkon who breaks-out over the first season or 2 they are on
the roster. If you can't cut players who didn't work out before Init then you
will need to take a chance on fewer walkons especially when you have a small
Senior class looming. Doing that, you are hamstringing the majority of teams
for the benefit of a small number of Prestige 15-18 teams that will vacuum up
Kent's theoretical No Region B A QB. Let's not kid ourselves - a B A recruit of
any age is not going to go to a lower prestige Tier I or normal Tier II team: I
think the lowest any B A player went this season was to a Prestige 16 team.
Date: Fri Oct 6 11:31:28 2006
Sender: AJ Perko
You have team like Michigan State and their 35 AA Running backs who can still
recruit the top 5 Rb's every season.
the only chance 2nd rate teams like mine have of getting a good RB is for
one of Northwesterns or Wake Forest's 27 AA RB's to become disgruntled and
transfer so the other 90% of the league has a chance to win a game.
By cutting them because they choose to transfer, and taking them out of the
pool.... maybe not intentionally, but is essentially an elitist control tactic.
Date: Fri Oct 6 11:36:15 2006
Sender: Laurent Boudias
So basically, you like the idea of being able to cut players before init to
make room for some walkons right? With the hope to get a good one.
Maybe I'm wrong but I thought that each team has a pool of walkons and the best
ones are sent to your team first, unless you have a need (illegal number of
players at one position). So moving the bad players around you can make sure
you have legal roster and this way you are sure to get the best walkon you can
have.
Is there really a need to cut players? Did you have a season where no player
left (graduating or transfering)? Leaving more room than the one made by normal
departures doesn't help your team more. You get more walkons but not better
walkons.
Am I wrong on this?
Date: Fri Oct 6 12:04:56 2006
Sender: Kevin Caery
Laurent, what about walk-ons who come in looking so-so but have terrible camps?
Are you suggesting we should never be able to cut them? That's what a
scholarship commitment does. And sure, we get the "best" of the walk-on pool
generated for our teams, but that's according to Bob's ratings--and nobody is
calling Bob one of our better GMs. Maybe one of the guys you never even see is
a guy who could become a 4th-year contributor, and that's what walk-ons are for
in RL.
I'd cut 10% of all my scholarship players if I were allowed, simply for the
chance that I could get a better one with more eligibility in his place--so you
better believe there's a need to cut walk-ons. I often do it right after camps
so I don't have to even look at their pitifulness all season long.
Date: Fri Oct 6 12:18:19 2006
Sender: Laurent Boudias
Well I see your problem now, but how about the players you cut have a great
camp the following year? So great that it would make them better than the
walkons you got from cutting them.
So you take a chance, which I understand. But again, is it in the spirit of the
college game?
I know IRL that happens that some players can be cut but that's for off the
court problems, not on the court. I believe so anyway.
And you could still cut walkons, even from the previous season, once the season
is init, up to training camps. That's still gives you lot of room to operate.
Well, I think I won't convince you because you have a different approach of the
recruiting than me, which is ok. It's just that having not the same strategy,
we don't understand each other. :)
Date: Fri Oct 6 12:25:34 2006
Sender: Kevin Caery
I'm also more oriented toward the college football sim, and in CCEL we have to
have at least 15 walk-ons to have a full roster. I can say that being able to
cut walk-ons in the offseason for the chance at better ones is very realistic:
every college team has open walk-on tryouts every year, and you have to bring
in new ones to try them out, especially since they make up a greater portion of
our rosters than in RL.
Date: Fri Oct 6 12:39:07 2006
Sender: Laurent Boudias
You are right that CCEL might be different and since I will have my first real
pre-season with Cornell, I may have to operate like you, in order to get better
players... :)
That would be a shame after all I said here. hehe
Date: Fri Oct 6 12:55:58 2006
Sender: Kevin Caery
There's no shame in cutting guys like these:
S.Lesnick TB Fr 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 3 7
J.Young DE Fr 0 1 1 2 5 2 3 7 10
C.Shuford PK Fr 1 2 15
Date: Fri Oct 6 13:17:47 2006
Sender: Laurent Boudias
True! Man, they suck. :)
Date: Fri Oct 6 14:55:43 2006
Sender: Gregor Ellis
IRL college coaches have been known to cut kids on scholarship just to make
room for a better recruit who expesses interest late in the game (can't
remember who, but one midwestern school's coach cut a reserve Senior on
Scholarship because he had some 4 star recruit who had changed his mind and
decided to go to that school but wasn't willing to walk-on for a year). If you
want to be in the spirit - that's it.
IRL top college teams like ND and USC in football and UNC and Kansas in
basketball stockpile potential starters all the time. For football, a team like
Kansas State in their glory years under Bill Snyder almost never could land
more than 2-3 4-star players a year (C A in CCEL terms) even with several
top-20 finishes in a row. You can argue that there is more talent available in
the real world and that the underlying assumptions for DEL's recruit pool
generation are a bit out of whack but the college recruiting process in general
seems to be pretty solid to me.
Note - I'm still voting for (c).
Date: Fri Oct 6 16:39:58 2006
Sender: Laurent Boudias
Yes you made my point, cutting a player to make some room for a better recruit.
Cutting players during recruiting is ok. :)
Date: Fri Oct 6 16:43:06 2006
Sender: Red Burley
Late to the thread as always . . .
I vote for (c), leave things as they are. Until I can cut scholarship players,
I see no reason to limit my ability to weed out deadwood.
I am curious why some people think it is bad to cut players prior to init to
get more walkons? It may not be terribly realistic, but is it unethical? I dont
see it that way. . . .
Date: Fri Oct 6 17:19:29 2006
Sender: David Rogers
Well, certainly not unethical.
Coaches are there to win, not make philosophy statements.
especially since our players are not ... REAL people.
:-)
Date: Fri Oct 6 19:57:30 2006
Sender: Laurent Boudias
Red, more walkons doesn't mean better players. Someone better in the know can
confirm or reject my statement, but I believe that the best walkons you can
have are the first going to your team. So if you have 3 spots avail and want to
cut 2 more, well the 2 extra spots will be for 2 walkons that are worse than
the first 3. So to me it's not useful to cut players. Now Kevin says it's
useful in CCEL, I don't want to argue that, I don't know.
Date: Fri Oct 6 20:09:42 2006
Sender: Dave Wick
As Kevin pointed out above, they are only the "best" walk ons based on the sims
idea of "best".
I've had walkons show up that are listed below another walkon at the position
(I'm assuming they show up in the order they are assigned) that was better for
my team than the guy ahead of him. So, I don't agree that the sim necessarily
gives you what you would consider the best guys, though it tries to give you
the best guys.
Date: Fri Oct 6 21:41:22 2006
Sender: Gregor Ellis
- DEL walkons aren't RL walkons but also players who are dying to play for your
team.
- IRL football at least there are 85 scholarships nominally available and
players on schollie who bust, or just aren't as good as the incoming crop, can
be cut. It doesn't happen often but it does happen. Note: I am not proposing
this for DEL and I think the NCAA rule should go back to the way it was when
teams had 105+ scholarships (scholarships were guaranteed 4 year contracts
whether the kid was on the team or not so long as he was at the school).
- IRL football, rosters really aren't limited so coaches persuade lots of kids
to walkon and have a chance to earn a scholarship.
While I understand the objection to cutting players threatening to transfer,
that should be solvable by just defining that flag as uncut-able just like the
scholarship flag is. If that's not possible ... (c)
Date: Sat Oct 7 16:11:04 2006
Sender: Red Burley
Laurent, I understand the way walkons work . . . and sometimes the 5th-best
walkon I get can be more useful then that CB walkon from last year who turned
into a DD after T-camp.
I try to view walkons as "gravy", I try not to depend on them to fill important
roster spots. For me, getting walkons is playing with the house's money, and if
there is a way I can get $500 from the house, why should I settle for $100? :-)
Date: Sat Oct 7 21:03:10 2006
Sender: Laurent Boudias
ok ok, got it now! :)
Date: Sun Oct 8 01:01:01 2006
Sender: Gregor Ellis
C'est bon!
Date: Sun Oct 8 06:57:48 2006
Sender: Scott McEntire
I just can't help but picture Andy reading through this thread, laughing, and
saying "Yes, I wound them up quite nicely!" Then throwing his head backwards
and laughing heartily with a nice "MWAHAHAHAHAHA"...
Date: Wed Oct 11 19:02:01 2006
Sender: Gregor Ellis
So this thread looks played out - any decisions made yet?
Date: Fri Oct 13 02:58:36 2006
Sender: Konrad Ciborowski
I definitely don't like the possibility to make players disappear from the game
forever by cutting them. So my preference is (b) but, if possible, the cut
players should go back to the recruiting pool.
Date: Fri Oct 13 13:38:21 2006
Sender: Kent Ostby
Andy?
Date: Fri Oct 13 15:18:02 2006
Sender: David Rogers
Mr. Dolphin, you are wanted at the front desk ...
Date: Sat Oct 14 07:07:45 2006
Sender: John Fitzpatrick
You know, when I first came to this site, oh, I don't know, 8 years ago? One
of the big positives DEL had was it was already pretty realistic, and Andy was
doing alot of work to make it even moreso. Andy has a phenomenal site here,
and I will probably always have teams here as long as I am living. What I am
about to say is not a shot to Andy, or a complaint, merely a thought. I think
the fact that the sim is at a standstill, so to speak, in terms of development
and improvement is unfortunate, and sometimes frustrating. I know how busy
Andy is, and am not questioning the fact that he has a life. My point stems
simply from a video gaming standpoint. Back in the early '90s, games like
Madden was so simplistic, dolphinsim seemed like the be all end all of sporting
experience. Now, sports video games are so involved, I can play Madden and set
ticket prices, be the GM, advertise, hire coaches, trade, handle drafting and
FAs, and, I can do so online against others if I choose. I think that
development of those games, coupled with the lack of improvement here has
hindered a bit newer, younger owners coming to the site. I know if I was 21
years old right now and found this site for the first time, with the
capabilities of video games, I might not even think twice about staying here,
I'd probably use my demo seasons and leave.
This is more just something to think of than a real complaint. I love playing
here now against everybody, and won't leave. Even though life causes me to
spend ALOT less time here than I used to spend here, a fact you can plainly see
in my teams' performances. I have no numbers as far as new coach sign up and
retention, but I guess what I am saying is, maybe the time is coming for Andy
to take some time and make some of these 'gaming' processes(recruiting, free
agency) more realistic for the possibility of finding more new owners. If he
simply doesn't have the time, thats understandable.
Date: Tue Oct 17 06:37:06 2006
Sender: Kevin Caery
I don't know about all that... Video games, particularly college football ones
with recruiting, were pretty sophisticated when I joined about 5 years ago, but
DEL offered a community & competition aspect that I couldn't get playing PS2
alone in my apartment--and it still does. It is too bad the sim isn't evolving
like it was for my first few years here, but football at least is at a pretty
stable point, without any major bugs or exploitable weaknesses, and there are
at least 4 pro leagues now that weren't here back then.
Now, the actual game of football has continued to evolve, notably the role of
the "dual threat" QB, and it would be interesting to see how effective mobile
QBs would change the dynamic of the sim, but I don't want to see changes just
for the purpose of bringing in new coaches. There are a heck of a lot of
paying customers who aren't going away anytime soon.
Date: Tue Oct 17 21:44:51 2006
Sender: Andy Dolphin
Thanks for your feedback. It's clearly ideal from your views that cut players
have a chance of being re-recruited. From the programming standpoint, it's a
real pain as the college sim keeps two distinct player databases. (This is why
college player ID numbers change when they get recruited.)
Probably, the solution is to combine the databases into one, then send cut
college players back into the recruiting list. It'll take some time to hash it
all out though.
Date: Wed Oct 18 12:46:18 2006
Sender: AJ Perko
Whats funny is when I was playing video games, I used to wish a game like
Dolphinsim existed.
Before I even found it I used to try to imagine how my ideal team would rank
with numbers for similar attributes in my head.
I'm hoping someday something similar to Dolphinsim can be played out on a
screen. Madden on "Coach" mode doesn't quite get it done.
Dolphin Simulation Games is not responsible for the content of posts.
Please report any offensive messages to help@dolphinsim.com.
