All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > What the problem with recruit generation?
5/23/2013 8:52 AM
Posted by acn24 on 5/23/2013 8:32:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tbird9423 on 5/23/2013 12:42:00 AM (view original):
Would anyone disagree with making promises count more?  Come to my house or bring me to your school, great.  Gurantee I am a starter and you more likely have a deal.  Seems like now it works the other way around?
If there is a corresponding increase in the punishment of breaking promises (increase transfer rates, reduce or eliminate the value of promises in subsequent recruiting periods, etc), then no problem.

It may be tougher to program, but I'd like FR to have some expectation of PT too, although on a sliding scale. Currently, you can sign the #1 player in the county and play him 0 minutes all season and he won't complain. There should be some level of expectation, varied among recruits and tied to a team's prestige. So the top player may want 10 minutes at an A+ or A, 15 minutes at an A-, 20 at a B+, start + 20 minutes at a B or below. Some guys may be fine with the current system, some should want to start wherever they go.
agree completely
5/23/2013 9:06 AM
Posted by stinenavy on 5/22/2013 7:40:00 PM (view original):
Some good posts in this thread.

Few notes:

1) smackawits does seem very negative on the site staff. And why shouldn't he? There's been very little done to improve the game over the last few years.

2) Bringing up the Big 6 in the PIT thing was pretty funny. It gives the conference $417 per team game played, a drop in the bucket. The postseason cash is an issue worth fighting on though. If I want to make Delaware St a dynasty, I'm greatly inhibited because the Big 6 teams are getting an extra $20,000 - $40,000 for recruiting.

3) I think the hiring logic is fine. The firing logic is just horrible. It makes it hard to move up within the D1 ranks when PIT appearances can keep people at A+ prestige jobs.
I think the prestige bump (up for the mid-major; down for the big-6 conference) is actually more inportant than the money.  However, every little bit allows you to use the FSS more.
5/23/2013 10:14 AM
Posted by smackawits on 5/23/2013 9:06:00 AM (view original):
Posted by stinenavy on 5/22/2013 7:40:00 PM (view original):
Some good posts in this thread.

Few notes:

1) smackawits does seem very negative on the site staff. And why shouldn't he? There's been very little done to improve the game over the last few years.

2) Bringing up the Big 6 in the PIT thing was pretty funny. It gives the conference $417 per team game played, a drop in the bucket. The postseason cash is an issue worth fighting on though. If I want to make Delaware St a dynasty, I'm greatly inhibited because the Big 6 teams are getting an extra $20,000 - $40,000 for recruiting.

3) I think the hiring logic is fine. The firing logic is just horrible. It makes it hard to move up within the D1 ranks when PIT appearances can keep people at A+ prestige jobs.
I think the prestige bump (up for the mid-major; down for the big-6 conference) is actually more inportant than the money.  However, every little bit allows you to use the FSS more.
Also agree with the prestige being more important than cash bonuses.

Higher prestige not only helps you win battles, but i would argue it does a better job scaring off potential battlers since it's posted right with your team name and doesn't require calculation and 24 clicks to figure out.

One of the biggest reasons the big schools dominate is because multiple smaller schools have to challenge them at once to have any shot at bringing them down. Anything to increase these challenges would help, and lowering the importance of prestige should do this in the long run.
5/23/2013 11:00 AM
I believe that recruit generation is fine, and that it is the recruiting process itself that is the problem.  These things have been discussed ad nauseum in these parts, but I believe, as do many others, that there ought to be a minimum amount you need to spend to land a certain caliber of player.
5/23/2013 11:04 AM
Posted by smackawits on 5/23/2013 9:06:00 AM (view original):
Posted by stinenavy on 5/22/2013 7:40:00 PM (view original):
Some good posts in this thread.

Few notes:

1) smackawits does seem very negative on the site staff. And why shouldn't he? There's been very little done to improve the game over the last few years.

2) Bringing up the Big 6 in the PIT thing was pretty funny. It gives the conference $417 per team game played, a drop in the bucket. The postseason cash is an issue worth fighting on though. If I want to make Delaware St a dynasty, I'm greatly inhibited because the Big 6 teams are getting an extra $20,000 - $40,000 for recruiting.

3) I think the hiring logic is fine. The firing logic is just horrible. It makes it hard to move up within the D1 ranks when PIT appearances can keep people at A+ prestige jobs.
I think the prestige bump (up for the mid-major; down for the big-6 conference) is actually more inportant than the money.  However, every little bit allows you to use the FSS more.
The prestige is probably more important, but like the money is almost completely irrelevant. Maybe a PI Final Four is enough to shift a third of a grade, but one or two PI games probably won't make a difference.
5/23/2013 1:56 PM
Someone already stated this earlier in the thread, but a major problem is empty conferences run by mindless sims. There should be a way to make the sim teams operate better, at least add variability to what they do coaching wise. Give sims the ability to really play the game in absence of human coaches (some moderate level of competition. what level that is I wouldn't know but better than it is now) so that conference strength can live up to its potential. I encourage coaches to go out and recruit for their conferences because it's really the only way midmajors and low end D1's can compete... and it takes 12 great human coaches all on the same page at that. But as someone responded before, why should they have to do that?
 
I've seen some gutsy mid-major coaches recruit 5star top tier guys... sometimes it takes all their budget but they can pull at least that one guy that could make a difference and build around him with good or great players. If the sims could actually coach and recruit well then I feel personally the playing field would even out a bit... not too much but enough to cut some of the complaints about money and recruit generation. Why an A- Big 6 school run by a sim would recruit a player with 8 ATH and 2 DEF is beyond me and flat out ridiculous. A player like that shouldn't even have been created because the only team that would recruit him would be a mindless sim.

If the key to recruiting well is money and prestige, then don't handicap the sims to the point where it blatantly affects everyone else who may be in an empty mid-major or even an empty Big 6 going through a transition period where pretty much any human coach who'd want the position isn't qualified to take it. Just my opinion but if possible, as I'm no programmer, a sim upgrade may help the recruiting issues... it would at worst make the game more competitive.  
5/23/2013 11:58 PM
I like acns idea and think not only does it help solve the problem but it makes the game more interesting as well. If that is too difficult to implement, seems like could at least require a limit for the better guys to be willing to sign
5/24/2013 12:14 AM
Require some minimum recruiting effort to sign starred recruits. For example:

5-star: $15,000
4-star: $12,000
3-star: $9,000
2-star: $6,000
1-star: $3,000
0-star: No minimum required.

It's kind of silly that a Top 10 recruit can be signed for $1000.

This would force elite teams to flush out some of their cash during recruiting.

Not in favor in eliminating or lessening the importance of prestige. Prestige matters for one thing and one thing only: recruiting clout. Despite making back-to-back national title games, Butler did not start signing a slew of 4 and 5 star recruits. Their "prestige" did not improve significantly. The bigger problem is the lack of the type of recruit that a mid-major can sign that will allow them to be competitive with the Big 6 schools. Whether this means having more high-potential type recruits with lower initial ratings, or increasing the importance of IQ, or having riskier type players with good ratings (i.e. something like dilemmas) is open to debate. 


5/24/2013 9:49 AM
Posted by professor17 on 5/24/2013 12:14:00 AM (view original):
Require some minimum recruiting effort to sign starred recruits. For example:

5-star: $15,000
4-star: $12,000
3-star: $9,000
2-star: $6,000
1-star: $3,000
0-star: No minimum required.

It's kind of silly that a Top 10 recruit can be signed for $1000.

This would force elite teams to flush out some of their cash during recruiting.

Not in favor in eliminating or lessening the importance of prestige. Prestige matters for one thing and one thing only: recruiting clout. Despite making back-to-back national title games, Butler did not start signing a slew of 4 and 5 star recruits. Their "prestige" did not improve significantly. The bigger problem is the lack of the type of recruit that a mid-major can sign that will allow them to be competitive with the Big 6 schools. Whether this means having more high-potential type recruits with lower initial ratings, or increasing the importance of IQ, or having riskier type players with good ratings (i.e. something like dilemmas) is open to debate. 


I don't like the minimum dollar amount because it makes recruiting even more formulaic and math driven.
5/24/2013 11:17 AM
the other problem with money limits is that everything runs off credit. to make a fixed amount to get considered regardless of distance or prestige really makes no sense, in the context of HD recruiting. 

in and of itself, im not totally against effort limits to get considered, well, they already exist - but higher, more meaningful ones. but i dont think it solves the problem. even with any limits you can impose, if you actually fill those d1 worlds back up to the 160-200 range, it would be literally impossible for mid majors to put together a quality team. ok, not literally, but with a smart mid major coach in every area, you wouldnt be able to get by finding what falls through in a big 1000 mile circle. the people who make it at mid majors today are generally taking advantage of the fact that d1 is a ghost town and you can reach far out for mid major players. fill it up, and it would be like playing in the BCS conference - you cant go into other BCS areas and take BCS players, at least, generally speaking. d1 should work with 200 people like it used to, and considering limits simply dont make that possible.
5/24/2013 11:40 AM
I don't know if I agree with that (am I allowed to say that). I do think spending or effort limits that were drastically higher for top tier guys would actually open up bcs recruits to mid majors because the top teams would no longer be able to assume they can get recruits for low dollars. If that were the case, I think teams would have to be more deliberate on who and when they spend their cash. Even though they would still have way more money, if I am at duke with four open scholarships, I need to spend wisely on battles because I need to keep money in reserve to meet minimum effort levels on my other 3 spots? Right now, if a top tier team is in a battle for one or two recruits, they can pour money into those and sign the other guys cheaply. This results in me paying way more to land a no star recruit than top schools are paying to land four star recuits? Whether we are talking money spent or effort, that doesn't seem right.
5/24/2013 11:52 AM
Posted by tbird9423 on 5/24/2013 11:40:00 AM (view original):
I don't know if I agree with that (am I allowed to say that). I do think spending or effort limits that were drastically higher for top tier guys would actually open up bcs recruits to mid majors because the top teams would no longer be able to assume they can get recruits for low dollars. If that were the case, I think teams would have to be more deliberate on who and when they spend their cash. Even though they would still have way more money, if I am at duke with four open scholarships, I need to spend wisely on battles because I need to keep money in reserve to meet minimum effort levels on my other 3 spots? Right now, if a top tier team is in a battle for one or two recruits, they can pour money into those and sign the other guys cheaply. This results in me paying way more to land a no star recruit than top schools are paying to land four star recuits? Whether we are talking money spent or effort, that doesn't seem right.
definitely allowed to say that!!

i dont see how any of this makes the mid major teams better, although it would even out things in the BCS range a bit. thats good in terms of closing the gap between mid majors and top teams, but bad in terms of top mid majors competing with mid range BCS schools. besides, how "drastically" are you talking? its a lot easier to talk specifics... if you are suggesting something like professor posted, or more like 40k to sign a guy from 100 miles on an A+, its a drastically different conversation :)

i cant see the elite players dropping out of BCS ranks, except in very rare circumstances, even with bigger spending requirements. that almost makes it harder for mid majors to even try for those players, because losing would be both likely and catastrophic. it seems to me all that would happen is mid and top range BCS schools would swap some players. the low star guys the mid tier BCS guys were getting would become more valuable, grabbed by the top BCS schools, to make up for signing fewer elite players. the mid range BCS guys clearly are the winners for the elite players that drop, but then what trickles down to mid majors? i dont see it, but im very interested in this general concept, and would love to talk more specifically if you have a specific suggestion.
5/24/2013 12:47 PM
I think you are right and I do think it requires much higher limits on the top guys which the mids aren't competing for anyways. It could be a sliding scale and wish I had more specifics but admittedly don't. I think the reason high levels schools are set up to receive so many advantages over mids is because they should be spending way more on recruits than they currently have to. How do we get the top schools to pay more for recuiting 4 4-star recruits than a team recruiting 4 "starless" recuits. Currently that is not the case. I too like thid thread and appreciate it staying positive.
5/24/2013 12:55 PM
When we talk about minimal effort, are we trying to take prestige out of the equation? I think that would throw a HUGE monkey wrench into all of this.

I have still yet to see the person who thinks increased value to promises is NOT a good solution.
5/24/2013 7:39 PM
Posted by jetwildcat on 5/24/2013 12:55:00 PM (view original):
When we talk about minimal effort, are we trying to take prestige out of the equation? I think that would throw a HUGE monkey wrench into all of this.

I have still yet to see the person who thinks increased value to promises is NOT a good solution.
its a good partial solution, my ideal recruiting scheme would definitely have promising playing a larger role. but its not enough to make up for the massive problems in d1 recruiting today.
of 4
All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > What the problem with recruit generation?

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.