Transfer Portal Logic Flaws
TRANSFER PORTAL LOGIC FLAWS Note: This isn’t a hate post. Please keep comments constructive. My goal is to highlight consistent issues I’ve noticed in dynasty mode. After playing two full seasons a...
Forum Discussion
Also to add to this. Players seem to not have a clue that they will most likely be the starter next season. Had a LT transfer because of playing time, but the SR above him on the depth chart graduated. Guess who I recruited to be the starting LT next year? I was able to re-recruit my player back to the team because my playing time at the position was now an A+
It seems like the playing time dealbreaker currently only takes into account a player’s immediate playing time situation, rather than factoring in their potential opportunities for playing time in the future. This approach makes sense for seniors who need to see the field right away, but it doesn’t reflect how many younger players actually think about their careers, especially those who are two- or three-star recruits. In real life, it’s common for freshmen, particularly at larger programs that attract a lot of four- and five-star talent, to expect limited playing time during their first year and still be content with their long-term prospects. For a three-star recruit choosing a smaller school, immediate playing time might matter more, but the motivations can vary widely. That’s why it would be more realistic if each player’s transfer or commitment decision was influenced by factors like their age, projected development, star rating, and the competitive landscape of the program they’re joining. For example, Arch Manning committed to Texas knowing he’d likely sit behind Quinn Ewers for a year, but also knowing he would almost certainly be the starting quarterback in 2025. Modeling these nuances would make player decisions far more authentic and dynamic.
