Damn, I did not know recruiting in real life was so volatile. Recruiting is fine as it is then. I mean, other than the fact that guaranteed starter bid or guaranteed minutes should weight more so the small programs can compete with DI juggernauts. A player is more likely to want to play than to sit on the bench as a backup.

a cool idea that i thought of long ago was an early signing period, maybe one that happened during the season. you can only spend a fraction of your cash and only fill a fraction of your scholarships (maybe 1/4, rounded down?), but if you can get a guy to commit you can knock one out. 

it's almost certainly too time consuming for others to be on board, but its something i would add if we had a HD on steroids 

Posted by mamxet on 11/23/2014 7:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 11/21/2014 4:12:00 PM (view original):
I believe there are already about 19 signing cycles........

Do we really need more?

++

there are a bunch of signing cycles already - and as folks know there are a few signing cycles when battles typically get resolved

a better way to describe the proposal would be to add texture to recruits by making some of them not want to sign early - just as some dont want to go to school close to home or far away

those preferences that exist now are very weak and dont make much difference.  I would love to see more recruit texture but this one isnt high on my list.  If there is too much late surges for recruits, increase considering credit. 

But wouldnt it be great if

- some recruits want to go to a warm weather school or a cold weather school
- some recruits care a lot about academics
- some want a city school, some hate that
- recruits are influenced by prior season(s) signings of other kids from their high school
-recruits are influences by prior season signings of other kids from within 50 miles of where they live

all those - and others - would be great texture.  Make it more fun.  AND also give lesser programs more of a chance to find a kid who fits their profile and would go to a midmajor that fits rather than an elite

other ideas for texture:

- give more weight to the influence of the coach loyalty.  for example, a long time coach at one school should have an advantage to some degree over first year coach at any school.  this could really help some lesser prestige schools at D1.  I also realize it can do the opposite - make the strong schools even stronger.  It probably would mean more at D2 and D3.  I have always thought that it's kinda dumb when a great coach leaves a D3 school to another D3 school and has to start all over again with prestige (they should bring some of that prestige with them IMO)

- factor in type offense and defense by school into recruits decision process.  obviously kids like to go to place they fit - and this would be one way to incorporate that. 

In 'real life' there does seem to be a factor as to what shoe contract the school has.  how about adding that element?!
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/11672004/rick-pitino-wants-eliminate-influence-athletic-shoe-companies-recruiting

I like some of these texture ideas (academics, prior season signings, types of offense/defense).  I'd like them to be taken in conjunction with a recruiting system that places more emphasis on scouting/research and a team's current depth chart than to offering repetitive and unlimited CVs and HVs.   I would like recruiting a player to require coaches commit (via drop downs on the current recruiting page) to a position, role (full time starter, part time starter, backup, etc.) and playing time before the recruit would consider the school.  All recruits would have a level of expectation (which could range from full time starter to none at all) based on the prestige level of the school recruiting them and some of the five-star players might refuse to consider a program if the coach isn't willing to commit to a full time starter spot choosing instead to sign with an equally high level prestige school that is willing to offer what the player expects.

If you wanted it to be more "Life Like" have D1 have their final signing period done before D2 and D3. That way D1 wont jump in on guys that D2 went after hard, Could then have D2 end a day before D3. That way all battles could be created equal and all the drop downs can occur once the signing periods are done. 

Posted by zorzii on 11/22/2014 9:36:00 AM (view original):
The only way to prevent poaching, even if I think there is no poaching really, is to make it harder for people coming into the last cycle to get considered by a recruit who has decided he wants to join a specific team. If it is not already implemented, they need to do so. In reality, I can't imagine a player getting ready to play for a team, and at the last minute, changing his mind... He already visited the campus, met the coach, discussed what would be is involvement into the team's offense and defense, made contact with the University for his academic studies etc.

It's been my understanding that for every cycle that a player considers a school, there is a fractional weight added to their decision.  (Correct me if I'm wrong on that, I'm going on a memory that has seen better days).  For Sim recruits, I also understood that they add some effort every cycle, making it harder to steal one late in the process than early.

If this is true, wouldn't altering the consideration weight make the SIM even stronger than now?  They already have a major distance advantage.  Why make it worse?

When is the considering credit applied? Anyone know? First night? Second night? Regularly?
Do you have to be in the lead to get it, or is it just considering?

Adding on to some of the ideas already posted, it could be a nice change if they tracked team GPA and that essentially gave you an 'Academics' grade for recruiting. Some recruits would have a baseline grade for considering a school (or some penalty applied to schools that are under the baseline), and give teams who commit to study hall hours or are recruiting good students an advantage going for those players. 
I like the idea of pipelines, where having players on your roster from a certain state gives you an FSS discount, or a bonus for recruiting a player who played with one of yours in high school (as long as it's a small bonus maybe similar to the favorite school and proximity bonus since it's so random anyway). 
I also think there should be more diversity in what recruits want. It seems like promised minutes and starts don't account for much in recruiting, this could vary a lot more where some players really don't care about it, and others want to start and play. If there was a way to use something like the player roles to grade players at each position based on their ratings and class which the recruits would factor into their role on the team. If a player saw a stud sophomore in front of him then maybe that team would get a penalty when trying to recruit him.
Just some ideas.