Whatifsports.com - Forums: Time to overhaul recruiting

1/7/2013 4:42 PM

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Rookie

Posts: 269 (0)

MLB - 2 HD - 104 HBD - 1

As emy said, the ACC hasn't won a title in Iba in a long time. Heck, the A10 has 2 titles since the last time the ACC won one. While I agree that recruiting needs to be addressed, the sky is certainly not falling.

One simple change I have long believed in is a minimum recruiting effort for recruits with "stars". If for example you had a 2K per star minimum, then the big boys with the big budgets still get the edge, but schools would be much more likely to battle knowing that the school in question has at least 40-50K already invested in those 4-5 players as opposed to getting them on the cheap and leaving them able to poach later.

Alternatively, I would want "starred" players to contact other schools if they aren't feeling sufficient love. Can you imagine the #1 recruit in the country signing for a school with 1 campus visit and a scholly offer, simply because no one wanted to fight. In this situation, that recruit would e-mail severeal comparibly prestiged schools and say he's still open to offers.

Also, definitlely increase firings. In one world, one of my 2 destination jobs hasn't opened in 20 seasons despite not getting past the 1st round of the PIT in any of them.

1/7/2013 5:50 PM

jdno

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Rookie

Posts: 464 (0)

HD - 78

One thing I've noticed with the acceleration of EEs is that the elite schools have a greater ability to stay elite. They lose a kid or three or four early and they get $15k each for them to go out and chase the next batch of 5-star kids. So b/c of more EE's, the elite schools are churning their rosters a bit faster, but they always have the funds necessary to chase the cream of the crop. So, for example, instead of a year when an elite school has just 2 departing seniors and/or walkons, if they lost 2 kids early, now they have 2 extra slots to fill but an all-important additional $30k to chase with. With less EEs, there are more elite recruits left for more non-elite schools to chase (ignoring the issue that elite kids don't even want to talk to teams with less than a B or B- prestige). With more EE's, there are the same number of elite recruits but also bigger and better-funded sharks chasing them. So to me, the tweak to EEs seble made a while back hasn't really changed much in the end, only the nature in which the elite schools retain power. Instead of keeping elite kids for 3 or 4 years and being dominant, they keep them for 2 or 3 years and stay dominant b/c they always have the funds to keep chasing 5-star kids.

Rinse, wash, repeat.

1/7/2013 6:02 PM

girt25

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Rookie

Posts: 1991 (0)

NFL - 1 HD - 111 GD - 1 HBD - 1

jdno, I agree that (on average), elite schools have more openings now. But honestly, I didn't really see non-elite schools signing elite recruits before the change, so I don't think it's been truly impactful in that regard.

I can tell you that as the coach at UNC, I think it's harder to be a stud team now than it was before. Just my opinion.

milk, I think a minimum for stud recruits makes sense, I talked about that a long time ago. The trick would be coming up with the right number. If you make it too onerous, those teams would be unable to defend themselves. Part of me wonders that if they did ever insert a minimum, they shouldn't publicize the exact figure. That way, you wouldn't have schools just doing simple arithmetic and saying, "Yep, I can put all my money here and he can't defend because he has three good recruits considering him". Or at least it would be harder.

(The more I think about this, the more I'm torn ... I see pros and cons. Generally I'm against artificial barriers in the game.)

1/7/2013 6:17 PM

alazer

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 10 (0)

HD - 46 GD - 3

Posted by girt25 on 1/7/2013 6:02:00 PM (view original):
jdno, I agree that (on average), elite schools have more openings now. But honestly, I didn't really see non-elite schools signing elite recruits before the change, so I don't think it's been truly impactful in that regard.

I can tell you that as the coach at UNC, I think it's harder to be a stud team now than it was before. Just my opinion.

milk, I think a minimum for stud recruits makes sense, I talked about that a long time ago. The trick would be coming up with the right number. If you make it too onerous, those teams would be unable to defend themselves. Part of me wonders that if they did ever insert a minimum, they shouldn't publicize the exact figure. That way, you wouldn't have schools just doing simple arithmetic and saying, "Yep, I can put all my money here and he can't defend because he has three good recruits considering him". Or at least it would be harder.

(The more I think about this, the more I'm torn ... I see pros and cons. Generally I'm against artificial barriers in the game.)

The idea of a secret minimum is intriguing. I wouldn't want it to be a fixed value for a given level of recruit, though - maybe some kind of normal distribution around different means for each kid (so the 5 star avg might be 10K, 4 star 7500, etc.). Would everyone have a minimum, though, or just starred recruits? Given that the stars (or rankings) aren't always reflective of the best players, it might be better to do it for everyone, but that might hurt D3 recruiting. As you said, pros and cons.

1/7/2013 6:43 PM

tarvolon

Game Rating: Veteran Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 301 (0)

HD - 23

I'm guessing if there were a secret minimum, it wouldn't stay secret for long. Isn't hard to figure out how much you've spent before someone starts considering you.

1/7/2013 7:04 PM

tbird9423

Game Rating: All Star Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 148 (0)

HD - 30

I like the idea of adding costs to stars and keeping that varied and unknown would be my preference. (BASE COST = x stars multiplied by cost multiplied by a factor of 1-3)?? I think even more realistic would just be to limit the number of 4-5 star guys a team can have. Or at least put that equation onto some recruits ("I am not interested in your school because I want to be the big fish") I know this would be an artificial limit but right now we have an artificial limit on who can recruit who and that seems more "fixed" than any limit could possibly be.
One other very easy fix that I think would go a long way is to split recruiting money earned by a conference only between human users? It just kind of seems like an obvious change that needs to be made to make smaller conferences more competitive. Whether that mimics real life or not, I think expecting the average person who runs across this game to spend 20-30 seasons before being able to compete is borderline ludicrous.
I think the problem is that What If is going to anger one side or the other by making the significant changes necessary for the game to operate as I imagine it was intended. If we all could find a solution that isn't us versus them but rather "would benefit us all" they might be willing to make it. Since right now there are so many teams whose worst player is better than my best, that begs the question, is it really satisfying winning in a game that most of us would agree is little about the game and more about who has stuck around the longest? When I have ten championships, will that mean that I'm good or that I am a complete sucker? America is full of businesses that will praise and reward me if I pay them and I guess WIS falls into that category.

1/7/2013 7:37 PM

Iguana1

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Rookie

Posts: 368 (0)

MLB - 69 HD - 64

If you impose a recruiting minimum would it be preferred to be recruiting effort where the the top recruit might require 100 HV or 40-50 CV before he'll even consider any team?

Or would it be better to require a minimum of promises?
ie.. the top 5 guys may require a promise of a start and 20 minutes before they'll consider.
The next 5-10 guys require a promise of 20 minutes.
The next 10-20 guys require 15 minutes.
The next 20-30 require 10 minutes.

Allowing the option for promises made for a second season would be nice to have, it probably would be difficult to implement with coaching changes.

But link the broken promises closer with a realistic threat of a transfer. Possibly if you lose a player due to a broken promise, you only get a portion of the $15k for the open scholarship.

If the 10th ranked guy is vastly overrated and the A+ schools won't offer the promises, there is a team somewhere down the list that will.

1/7/2013 10:24 PM

rsvphr

Game Rating: All Star Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 89 (0)

HD - 28

Some simple ideas: make start promises and minutes promises stronger (and violating them more painful). Eliminate the back up message in DI.Make it harder for A+'s to recruit 1/2/3 stars. Require a minimum dollar amount to be considered by a 4 star or 5 star (thanks milk). Add a layer between 370 and 500 miles where the home visits are 500-600 dollars. Create some lower rated "diamond in the rough" recruits that can go up 300+ points in ratings (They'd be fun to find). And start firing coaches. The higher the prestige, the less forgiving. And make job advancement in DI reasonable. What say you? Are we still having fun? I am. I just want it to be funner.

1/7/2013 11:53 PM

psuarva

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 62 (1)

HD - 54 GD - 3

I had an idea of adding HS juniors to recruiting. It would add new complexity to recruiting and could be done in a way that adds some ability for small schools to land great players. The first catch would be that HS juniors have pretty low ratings and very uncertain potentials. So a high-high potential is good but you really have a lot less certainty than with a senior. A high ranked junior could fall off of the map as a senior, and a low ranked junior could jump up to a 2 or 3 star as a senior. Juniors could give 'verbals' but not sign. Schools could still poach verbals as HS seniors. But randomly, some recruits will never change their minds. What does all this complexity allow? A high risk for big schools, and risks worth taking for the small schools.

1/8/2013 3:13 PM

jdno

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Rookie

Posts: 464 (0)

HD - 78

Posted by girt25 on 1/7/2013 6:02:00 PM (view original):
jdno, I agree that (on average), elite schools have more openings now. But honestly, I didn't really see non-elite schools signing elite recruits before the change, so I don't think it's been truly impactful in that regard.

I can tell you that as the coach at UNC, I think it's harder to be a stud team now than it was before. Just my opinion.

milk, I think a minimum for stud recruits makes sense, I talked about that a long time ago. The trick would be coming up with the right number. If you make it too onerous, those teams would be unable to defend themselves. Part of me wonders that if they did ever insert a minimum, they shouldn't publicize the exact figure. That way, you wouldn't have schools just doing simple arithmetic and saying, "Yep, I can put all my money here and he can't defend because he has three good recruits considering him". Or at least it would be harder.

(The more I think about this, the more I'm torn ... I see pros and cons. Generally I'm against artificial barriers in the game.)

On the whole, it is harder to maintain the elite 11 or 12-man depth charts since the EE change vs. before it, I agree with you there girt.

However, for a regionally dominant elite team, they pick up even more of an advantage than before imo. If there is not another elite team close by, then every 5-star coming down the pipe gets funneled to them, moreso than before the EE change, because of the higher roster turnover.

Guess we're splitting hairs at this point, but it's a nuance I've certainly observed regarding the elite teams.

1/8/2013 3:15 PM

jdno

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Rookie

Posts: 464 (0)

HD - 78

Posted by psuarva on 1/7/2013 11:53:00 PM (view original):
I had an idea of adding HS juniors to recruiting. It would add new complexity to recruiting and could be done in a way that adds some ability for small schools to land great players. The first catch would be that HS juniors have pretty low ratings and very uncertain potentials. So a high-high potential is good but you really have a lot less certainty than with a senior. A high ranked junior could fall off of the map as a senior, and a low ranked junior could jump up to a 2 or 3 star as a senior. Juniors could give 'verbals' but not sign. Schools could still poach verbals as HS seniors. But randomly, some recruits will never change their minds. What does all this complexity allow? A high risk for big schools, and risks worth taking for the small schools.

This idea has been mentioned a few times before, even by me. It would be a considerable improvement to the game and add layers of strategy that aren't present now. However, it simply will never happen under the current regime, simple as that I'm afraid. So I'll just save my typing effort.

1/8/2013 6:19 PM (edited)

creilmann

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 492 (0)

HD - 86 GD - 3

1. Eliminate baseline prestige

2. Increase the value of favorite schools and make them a bit more realistic. The 5 star kid from Dallas probably isn't gonna be a big Cleveland State fan.

3. Change FSS from statewide scouting reports to individual reports. Gives the lower prestige teams a better chance of finding the diamond in the rough, high potential players in the mid 5- mid 600's. High prestige teams will not bother looking for those if they have to pay individually. They need to save their money for the 5 star battles.

1/8/2013 6:18 PM

Iguana1

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Rookie

Posts: 368 (0)

MLB - 69 HD - 64

the favorite schools certainly are a joke. I've been at Michigan State about 25 seasons and of all the states I've scouted, the top player listing MSU as his favorite was rated #48 at his position.

It could be interesting to watch it play out if the favorite school could recruit the guy with the same costs of a local team. But that seems like it would just be too large an advantage for the Elites.

1/8/2013 6:47 PM

kelby_03

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 33 (0)

MLB - 1 HD - 186 HBD - 1

Posted by jdno on 1/8/2013 3:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by girt25 on 1/7/2013 6:02:00 PM (view original):
jdno, I agree that (on average), elite schools have more openings now. But honestly, I didn't really see non-elite schools signing elite recruits before the change, so I don't think it's been truly impactful in that regard.

I can tell you that as the coach at UNC, I think it's harder to be a stud team now than it was before. Just my opinion.

milk, I think a minimum for stud recruits makes sense, I talked about that a long time ago. The trick would be coming up with the right number. If you make it too onerous, those teams would be unable to defend themselves. Part of me wonders that if they did ever insert a minimum, they shouldn't publicize the exact figure. That way, you wouldn't have schools just doing simple arithmetic and saying, "Yep, I can put all my money here and he can't defend because he has three good recruits considering him". Or at least it would be harder.

(The more I think about this, the more I'm torn ... I see pros and cons. Generally I'm against artificial barriers in the game.)
On the whole, it is harder to maintain the elite 11 or 12-man depth charts since the EE change vs. before it, I agree with you there girt.

However, for a regionally dominant elite team, they pick up even more of an advantage than before imo. If there is not another elite team close by, then every 5-star coming down the pipe gets funneled to them, moreso than before the EE change, because of the higher roster turnover.

Guess we're splitting hairs at this point, but it's a nuance I've certainly observed regarding the elite teams.

I coach a couple A+ prestige schools and I can tell you that its not easier to maintain a dominant team. Having players continue to leave early makes it harder to ever have a veteran team. Veteran teams generally have more success. If you have a problem with high prestige schools getting all the 5 star talent then challenge them once in a while. They can't win every battle if they have competition for recruits.

1/8/2013 9:54 PM

psuarva

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 62 (1)

HD - 54 GD - 3

Posted by creilmann on 1/8/2013 6:19:00 PM (view original):
1. Eliminate baseline prestige

2. Increase the value of favorite schools and make them a bit more realistic. The 5 star kid from Dallas probably isn't gonna be a big Cleveland State fan.

3. Change FSS from statewide scouting reports to individual reports. Gives the lower prestige teams a better chance of finding the diamond in the rough, high potential players in the mid 5- mid 600's. High prestige teams will not bother looking for those if they have to pay individually. They need to save their money for the 5 star battles.

Favorite schools work in a really dumb way right now, and would probably be fairly easy to change.

And baseline prestige should go. The developers fed us some BS line that baseline prestige could never be changed. I"d have to say as someone who has programmed a lot of simulation models, that one doesn't hold up.