Posted by sportsguy001 on 9/13/2015 12:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by trail on 9/13/2015 11:18:00 AM (view original):
^I knew this had to come from a UNC fan haha.

There are plenty of reasons DSJ chose State, not the least of which is that it is a program on the rise with all the pieces in place to continue on that upward trend. What does AAU ties even mean? Every big-time school has "AAU ties" to big-time recruits. State had more family and coach ties to John Wall than any school, but anyone with a decent source knew he was always a strong Kentucky lean. Why? Because recruits have minds of their own and so they're able to make what they believe to be the best choice for their future. Gottfried did a great job of getting in early on DSJ and selling him on a vision. 

I mean adidas ties.  High-end recruiting is a very shady business.  

I agree. One-and-done caliber players know that they will make a great deal of money off of branding so sticking with an Adidas school was pretty much a must in his case. 

And to aintheb's point, I think playing time needs to become more valuable at all levels. As a high school athlete myself who only had a chance to play at D2 and D3, I know that I cared more about how I figured into a school's future plans at my position than I did about who called me the most. 

Posted by a_in_the_b on 9/13/2015 11:55:00 AM (view original):
Make star/playing time promises be much stronger, both in the recruiting value and the penalty for violation.

I strongly agree, though if we're talking about completely redesigning the recruiting system, maybe we could take things a step further. In real life, every individual recruit has different things that they look for in the school they sign with - why not add "recruit preferences" ratings, which would affect how different recruiting actions influence that player's decision. My preliminary thought is something along these lines:

• Playing Time Importance: at 0, recruit does not care at all about promised starts/minutes; at 100, recruit will not consider schools that do not promise something
• Personal Contact Importance: at 0, recruit will be willing to sign with schools based on scouting trips alone; at 100, recruit won't consider schools without a home or campus visit
• Winning Program Importance: at 0, recruit will be willing to sign with any school that plays at his "level"; at 100, recruit will only consider schools with a consistent winning reputation
• Distance From Home Importance: at 0, recruit strongly prefers to be far from home; at 100, recruit strongly prefers to be close to home

Giving elite recruits high Playing Time Importance would help prevent top programs from building up benches stuffed with unrealistic numbers of 4- and 5-star recruits. High Personal Contact Importance ratings would reduce the number of recruits who get signed just on the basis of a few scouting visits, which seems unrealistic to me (why would a player sign with a school if he's never even talked to the head coach?). Winning Program Importance could be used to vary the effect of prestige - players with a low rating in this category would barely consider program prestige at all, but it would be a central focus for players with a high rating.

Doing something like this could help make recruiting easier for non-elite programs (who could work to find the best guys who don't care about prestige and want to play right away) without completely pulling the rug out from under elite programs (who could still count on finding guys who value winning above all else).

^i can support such a system.

Add in coach loyalty though. This will account for fulfillment of promises to recruits and how often they switch jobs. I also thought of a coach prestige category which would assign a coach points based on their resume, including total championships and also their ability to improve a program from the time they take it over. This way coaches receive less leverage in recruiting for simply taking over a strong program and riding the train or perhaps even allowing the program to drop off a bit.

these suggestions fall into the general category of adding texture to recriuting.  I like them

But also, add stuff like

- climate preferences
- academic preference
- pipeline from a school
- pipeline from a small geographic area 

etc

Posted by fd343ny on 9/13/2015 8:19:00 PM (view original):
these suggestions fall into the general category of adding texture to recriuting.  I like them

But also, add stuff like

- climate preferences
- academic preference
- pipeline from a school
- pipeline from a small geographic area 

etc

I'd like to see this for sure...hell, even add shoe preference!

My absolute biggest gripe, and MANY people will disagree, is I think it's silly that every player is rated with 100% accuracy. I think there needs to be more ambiguity to initial ratings during recruiting. FSS is way too accurate for my taste.

and by the way, adding texture would give nonelite schools the better opportunity to build - find a guy with the right preferences, build a pipeline to a certain high school etc

If camp attendance has some randomness, meeting the players preferences should make them more likely to attend your camp. For example, if you are their favorite school, they should almost certainly attend your camp. If you are close to them and they want to play close to home, the likelihood should be increased. Etcetera.

I'd like to see some randomness in recruit preferences.
For instance:
- a player who refuses to play at X school (typically a Big 6 but not always) regardless of effort level for any number of reasons (parent played at rival school, parent played at that school and want to make own name, etc).
- big fish, small pond guys who strongly prefer low C+ and lower prestige teams (can be Big 6 or mid-major) and want to be the guy to turn a program around and won't be recruitable by A- and higher prestige programs
- small fish, big pond guys who want to play at best school possible even with little to no playing time
- a "home run"  campus and/or home visit:  a randomizer where once every X number of home visits world wide, maybe once every 1000 visits or something, would have the effect of a ton of home visits (50+ at D1 level) because the coach just wowed the player/family, etc.
- a disaster campus and/or home visit:  The opposite of the "home run" where a coach just rubs the family the wrong way and the home/campus visit has a negative impact on a random basis (less frequent than the home run)

- a "trending" bonus:  Teams that are trending up (3+ years of increasing prestige, e.g.) get a recruiting boost as a school that is more desirable than an equal prestige school that is going backwards or has stagnated

The above are D1 type changes

For D3 teams, have all D3 recruits have free FSS.  If the player shows on your D3 list, his FSS is free, nationwide.  FSS works as it does now for players on your D2 or D1 screen (this is needed to prevent players getting D3 schools just to get free FSS).  Adds a layer of national recruiting to D3 and another level of strategy (do you FSS for D2 pulldowns, or save the money and wait until they fall to your D3 screen so you have more recruiting actions per player)/

These things would be obvious after scouting visits where the scout can indicate that the player/family indicated that player is only considering X type of school

Some cools ideas duke. I like th idea of adding a small amount of randomness to recruiting. It should be something that doesn't effect each coach in the typical period but it's enough to keep you on your toes.

I really like the ideas mj, duke, and fed brought up for recruiting changes.

I'm a little disappointed while I like the scouting changes brought up by seble I do not feel like the other issues such as recruiting timeline are really not the most important aspect that needs to be discussed as well as disliking it a lot.

I still want to see what recruiting changes are going to happen as it is still hard to look at what is being brought up without knowing exactly how recruiting is changing at the moment.

I also dislike the fact that recruit generation is being ignored.

This is only a sideline of sorts but, I like to harp on it ...

Fix the sim team practice minutes mask!!!

Guards should no longer be automatically putting zero minutes into practicing low post, since it's now meaningful, as just one example.

A salubrious side effect of this would be to make sims a bit less three happy.

Posted by a_in_the_b on 9/14/2015 9:27:00 PM (view original):
This is only a sideline of sorts but, I like to harp on it ...

Fix the sim team practice minutes mask!!!

Guards should no longer be automatically putting zero minutes into practicing low post, since it's now meaningful, as just one example.

A salubrious side effect of this would be to make sims a bit less three happy.

Salubrious ... Great word!

Lots of good discussion here, but what about gameplanning.  There are some easy fixes there that would be very helpful.  To begin with:  We must have a "Double team IF LOSING" option.  That's basic strategy that we don't have the capacity to do.  There also should be the ability to change your gameplanning more than just the last few minutes, but more like every 4 minutes throughout the game.
And we should be able to redshirt more than one player per season.
Those are all easy fixes.