I've spent a lot of time in mid-major and low-BCS schools during my tenure always trying to break into some of the schools I would really like to play, so that probably colors my opinion about this significantly. For that reason, I would like to hear your opinions about what I believe to be the most significant problem in recruiting, and more importantly, the game as a whole.

I've read some of the threads about the recruiting updates but not all of it, so bear with me if I repeat something that may have been already beat in the ground. I noticed that seble pinpointed the lack of battling for recruits as an issue and I wholeheartedly agree - but I feel like the root cause was only slightly acknowledged and not given it's due.

IMO - the lack of battling is overwhelmingly due to the penalty for losing a battle is so severe. Recruiting battles, all too often, become an all or nothing affair and are super high-risk for a team looking to build. 

I would like to see a system that would give coaches some additional recruiting funds after the signing period begins. The problem I see with just adding additional funds, is that in most cases- coaches would probably just use that in the ongoing battle. 

So I purpose two changes to remedy this issue...

1) Battles should be decided in a shorter time frame. 

2) Coaches who lose a battle should get a small percentage of that cash back, like 10% or maybe a fixed sum - like $1000.

What say ye?

one could always decide not to spend everything

Posted by fd343ny on 10/6/2015 11:49:00 AM (view original):
one could always decide not to spend everything

You could, but that is a very difficult choice when you are in a close battle for a big recruit. And, quite frankly, it doesn't work now. The reality is that there is very little battling for recruits and I believe the issue is the all-or-nothing nature of it. If you do something to lessen that- battling will increase.

Recruiting is about making smart decisions.

You are asking for HD to allocate extra money to account for your bad decisions.

You know your budget...YOU know if you need to keep money stowed in case you lose. It's your responsibility.

second - don't go into battles you don't think you can win.

Too many coaches do a crappy job analyzing the choices in front of them and making the correct decision.

I don't think the solution is more money. The solution is better recruit generation.

If lower-rated recruits were more likely to have "blue" potential in key categories (i.e. a low rated guard being statistically more likely to have blues in speed, per, bh, pass, etc), they would make better backup recruiting options. They may not start right away, but they would grow into competitive players. 

If those kind of players were the backup recruiting options, guys would be more likely to battle, knowing that they could still get a decent player if they failed.  To me, the greatest risk in a recruiting battle isn't the lost money, as much as it the inability to land a decent backup option. It turns into feast or famine. 

improved recruit generation 

plus enhanced preferences, texture in recruits 

plus pipelines

plus more weight to promises

Battles are rarely all-or-nothing affairs.  Most of the time, if you enter the battle, both coaches can tell who would win, so the other coach backs off.  Sometimes, if a coach enters into too many of these "I would win if we both maxed out" kind of situations, you can get him to back off because if he knows you're going to go all-in, he doesn't want to.  Recruiting is very much a signaling game, rather than a simple auction.  Most "battles" are resolved early because of the signaling from two (or more) coaches.  The battles you're referring to nole are ones where both coaches think they have an adequate enough chance to win to justify going all-out (or something like that) on the recruit.  I'd say those battles are actually very rare when compared to the other signaling battles most coaches engage in.  

it is more like poker or bridge than a pure auction

Posted by tkimble on 10/6/2015 3:02:00 PM (view original):
Battles are rarely all-or-nothing affairs.  Most of the time, if you enter the battle, both coaches can tell who would win, so the other coach backs off.  Sometimes, if a coach enters into too many of these "I would win if we both maxed out" kind of situations, you can get him to back off because if he knows you're going to go all-in, he doesn't want to.  Recruiting is very much a signaling game, rather than a simple auction.  Most "battles" are resolved early because of the signaling from two (or more) coaches.  The battles you're referring to nole are ones where both coaches think they have an adequate enough chance to win to justify going all-out (or something like that) on the recruit.  I'd say those battles are actually very rare when compared to the other signaling battles most coaches engage in.  

Pretty much what is happening but multiple battles against anybody sometimes make an owner more vulnerable.

There's really no reason battles need to be decided by money (scouting, sure).  Battles could be decided by a combination of prestige, skill, regional preferences of the recruit, and luck.  Right now I think only prestige and money really matter (skill is limited mostly to knowing whether to use HVs or CVs, at least when we talk about battling for a single recruit and not managing the whole recruiting process).  If the new changes add something to the skill and regional preferences categories, and limit the number of HVs/CVs per recruit, then it will go a long way towards making recruiting (at D1) into a game of skill and less one of relying on past success.