07-14-2012, 01:59 PM
|
#61
|
|
Hall Of Fame
OVR: 26
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Arizona
|
Re: Transfer Issue, it's way too low in dynasty
I'm working on simming multiple years down the road on this to see if it's gotten better. As I stated earlier, I got about 40 after Year 1 in the last couple versions of the game, and then it teetered down virtually nothing. Maybe 2-3 after that. Presumably, this was a ratings issue. Teams tended to be rated worse later in the dynasty than the default. This meant, at first there were many highly rated playing not receiving playing time, and this essentially fixed itself because everyone was rated lower and there were no 85 rated players on the bench who just had to get on the field. There were probably other issues, but that's just my theory.
Year 1:
Transfers 129 (3 for coaches leaving, 11 home sick, 115 for playing time)
For the most part, they were fairly logical. Some, not so much. The playing time things must be based on position needs, because that part of the list didn't make any sense really.
51 rated DT leaves Idaho and thinks he will find more playing time at Oregon?
49 rated LB leaves Texas State for Louisiana State?
There were other examples like that, probably 10-15 moved up from a lower league to a BCS level conference citing playing time. Has to be based on needs, but it would be nice if this formula could factor in that Oregon has NO use for a 51 rated DT. They wouldn't accept him, except maybe as a walk-on IRL and then they'd go recruit a FR who is much better.
Draft declarations: 71 (Wisconsin had 7 alone, plus 4 transfers, yikes!)
This logic was awful IMO.
Out of the 71 declaring early for the draft, 2 were projected 1st rounders, 4 were in the 2nd round, 9 in the 3rd. Now, shift down to the regular seniors leaving, and no round added up to 32. It was in the 26-29 range for rounds 1-3. I didn't count after that. Do the match, 56 of the 71 early draft declarers were projected in rounds 4-7. A bit off if you ask me. Many of the early draft declarers should have probably decided to stick around for a year rather than be taken in Round 7.
The 11 home sick players, the logic was decent, but a few didn't entirely make sense either. Most of them were far away from home and went back, fine. It's apparent that anywhere in the home state it believes will solve the issue, because some players transferred from the next state over (Tulsa to North Texas, Purdue to Illinois) and they were not really much if any closer to their home city). Does a kid from Illinois get home sick from being all the way over in Indiana? That's another discussion. I guess maybe, but it seemed to me the homesickness would be best used for players who are half the country away, which in most of the cases it was, such as a player from Texas at Boise State transferring to Houston and a player from Florida at West Virginia transferring back to South Florida.
|
|
|
