Posted by andystender on 5/10/2015 7:01:00 AM (view original):
I love the idea of a minimum recruiting dollars for top recruits!  Right now an A+ school can have the top 5 recruits in a region considering them for only a couple grand a piece.  That leaves a ton of money in reserve for anyone who is dumb enough to go after one of their guys. In the end  they sign all of those guys for cheap and carryover a bunch of money for next season.  If they had to spend let's say 10k on each guy to get considered they would have a much smaller reserve to protect their recruits.  Let's say that A+ team started with 100k to recruit with.  Currently they could lock everyone up for 10-20k depending on distance.  Knowing they have 80-90k in reserve makes it a known losing proposition to battle for any of the recruits, but if they had to spend 50k+ to get considered by the top recruits now they are much more vulnerable to someone willing to go all in to battle for one of their guys.  Once one person decides to battle it can turn into an avalanche with that A+ school with less reserves now in a battle making the other recruits even more vulnerable.  I think the minimum recruiting effort idea would not allow A+ schools to go after as many recruits which would open up more talent for everyone else.  

I do have a problem with all of the fatalistic posts stating that it is impossible to succeed with the current system.  How did all of the coaches who are at A+ schools get there?  They didn't win a WIS lottery to land an A+ school.  These coaches worked their way through the current system building up their prestige until they arrived at an A+ just like anyone else could do.  Some of these coaches have been at their A+ school forever and maybe it was easier back then, that was before my time.  I do see new A+ programs all the time.  I just built Oregon to an A+(well I am really only an A, but the draft put me at A+ for this season) in Tark.  If I can do it anyone can do it.  I think the problem is people have no patience.  It does take awhile to work your way through the system (and maybe that is a problem), but it is certainly not impossible.  It was fun for me the entire way because I set goals for each season.  When I was a D prestige low mid major my goal was to win double digit games so I could improve my HCA.  When I was a C prestige my goal was to make the post season.  When I was a B prestige my goal was to make the NT and then win a game.  All along the goal is always to increase your prestige.  When I was a low big 6 team and I had a goal of just making the NT it didn't bother me so much that I knew I was going to get crushed by the big boys in the conference.  By  making the post season each year I was able to continue raising my prestige until I was slowly able to compete with the big boys.

Well said. It is definitely possible to work your way through the current system. When you have a low prestige, you just need to focus on the players that get passed over by the powerhouses, and focus on players that have a ton of potential. Then you will win lots of games in a couple of years, then your prestige will be in the range where you can compete. 

I also like the idea of minimum recruiting dollars. I also think that there should not be such big differences in recruiting costs for longer distances. That would probably increase the competition for the top players.

Sorry, haven't read the whole thread, so maybe this has already been mentioned. And I'm not that proficient on D1 in general ... but

Seems to me teams need to be invested to continue to battle for top recruits. There needs to be a limit on the number of ST, HV. and CV per cycle ... a limit that is enough that almost all 5 stars, and most 4 stars will not be considering ANY school after just one cycle.

Posted by phalla on 5/10/2015 12:09:00 PM (view original):
Sorry, haven't read the whole thread, so maybe this has already been mentioned. And I'm not that proficient on D1 in general ... but

Seems to me teams need to be invested to continue to battle for top recruits. There needs to be a limit on the number of ST, HV. and CV per cycle ... a limit that is enough that almost all 5 stars, and most 4 stars will not be considering ANY school after just one cycle.

Now this would be interesting.

The problem with limiting effort per cycle is that it would become a competition to see who could be on the website the most cycles during recruiting to put in effort.  For people who may not have access 24/7 due to work or other issues, recruiting top prospects becomes impossible.  For WIS, they would never want to put impossible barriers up for those who can't be on all the time because they would end up losing their business.  

Edit: added stuff

You could do 12 hour or 24 limits, but then you can pretty easily tell who is going to win a battle from the outset.  Top D1 coaches would easily be able to do the calculations and you may see even fewer battle because it'd be easier to see who would win the battle- you only have to consider distance/prestige instead of distance/prestige/money.  The limiting effort per cycle or per 12 hours or whatever also takes away the poaching aspect of the game, which takes away any threat of harm if you over extend yourself.

Limits per cycle would harm recruiting wayyyy more than it would help it.  The top teams could pick and choose which guys they wanted and we'd see far fewer battles.

Big time recruits in real life are way less likely to have allegiance to a team close to home. A #1 recruit in the nation would probably not attend Minnesota just because he is 10 miles from campus. He'd be touring on the AAU circuit and be visiting UNC, UCLA, Kentucky, and Indiana.

My suggestion is make the top 10 or top 5 recruits easy to recruit nationally. That would pit some of the bigger schools against each other in battles and leave opportunities for other schools to be able to land top recruit's since they are more likely to be able to battle with big schools. Currently it's just a game of who can get the best recruits generated in their area.

Posted by phalla on 5/10/2015 12:09:00 PM (view original):
Sorry, haven't read the whole thread, so maybe this has already been mentioned. And I'm not that proficient on D1 in general ... but

Seems to me teams need to be invested to continue to battle for top recruits. There needs to be a limit on the number of ST, HV. and CV per cycle ... a limit that is enough that almost all 5 stars, and most 4 stars will not be considering ANY school after just one cycle.

so then its alarm clock dynasty to see who sleeps thru a cycle first...

Posted by timjmiller on 5/10/2015 1:16:00 PM (view original):
Big time recruits in real life are way less likely to have allegiance to a team close to home. A #1 recruit in the nation would probably not attend Minnesota just because he is 10 miles from campus. He'd be touring on the AAU circuit and be visiting UNC, UCLA, Kentucky, and Indiana.

My suggestion is make the top 10 or top 5 recruits easy to recruit nationally. That would pit some of the bigger schools against each other in battles and leave opportunities for other schools to be able to land top recruit's since they are more likely to be able to battle with big schools. Currently it's just a game of who can get the best recruits generated in their area.

This is an interesting idea that I want to expand on.  Maybe there's a "Recruit Caliber Type" category...the top 5 players at each position are considered "National Recruits" meaning it doesn't matter school attempts to recruit the player it's treated as if they were 360 miles away because everyone is "familiar with this national recruit". 

This would get the top schools with most month battling for the top recruits, thus opening the door lower-Big 6 and Mid-Majors to have an opportunity to go for other recruits OR maybe forcing top schools to spend more on the top recruits and limit the rollover.

Taking this a step further maybe recruits ranked 6-10 for each position would be considered regional recruits (West, Central, Southeast, Northeast) and any school within the region would recruit as if the recruit was 150 miles away.....

I'm just kind of thinking outloud.....

Posted by joeykw18 on 5/10/2015 7:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by timjmiller on 5/10/2015 1:16:00 PM (view original):
Big time recruits in real life are way less likely to have allegiance to a team close to home. A #1 recruit in the nation would probably not attend Minnesota just because he is 10 miles from campus. He'd be touring on the AAU circuit and be visiting UNC, UCLA, Kentucky, and Indiana.

My suggestion is make the top 10 or top 5 recruits easy to recruit nationally. That would pit some of the bigger schools against each other in battles and leave opportunities for other schools to be able to land top recruit's since they are more likely to be able to battle with big schools. Currently it's just a game of who can get the best recruits generated in their area.

This is an interesting idea that I want to expand on.  Maybe there's a "Recruit Caliber Type" category...the top 5 players at each position are considered "National Recruits" meaning it doesn't matter school attempts to recruit the player it's treated as if they were 360 miles away because everyone is "familiar with this national recruit". 

This would get the top schools with most month battling for the top recruits, thus opening the door lower-Big 6 and Mid-Majors to have an opportunity to go for other recruits OR maybe forcing top schools to spend more on the top recruits and limit the rollover.

Taking this a step further maybe recruits ranked 6-10 for each position would be considered regional recruits (West, Central, Southeast, Northeast) and any school within the region would recruit as if the recruit was 150 miles away.....

I'm just kind of thinking outloud.....

I like this idea, but don't make a "National Recruit" a 360 mile for every body....It should be the same as 1,000 or greater type dollars.  But this does exactly what is being discussed, it make the top programs have to ante up to recruit the top dogs.

that's a pretty good idea, the national recruit who has the same recruiting effort from everyone, cares only about prestige + money. really like it

Posted by tkimble on 5/10/2015 12:47:00 PM (view original):
The problem with limiting effort per cycle is that it would become a competition to see who could be on the website the most cycles during recruiting to put in effort.  For people who may not have access 24/7 due to work or other issues, recruiting top prospects becomes impossible.  For WIS, they would never want to put impossible barriers up for those who can't be on all the time because they would end up losing their business.  

Edit: added stuff

You could do 12 hour or 24 limits, but then you can pretty easily tell who is going to win a battle from the outset.  Top D1 coaches would easily be able to do the calculations and you may see even fewer battle because it'd be easier to see who would win the battle- you only have to consider distance/prestige instead of distance/prestige/money.  The limiting effort per cycle or per 12 hours or whatever also takes away the poaching aspect of the game, which takes away any threat of harm if you over extend yourself.

Limits per cycle would harm recruiting wayyyy more than it would help it.  The top teams could pick and choose which guys they wanted and we'd see far fewer battles.

Nailed it, tkimble.

Posted by dacj501 on 5/10/2015 1:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by phalla on 5/10/2015 12:09:00 PM (view original):
Sorry, haven't read the whole thread, so maybe this has already been mentioned. And I'm not that proficient on D1 in general ... but

Seems to me teams need to be invested to continue to battle for top recruits. There needs to be a limit on the number of ST, HV. and CV per cycle ... a limit that is enough that almost all 5 stars, and most 4 stars will not be considering ANY school after just one cycle.

so then its alarm clock dynasty to see who sleeps thru a cycle first...

Lmao