oh, no wonder, MMT's original post was from last year ... I'm sitting here trying to read all the Drama on the PAC 10 Naismith CC and there isn't anything, that was a total FAIL and disappointment and was wondering why this was a big deal.

Posted by emy1013 on 6/6/2012 4:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by abitaamber on 6/5/2012 4:31:00 PM (view original):
I've often thought that there should be some sort of effect of the % of the money used in your budget...as it is now, it is almost impossible to nab a top-level recruit with only 1 (or even 2) schollies, even at an A-level school. 

I'm not really sure how it would work, but the handicap of only have 1 or 2 schollies is a pretty big one.

Impossible to nab a top level recruit with only one or two schollies?  Nah.  Tough maybe, but not impossible.  Case in point, three recruiting sessions ago, I had two open schollies with Duke in Tark.  The one recruit that I signed that season is now at a 1013 overall rating and was ranked as the #1 SG and #1 overall player coming out of high school.

To be perfectly honest, I'd rather battle an A prestige school that has 5 or 6 open schollies as opposed to a team that only has 1 or 2.  Why?  Well, most coaches are afraid to take multiple walk-ons (for what reason, I'll never understand) and are worried to death about filling a bunch of empty roster spots.  So....they end up spreading their budget around on a few different players making each one of those guys less expensive.   That coach with only 1 or 2 schollies?  He's sinking ALL of his money into that 1 recruit.  Every bit of it.  Makes that 1 recruit get real expensive, really quick.  Having 1 or 2 schollies means being handicapped during recruiting?  Nahh, those are the guys that are TOUGH to beat.   

Interesting. I never thought of it that way before, much anyway.  Makes sense too, but if a guy with 5 recruits is determined to get the guy you are after with one or two spots, he'll win. You also have to worry that he will come in at the last minute with a bunch of cash if he feels he has enough other good talent secured with his other money. That would be a big reason for making considering credit much more important.

Posted by rednu on 8/10/2013 4:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ericksonp on 8/10/2013 3:55:00 PM (view original):
Make it like college basketball really is. Yes every team in the conference gets a split of the revenue, but the team who is actually playing the games gets a bigger cut. If instead of dividing the money by 12, give a third of the money earned by that school to it and then divide the remaining amount around the other teams. So in D3 the team playing each game gets $1000 and the remaining $2000 is divided by 11.

Its definitely annoying coming off a national title that I had the same recruiting budget as a team that lost in the first round of the PI

Playing devil's advocate (even though I agree, at least in part, with the sentiment) -- winning the national title, you already have an advantage in prestige over the first-round PI loser, so you're going to have access to recruits that coach can only dream of getting his hands on. If you toss a financial advantage on top of that, I'd we worried that we'd be entrenching a class of have's that would be extremely hard for the have-nots to crack into. And I'm not sure that's a good thing for attracting new, dedicated players to a pay-to-play game.

Like I said, just playing devil's advocate here for the sake of discussion.

red, I think this is spot on. The proposal is more like real life, but would be a major step in the rich-get-richer direction, which is pretty obviously something that we don't need.

Posted by hogstench on 8/10/2013 4:42:00 PM (view original):
oh, no wonder, MMT's original post was from last year ... I'm sitting here trying to read all the Drama on the PAC 10 Naismith CC and there isn't anything, that was a total FAIL and disappointment and was wondering why this was a big deal.

I was a bit confused because I didnt remember posting anything about recruiting recently!

I've always felt that recruiting needs a major overhaul..... There needs to be a way to force teams to spread out their recruiting to multiple recruits.  Finances need to continue to be an issue, but there should also be a realistic aspect of things as well. So instead of having a budget for recruiting give coaches a cap on type of recruiting they can do.  Real life coaches only have so much time to recruit so there should be a limit on number of visits to home per recruit, limit of campus visits and conference prestige should be used to help in number of scouting visits.

The way I see recruiting in my mind, there should be head coach visits and assistant coach visits.  

Div I - 25 Head Coach Visits, 75 assistant coach visits, 20 campus visits
Div II - 15 Head Coah Visits, 60 assistant coach visits, 15 campus visits
Div III - 10 Head Coach Visits, 45 assistant coach visits 10 campus visits

Conferences with more than 1 NT game get an extra Head Coach visit per extra game, and every PIT game gives an extra assistant coach visit

Head coaches can only visit a recruit 1 time, and you can only visit a recruit a total of 3 times.  

Number of Scouting visits should range anywhere from 100-200 for D1, 100-150 for D2 and 50-100 for D3 with a maximum of 10 visits per recruit and higher conference prestige will allow for more scouting. 

Impact on head coach visits 100%, Assistant Coach visits 50% and Scouting Visits 15%.  

Letters and calls to recruits should be limited to 10 each recruit and calls to coaches should be limited to 20 each recruit.  Prestige will give teams an edge with these calls.

Schools should receive two types of prestige ratings, overall prestige (to keep teams from being ruined in a short period of time by a single bad coach) and a recent history prestige (to allow for teams to get a boost for recent performance) as well as having coaches get a boost for their past successes (ie Bobby Cremins going to University of Charleston and getting a lot better recruits than that school normally would to allow for coaches to not have to totally rebuild their reputation every time they switch to a new school) and local schools having a better chance a having local talent poached so easily.

Amount of impact
Overall school prestige = 30%
Last 10 seasons prestige for school = 20%
Coach prestige = 30%
School proximity to recruit = 20%

You can only offer the number of scholarships you have available (if it gets declined and lose out, you can offer another scholarship), but you can still be a contender for a recruit and even lead for a recruit if an offer is not made, but recruiting impacts are decreased by 33% if no scholarship offered (and increased back 33% once scholarship is offered)

Recruiting cycles would be reduced from every 3 hours to every 6 hours since not as much recruiting would need to be done and recruiting would extend 2 days (Day 1 only for scouting players prior to visits, calls and letters) before signings and 1 less day to sign players, but it would force more teams to get in recruiting battles and occasionally allow some big time recruits to become available to mid level teams in major conferences and also give mid level conferences a chance to get an occasional 4 or 5 star recruit.

I like the idea of coach prestige. I've never understood why it's not a factor. Right now if Calipari left Kentucky whatever school he went to would immediately be a destination school. 

I would love to see an attempt to make recruiting more national, I hate that in the most condensed area you are pretty much relegated to a 200 mile radius. 

Posted by rednu on 8/10/2013 4:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ericksonp on 8/10/2013 3:55:00 PM (view original):
Make it like college basketball really is. Yes every team in the conference gets a split of the revenue, but the team who is actually playing the games gets a bigger cut. If instead of dividing the money by 12, give a third of the money earned by that school to it and then divide the remaining amount around the other teams. So in D3 the team playing each game gets $1000 and the remaining $2000 is divided by 11.

Its definitely annoying coming off a national title that I had the same recruiting budget as a team that lost in the first round of the PI

Playing devil's advocate (even though I agree, at least in part, with the sentiment) -- winning the national title, you already have an advantage in prestige over the first-round PI loser, so you're going to have access to recruits that coach can only dream of getting his hands on. If you toss a financial advantage on top of that, I'd we worried that we'd be entrenching a class of have's that would be extremely hard for the have-nots to crack into. And I'm not sure that's a good thing for attracting new, dedicated players to a pay-to-play game.

Like I said, just playing devil's advocate here for the sake of discussion.

Yeah I agree with a lot of that, my one issue would just be lower D2 vs Upper D3. One curse of an A or A+ is battles with D2 schools over recruits. Its fine and dandy if its a solid or better D2 school, but in reality an athlete is going to choose the elite D3 school over the crappy D2 school 9 times out of 10. D2 obviously has the money advantage already, so the extra money diverted to a school that had a great post-season run could help reflect reality in the recruiting engine by giving that school a bit more of a chance financially. 

In real life a kid going to Division 2 or Division 3 is going to base his choice on the schools curriculum more than how good the basketball team is.

If the D2 school is offering an athletic scholarship he's going to go there, since D3 schools can't.

seble promised he was going to take a hard look at recruiting and the jobs process about 2 years ago.  That still hasn't happened.  While I would LOVE it if those 2 aspects of the game would get some major overhauls (along with some minor tweaks to game planning options), I just don't see it happening any time soon.  seble's silence here in the forums, the lack of a developer chat anytime in recent memory and the lack of any real update to the engine in a long, long time suggest rather loudly that HD is on cruise control at WIS/Fox Sports.  They (Fox Sports) clearly think that the WIS programmers' time is best spent developing subpar fantasy sports products that will never compete with Yahoo or ESPN.  One of the hardest things to do in business is admit defeat when you are late to the game, and Fox has yet to do that in fantasy sports for reasons that are not clear to me.

The best thing that could happen to WIS is if someone would buy it away from Fox and start giving it real attention again.  There is a great product here that just needs a little attention and marketing saavy to become a true money-making business, but the Fox folks don't seem to realize that.  Clearly when Fox Sports bought WIS they did it to get access to WIS's programmers (or they decided that was where they believed the real value was sometime after they bought it), not for the product itself.

Posted by crickett13 on 8/13/2013 9:45:00 AM (view original):
In real life a kid going to Division 2 or Division 3 is going to base his choice on the schools curriculum more than how good the basketball team is.

Not true in the vast majority of cases. There's a reason why there are Division 2 and 3 powers. You'd be surprised at how much cheating goes on at the D2 level, I'm not sure about the D3 level. I covered high school basketball for a few years in the NYC area, and had a D2 coach tell me how wide spread cheating was in D2. 

Posted by tdiddy3 on 8/12/2013 9:10:00 PM (view original):
I've always felt that recruiting needs a major overhaul..... There needs to be a way to force teams to spread out their recruiting to multiple recruits.  Finances need to continue to be an issue, but there should also be a realistic aspect of things as well. So instead of having a budget for recruiting give coaches a cap on type of recruiting they can do.  Real life coaches only have so much time to recruit so there should be a limit on number of visits to home per recruit, limit of campus visits and conference prestige should be used to help in number of scouting visits.

The way I see recruiting in my mind, there should be head coach visits and assistant coach visits.  

Div I - 25 Head Coach Visits, 75 assistant coach visits, 20 campus visits
Div II - 15 Head Coah Visits, 60 assistant coach visits, 15 campus visits
Div III - 10 Head Coach Visits, 45 assistant coach visits 10 campus visits

Conferences with more than 1 NT game get an extra Head Coach visit per extra game, and every PIT game gives an extra assistant coach visit

Head coaches can only visit a recruit 1 time, and you can only visit a recruit a total of 3 times.  

Number of Scouting visits should range anywhere from 100-200 for D1, 100-150 for D2 and 50-100 for D3 with a maximum of 10 visits per recruit and higher conference prestige will allow for more scouting. 

Impact on head coach visits 100%, Assistant Coach visits 50% and Scouting Visits 15%.  

Letters and calls to recruits should be limited to 10 each recruit and calls to coaches should be limited to 20 each recruit.  Prestige will give teams an edge with these calls.

Schools should receive two types of prestige ratings, overall prestige (to keep teams from being ruined in a short period of time by a single bad coach) and a recent history prestige (to allow for teams to get a boost for recent performance) as well as having coaches get a boost for their past successes (ie Bobby Cremins going to University of Charleston and getting a lot better recruits than that school normally would to allow for coaches to not have to totally rebuild their reputation every time they switch to a new school) and local schools having a better chance a having local talent poached so easily.

Amount of impact
Overall school prestige = 30%
Last 10 seasons prestige for school = 20%
Coach prestige = 30%
School proximity to recruit = 20%

You can only offer the number of scholarships you have available (if it gets declined and lose out, you can offer another scholarship), but you can still be a contender for a recruit and even lead for a recruit if an offer is not made, but recruiting impacts are decreased by 33% if no scholarship offered (and increased back 33% once scholarship is offered)

Recruiting cycles would be reduced from every 3 hours to every 6 hours since not as much recruiting would need to be done and recruiting would extend 2 days (Day 1 only for scouting players prior to visits, calls and letters) before signings and 1 less day to sign players, but it would force more teams to get in recruiting battles and occasionally allow some big time recruits to become available to mid level teams in major conferences and also give mid level conferences a chance to get an occasional 4 or 5 star recruit.

There NEEDS to be a recruiting actions cap, either total or per cycle. Combine the actions cap with increasing the player's preferences and I think we've made huge strides in improving recruiting.

Posted by crickett13 on 8/13/2013 9:45:00 AM (view original):
In real life a kid going to Division 2 or Division 3 is going to base his choice on the schools curriculum more than how good the basketball team is.

Not true at all, the basketball players that go to Bellarmine, Findlay Oh, Southern Ind, Drury and a host of other top DII schools are going there largely because of basketball.

Posted by kmasonbx1 on 8/13/2013 10:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by crickett13 on 8/13/2013 9:45:00 AM (view original):
In real life a kid going to Division 2 or Division 3 is going to base his choice on the schools curriculum more than how good the basketball team is.

Not true in the vast majority of cases. There's a reason why there are Division 2 and 3 powers. You'd be surprised at how much cheating goes on at the D2 level, I'm not sure about the D3 level. I covered high school basketball for a few years in the NYC area, and had a D2 coach tell me how wide spread cheating was in D2. 

There is no question widespread cheating goes on in all of college sports

Cap or at least provide diminishing returns as you pour more money into 1 recruit.  Also make recruit's selection of a school at least a little less of a mathematical equation.    I think it would be fair to say that no real-life coach with 4 open schollys puts all his effort in only 2 guys.  But in real life, pursuing 6 guys for 4 spots does not destroy your ability to get any of them. When there is less disincentive to spread out your recruiting efforts, you'll see more battles.