Posted by dahsdebater on 5/31/2013 1:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jetwildcat on 5/31/2013 11:17:00 AM (view original):

Posted by plague on 5/31/2013 10:52:00 AM (view original):
 In my opinion a cap would discourage recruiting battles as a lower prestige school would be hopeless in a straight up evaluation. The way I see it is we already have a cap and that is your total recruiting balance, I would rather not see a cap within a cap. Under the current situation if you land on a recruit with another coach you have to look at the differences between your schools situation and the other schools situation and then make a decision if you have a realistic shot at the recruit, with a cap you will lessen that strategy.

also, is it really the worst thing to lessen the importance of "should I battle?" decisions? If you stretch yourself too thin in the Big East, as i'm sure you know, you get OWNED by the other big schools.

The decision on whether or not to get involved in a battle is the primary strategic decision in the D1 game...  I can't imagine that many of the better coaches would have any response to this question than "yes, that's a horrible thing."  It really surprises me that you do.

Also, I think the advantage this would give to top-tier teams has been, if anything, understated so far.  The strategy for some of the more successful mid-majors and Big 6 rebuilds has been to utilize 6-man classes, sometimes 2 of them, to grab a couple of top-tier recruits every 4 seasons or so.  If that's no longer an option it gets even harder for the second-tier schools to ever dream of going to a F4, or even really a S16 for all but the very best coaches.  Right now there are some very successful mid-major conferences, and in some cases they actually pull in more recruiting funds than a few of the Big 6, but they still don't have quite the prestige.  You'd be handicapping all of those guys if you don't let them wield their superior funds against the guys with the A to A+ prestige.

Just a bad idea all around...  I'm guessing a response to some massive battle you just lost?  Or a poaching incident you fell victim to?  Or even a battle you won but blew your budget and wound up handicapping your team because of it?

i'm not saying the "should i battle" strategic gambit a horrible thing, but i do think its amplified way too much right now in D1. we've all sat and watched another school, who's sitting on your top recruit, to see if he forces an ancillary battle...and when he does, BAM you jump in on your guy now that he's financially weakened.

should the stakes of the "should i enter a battle?" decision be so high that one of the downsides is "if i battle for this one recruit, i might lose the rest of my class"? I say no.

as far as mid-majors overcoming the big 6, they can afford to make promises to high-potential guys that big schools would never promise playing time to. THAT is where they make it up.

and the few, if any, mid-major conferences that have topped some big-6 conferences did so out of the talent of their coaches. they'd make the most out of any system. they didn't end up winning due to superior funds. and remember that superior funds STILL allow you to pursue more potential recruits.

believe it or not, none of your character assassination accusations are true. i actually just want to make the game better, regardless of how good it already is.

Posted by mamxet on 5/31/2013 2:03:00 PM (view original):
a per cycle cap might have some of the benefits and avoid some of the detriments discussed here

might actually help B prestige schools - which would be willing to do the max - lets say - 5 HV per cycle.  If an A school then came along in cycle 5, they would be locked in as 20 HV behind.....etc....

i'm not sure how considering credit works, but if you go in on the first cycle, you're definitely better off even under the current system than the person whom goes in on day 2. i don't like the per cycle limit tho unless you can set actions cycles in advance, less we all wake up at either 2am or 11pm and 5am every recruiting night.

besides dahs, i thought you were more of a d2/d3 coach anyway. the idea was to make the limits high enough that it wouldn't affect d2/d3

Posted by jetwildcat on 5/31/2013 2:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mamxet on 5/31/2013 2:03:00 PM (view original):
a per cycle cap might have some of the benefits and avoid some of the detriments discussed here

might actually help B prestige schools - which would be willing to do the max - lets say - 5 HV per cycle.  If an A school then came along in cycle 5, they would be locked in as 20 HV behind.....etc....

i'm not sure how considering credit works, but if you go in on the first cycle, you're definitely better off even under the current system than the person whom goes in on day 2. i don't like the per cycle limit tho unless you can set actions cycles in advance, less we all wake up at either 2am or 11pm and 5am every recruiting night.

this would be a much bigger change that considering credit - which is a marginal % boost

I agree, we should be able to set cycles in advance - especially the first cycle - but all cycles

The premise that mid-majors can afford to make promises that Big 6 schools cannot seems ridiculous to me.  It's the top programs that have the most EEs, and the most spots typically available for their new recruits to play right away as a result.  Regardless of conference, really.  But those programs tend to be Big 6.  If you get the top recruits, and they leave early, you will consistently have a (slight) advantage in ability to offer promises to a new set of top recruits, not a disadvantage.

I agree, we should be able to set cycles in advance - especially the first cycle - but all cycles

I like this because I'm someone who doesn't always have time to get online and recruit, and sometimes I don't even have internet access (I don't use a smart phone and can't always get the laptop to a wifi spot if I'm out). I find ways to get the job done, and many times its a non-issue, but this sure would be nice for the times when it would come in handy.

However, it makes the game more formulaic - people can essentially check out of most of recruiting and leave it on the "autopilot" settings to get the players they want, while only checking every now and then to see if someone wants to battle them. In that sense, it could be a bad thing.

Posted by dahsdebater on 5/31/2013 3:27:00 PM (view original):
The premise that mid-majors can afford to make promises that Big 6 schools cannot seems ridiculous to me.  It's the top programs that have the most EEs, and the most spots typically available for their new recruits to play right away as a result.  Regardless of conference, really.  But those programs tend to be Big 6.  If you get the top recruits, and they leave early, you will consistently have a (slight) advantage in ability to offer promises to a new set of top recruits, not a disadvantage.

when i say high-potential players tho i mean players that, as freshmen, kind of suck by Big 6 standards. mid-majors can afford to play lower-quality players.

so yes, you'll have more minutes to offer as a big 6, but you still don't want to play guys that need 2-3 seasons of development before they're any good. you still need to win games.

i can already imagine what you might say next, so i will jump to the next point...

the players that the high prestige schools are willing to offer a lot of minutes to, yes, will almost assuredly go to bigger schools, unless the value of player preferences is increased as well.

(which i am in favor of, but is a side point to the argument.)

but don't those great recruits already go to top schools in this game? do the "let's make this the best conference ever" mid-majors ever actually get those guys before they all hit B+ or higher prestige?

Probably not, but under your system a B+ will never get a top 10 recruit at his position.  Just won't happen.

Posted by dahsdebater on 5/31/2013 5:12:00 PM (view original):
Probably not, but under your system a B+ will never get a top 10 recruit at his position.  Just won't happen.

unless that recruit's favorite school was the B+. maybe one out of every 10 recruits in the 6-10 range go to a B+.

as it is, for a B+ with 6 open scholarships to land a top 10 they need to get really lucky and ignore their other 5 openings.

Didn't read all the whole thread so sorry if this was brought up earlier, but with a cap on actions, why wouldn't the top teams just continue to recruit by maxing out their "caps", and use their prestige advantage to win.  If it gets close, use a promise.  Voila, the top teams never lose a battle.  Lower prestige teams can't "out-action" them, so it becomes easier for the top teams to stockpile talent.  This just looks to me like a rich-get-richer suggestion.

Posted by jetwildcat on 5/31/2013 5:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 5/31/2013 5:12:00 PM (view original):
Probably not, but under your system a B+ will never get a top 10 recruit at his position.  Just won't happen.

unless that recruit's favorite school was the B+. maybe one out of every 10 recruits in the 6-10 range go to a B+.

as it is, for a B+ with 6 open scholarships to land a top 10 they need to get really lucky and ignore their other 5 openings.

Totally 100% disagree with the last line.  I'm sorry, but if that's what it's taking, someone isn't doing something right.

Agreed with Emy. If someone is an A+ wouldn't they just max out HV/CV on 3-4 players at the initial 8 PM cycle, clap their hands, and be done with their recruiting?

Also proximity and favorite school seem to mean jack diddly in terms of winning battles. Promised start/minutes a bit more, but not much in D1.

I didn't see if you requested that those should be rewarded more.

which is why a per cycle limit might be better

Posted by acn24 on 5/31/2013 11:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 5/31/2013 10:36:00 AM (view original):
I think your example is a bit extreme. I don't doubt some HD recruits have gotten 115 home visits, but this is not the norm. 

That said, I do think campus visits should be capped at 1 per recruit per school. Once you've used the campus visit for a kid, it should no longer be an option in future recruiting cycles.

Wait until you have some serious D1 battles, 115 HVs is nothing, that's not even $40k for a local recruit.

In general I'm not a huge fan, by placing limits on the amount of actions you'll be making prestige MORE important, which will help the rich get richer. Remember that promises are affected by prestige too, the same promise from an A+ is more valuable than from an A-, which is more valuable from a B.

I'm also pretty strongly opposed to anything that adds more emphasis to a completely random part of the game (recruit preferences). I have had a decent run at UCLA and it has been probably 4-5 seasons since ANY CA recruit has listed me as their favorite school, and probably more like 15 seasons since there was a 2-star or better.

Why should a coach who stretches himself too thin be protected? If you stretch yourself too thin that is a strategic chance you take, it's a choice you made that you should not be given a reward for or protected from the negatives of spreading yourself too thin.

There is a lot of varying strategy in the current game. Stretching yourself too think just happen to me in Knight world. I had 5 players considering me and 2 scholarships and sadly the only 1 player I liked, the cycle of signings a much higher prestige school came onto the radar of the only player I liked . There was a lot of possible strategy involved, the other coach estimated I did not place that much funds into the player and he went after the player at the last minute, if he came up short I would of won the recruit and a lot of other recruits he may of liked would of been signed by another school, I could of dropped my last 12k into the player on the last few cycles and maybe solidified that player, but I made a decision too hold off for varying reasons that I will not discuss too keep a long story short.

If you put more caps into the game your only accomplishment will be to lessen strategy.