This has come up in our PBEM as well, with some teams (including my own) going for really low wins because we can't win the championship. If we have the right number of wins, we draft early, we get junior transfers, and we still get in the tourney (for points).

I like the idea of simultaneous. I might be able to rig up something like that for the google spreadsheet that we're using. Because really, no team is going to go for fewer wins than they could naturally get.

Well - in the pros, that's not always true. There's always talk of teams "tanking it" so they can get better draft picks (and, that's kinda similar to what we're emulating here).

I'm not so worried about the PBEM -- I did it to learn the game, and on that front, it's successful. I envision playing this mostly as a face-to-face game or solitaire...so the order *is* important there (well, not so much for the solo game, I guess! :blush

We're playing a college game, and we'd lose our jobs if we were throwing the season, so it feels wrong, thematically, for this to happen.

I see myself playing this game mostly via email, so it makes a big difference for me here.

True, but *thematically* we wouldn't be selecting players in order of worst record either. In fact, just the opposite - recruits would be attracted to more successful programs.

That's why there's a disconnect. The game's method of adding players is, essentially, a pro league draft -- I understand why it needs to be that way, as compared to having 'recruits' - but it's also why the game lends itself to the decisions you've seen -- willingly taking a few less victory points to ensure a better draft pick the following season.

And, if college operated like the pros (in terms of adding players) - you wouldn't lose your job when your efforts rewarded you with the top pick...

Yeah, the hybrid of pro actions in a college game is a bit problematic. I think the only way to truly mimic college actions is to give picks based on championships and victories. Teams that win it all should get the first several picks, before anyone else goes at all. Teams who lose more games should go last, after all other picks have been made.

But, of course, that makes for a good simulation and a poor game. The good teams stay good and the bad teams stay bad (kinda like real life). But since this IS a simulation, the solution is simple: adjust the victory point formulas. If you let the better teams pick first, there is no incentive to lose games to "game the system." But to offset that, the good teams should get fewer and fewer victory points.

For instance, those top teams (Kentucky) should get something like 5 points for winning a national championship and 2 for making the tourney (and -25 for not making the tourney). Lower teams should get 100 points for winning it all and 20 points for making it to The Show. Then, you take a mediocre team and do about average and you'd get the same game score (VPs) as a great team that does what they should do--win it all over and over again.

Or, do away with the team rankings all together - have everyone start on equal footing.


Chris