Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dawgfan
Wouldn't the best solution to the big-revenue/small-revenue and scouting accuracy issue be to cap the amount you could spend on scouting and even at that highest level of scouting retain some degree of inaccuracy? A big-revenue team could overcome that inaccuracy by simply being able to absorb more bad contracts than a small-revenue team.
|
That makes sense, whether by a hard-cap or a house rule. For those (like me) who would prefer not to deal with player evaluation, it would need to be left in, but it would be easy to put in a "my scout variance must be at least +/- x points at all times" house rule, or "my scouting spending can be no better than y-highest in the league, and I must check on it to make sure that it isn't any higher than that once a month." That would take care of it quite nicely. Remember, an 80 is supposed to be an average starter type player (looking at a true 80 right now--.264-18-59), and there are *very* few players with an overall rating higher than 92 or so. (One league I'm looking at has 7 91's, 3 92's, and 1 96.) So, a +/- of even 3 points is pretty significant. Anything above five is pretty much unrealistic--a +/- 6 for a guy with a rating of 86 would mean that your scouting department can't tell you for sure if this guy is an average starter (80), or one of the top four or five players in the game today (92).