Three things that might help the game, 2 easy ones, 1 extremely complicated one

1 - the first recruiting cycle should be at least 12 hours, probably should be 24, could even be 26 (the two current hours, plus a day) - The day could easily be stolen from the backend of the recruiting cycle, when little happens.  The day after initial signings we have one more important time frame in the morning when most battles are resolved, let the rest of the battles end at the 5pm est cycle, and then give us the rest of the evening to make any last minute changes.

2 - A slight reduction in the top 5 players in each position and a slight increase in the next 45, along with a slight increase in the potential of non top 10 or 15 type players, not a big change, just a tweek, would so start to fix this game.  You want the players with mid level d1 teams to at least feel they have a shot, and you want the big boys to at least have to think when going for that 750 kid, when a 650 kid might be better, and a 550 kid even has some appeal.  Then when the big boy makes his choice, two other programs will get two good players.

3 - Recruiting probably needs a complete overhaul.  The problem with this is, like other major changes, the odds of getting it right are not 100%, and the repercussions of getting it wrong are pretty severe.  I'd make the first two changes and see if they do enough to make the game feel fairer.   In general, fair to me means that the top programs can get 'some' of the top players, but not near all of them.  So many worlds, one A+ school gets 6 top ten guys, while six others in the some other market, get maybe 6 combined.  The game would play better, if those 7 schools split the 12 players more evenly.

Bonus item:  The game was a bunch more fun when all categories were open for improvement (Pre-potential), as the best coaches could not only win by recruiting better, or by setting a depth chart or shooting plan or team plan better, but also could shape and mold recruits into better players than other coaches.  I wonder if somehow the best of that world and the best of the potential world (which I like) could be found?

The good news is most the sins of recruiting have been fixed by the engine, which essentially keeps the games close enough by a fix made about the time of the rewrite, such that until the last 7 minutes or so the keep it close function appears to keep the games close.  then random number theory sometimes allows the worse team to win. In the old engine, with modern recruiting, some of these coaches in markets with little recruiting competition or who might even be colluding, would win ten straight NT's.  I played a team in the NT recently that was close to a 900 team total, and pretty much is in the mid 800's every year.  That 'can't' happen in a fair recruiting market, the other d1 schools simply wouldn't let it happen.  I won by the way with a low 700 level team, so no sour grapes involved.  And I certainly have been on the positive end of having the better team, probably by a 100 to 1 ratio, so what I condone, would hurt most my teams too.

So in summary, extend the first cycle, tone down the high end, and build up the middle end with ratings and esp potential, and maybe monitor if a bigger change is required.  That'd be my plan to upgrade the game, really wouldn't take too much effort to get started, just kill the last day off, finish up the hotly contested battles in the afternoon of the the day after initial singings, and make the first cycle 26 hours.  Then tweek recruits to even them up a bit for everyone, rather than a select few.  Easy.

Thoughts? 

Some fix needs to be found for the 1st recruiting cycle.  I've proposed (to deaf ears): (A) make it possible to preset some recruiting actions (e.g. one coach call to each recruit on your recruiting summary) and (B) do not allow home visits and campus visits during the 1st cycle.   Admittedly, (A) would not improve Division I much, but it would be a huge timesaver and improvement in the lower divisions.  Also, (B), although clearly the correct move to improve gameplay, is about as popular as ebola.

The problem isn't that there are too many very strong players at the top of DI, it is that the repercussions of battling a top end DI team and losing are too great.   At PSU, I battled Syracuse in consecutive seasons for 2 guards.  In total, PSU flushed $140,000+ down the toilet in back to back season.  It is effectively a prisoner's dilemma for mid tier Big 6 schools.  If you battle in earnest, but everyone else avoids the battles, then you lose badly (and expensively).  You cannot collude, that's the right rule.  However, without battles, the top end A+ D1 schools get all the best recruits FOR NEXT TO NOTHING!!!!!   The next season, on top of having the best players and an A+ prestige, those schools have enormous carryover, because they really never had to do more than spend enough to get the WOTS to show "tight".

The fix for that would be to make Top 10 players at every position have minimum recruiting effort requirements.  In order to sign, the'll need to be promised minutes, starts have a certain number of CV or HV...something meaningful.  Then, when Kansas, UNC, or UCLA (or their ilk) try to ink 6 top tier players, you'll know they've spent real $$ on each and therefore can be beat on one or another.

I'm 100% on board with the fix rogelio mentioned for top level guys.

Mt question is, what is the benefit to the change in the first cycle?  I don't get it.

The problem with the 1st cycle is that it is only 2 hours and, if you have top prestige D1 school you can stick your flag into a recruit and avoid battles.

The OP is focused on the issue that you only have 2 hours to enter actions in the most important cycle.  GD has a 24 hour 1st cycle (which is deadly slow to me).  However, that gives you an opportunity to search recruits and enter actions.  In HD, you can pick out recruits and stick them in your summary, but then you've got to make sure to be available within those 2 hours to take any action.  I think that's a big concern too.  The 8 pm cycle just needs to start earlier (or permit some actions to be entered early).

If you are at D3 or D2, that might not hurt you, so long as you can get a coach call in to each recruit.  In fact, often it is the best strategy to figure out who is recruitable and who isn't (and make sure you're notified if somebody drops).  It hurts only if you strategy is to try to recruit the best JuCo that shows up on your D2 list.  Everyone knows that can get expensive and is precarious for D2 coaches.   

The restriction from make HV or CV during the 1st cycle would (a) reflect reality better (in that you could scout, call coaches, mail materials, but could not visit a recruits home or schedule a CV until later in recruiting) which would have the benefit that (b) coaches couldn't just stick their flags in the considering list early and scare away competition.  The result would be increased competition for recruits.  Thus, many schools would bleed out some of their recruiting budget and you'd get greater variance in recruiting results.

Like I said though, most do not respond well to the idea.  It's possible that just making ranked recruits require certain promises or minimum effort based upon both position ranking and Overall Rank would do it too.  Of course, Kentucky can sign the best 5 freshmen, IF all 5 are promised starts and brought in on campus visits!  Otherwise, a few should peel off and say "Don't think you really want me to go to your school and so..and..so is promising me that I'd start."   That would be a little complicated to program, but it would be relatively transparent as everyone can see the rankings.

1) Move the time for new coach sign-ups back an hour, move the time for the SIM recruiting action back an hour, move the beginning of recruiting back an hour and VIOLA every cycle is now 3 hours.

2) Install a firing system. Right now almost anything better than ghost-shipping allows you keep your job for as long as you want to pay money to play the game.

3) Significantly increase value of starts/minutes promises. I (and many, many others) have A+ teams in which I get top 10 at their position talent, to rot on the bench for their FR season. Put harsh penalties for those that break those promises (firings/prestige reductions). I see all the damn time on these boards, "I promised play X to be a starter, how many games does he have to start?" It should be all of them!

4) Alter the postseason cash so mid-majors don't feel compelled to have to move up. 90% of Big 6 schools are filled, and I constantly see people fed up that they feel they have to move up to be competitive.

Team A (B prestige) is a mid-major in a barren conference that always makes NT.
Team B (B prestige) is in a Big 6 and usually makes the PIT, never the NT.
In a recruiting battle with distance and open scholarships being equal, who wins?

Answer: Team B because they have 20K-30K more in recruiting cash because the elite teams in their conference did well.

Posted by rogelio on 10/29/2014 11:02:00 AM (view original):
The problem with the 1st cycle is that it is only 2 hours and, if you have top prestige D1 school you can stick your flag into a recruit and avoid battles.

The OP is focused on the issue that you only have 2 hours to enter actions in the most important cycle.  GD has a 24 hour 1st cycle (which is deadly slow to me).  However, that gives you an opportunity to search recruits and enter actions.  In HD, you can pick out recruits and stick them in your summary, but then you've got to make sure to be available within those 2 hours to take any action.  I think that's a big concern too.  The 8 pm cycle just needs to start earlier (or permit some actions to be entered early).

If you are at D3 or D2, that might not hurt you, so long as you can get a coach call in to each recruit.  In fact, often it is the best strategy to figure out who is recruitable and who isn't (and make sure you're notified if somebody drops).  It hurts only if you strategy is to try to recruit the best JuCo that shows up on your D2 list.  Everyone knows that can get expensive and is precarious for D2 coaches.   

The restriction from make HV or CV during the 1st cycle would (a) reflect reality better (in that you could scout, call coaches, mail materials, but could not visit a recruits home or schedule a CV until later in recruiting) which would have the benefit that (b) coaches couldn't just stick their flags in the considering list early and scare away competition.  The result would be increased competition for recruits.  Thus, many schools would bleed out some of their recruiting budget and you'd get greater variance in recruiting results.

Like I said though, most do not respond well to the idea.  It's possible that just making ranked recruits require certain promises or minimum effort based upon both position ranking and Overall Rank would do it too.  Of course, Kentucky can sign the best 5 freshmen, IF all 5 are promised starts and brought in on campus visits!  Otherwise, a few should peel off and say "Don't think you really want me to go to your school and so..and..so is promising me that I'd start."   That would be a little complicated to program, but it would be relatively transparent as everyone can see the rankings.

The first cycle thing seems silly to me.  Make yourself available during those 2 hours or don't.  It would be fine to make it a 3 hour window, but we have an entire day to scout and get ready, doesn't seem like a big deal to be available during that time.  Delaying the use of CVs and HVs simply delays the inevitable.  Now people will just put a stake in the recruit the next cycle.  That issue will be resolved if we just put some minimums on top level guys like you stated.

rogelio, great suggestions. i agree.

Posted by cburton23 on 10/29/2014 11:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 10/29/2014 11:02:00 AM (view original):
The problem with the 1st cycle is that it is only 2 hours and, if you have top prestige D1 school you can stick your flag into a recruit and avoid battles.

The OP is focused on the issue that you only have 2 hours to enter actions in the most important cycle.  GD has a 24 hour 1st cycle (which is deadly slow to me).  However, that gives you an opportunity to search recruits and enter actions.  In HD, you can pick out recruits and stick them in your summary, but then you've got to make sure to be available within those 2 hours to take any action.  I think that's a big concern too.  The 8 pm cycle just needs to start earlier (or permit some actions to be entered early).

If you are at D3 or D2, that might not hurt you, so long as you can get a coach call in to each recruit.  In fact, often it is the best strategy to figure out who is recruitable and who isn't (and make sure you're notified if somebody drops).  It hurts only if you strategy is to try to recruit the best JuCo that shows up on your D2 list.  Everyone knows that can get expensive and is precarious for D2 coaches.   

The restriction from make HV or CV during the 1st cycle would (a) reflect reality better (in that you could scout, call coaches, mail materials, but could not visit a recruits home or schedule a CV until later in recruiting) which would have the benefit that (b) coaches couldn't just stick their flags in the considering list early and scare away competition.  The result would be increased competition for recruits.  Thus, many schools would bleed out some of their recruiting budget and you'd get greater variance in recruiting results.

Like I said though, most do not respond well to the idea.  It's possible that just making ranked recruits require certain promises or minimum effort based upon both position ranking and Overall Rank would do it too.  Of course, Kentucky can sign the best 5 freshmen, IF all 5 are promised starts and brought in on campus visits!  Otherwise, a few should peel off and say "Don't think you really want me to go to your school and so..and..so is promising me that I'd start."   That would be a little complicated to program, but it would be relatively transparent as everyone can see the rankings.

The first cycle thing seems silly to me.  Make yourself available during those 2 hours or don't.  It would be fine to make it a 3 hour window, but we have an entire day to scout and get ready, doesn't seem like a big deal to be available during that time.  Delaying the use of CVs and HVs simply delays the inevitable.  Now people will just put a stake in the recruit the next cycle.  That issue will be resolved if we just put some minimums on top level guys like you stated.

Perhaps it isn't inconvenient for you to get online during those 2 hours, but what would be the downside to fixing it for those that do find it inconvenient?  Maybe the game would get more...*gasp*...users!  There are any number of ways to improve that.  You could even make it a 24 hour cycle (as the OP suggests) and lose the last day of signings entirely.  That wouldn't be my first choice, but it would be an improvement over the existing structure.

Entirely independently, delaying visits would keep more coaches interested in players.  There would be 20 schools showing up on considering lists in that first cycle!  Everyone would be sending scouting trips, letters, calls, promises...anything to get on that list.  That would generate competition for recruits at every level.  To be sure, the 2nd cycle would be where the rubber meets the road, but that's precisely the point.  It would foster more early battles.  They'd sort out quickly, but recruiting budgets would be bled down more than they are at present (especially at the top end).  

I admit that the effects of the delayed visits might not go the way I think they would, but I suspect that I'm right.  That would make that change the easiest way to make recruiting occur more like the developers anticipated.   There was a post by Seble (I think) that  indicated the developer's surprise that there is so little competition for top tier players.   You're likely correct that the suggestion to set a minimum bar on effort based upon recruit rankings will accomplish the same thing.  So, if any developer were listening...(hello...)...I'd be glad to just leave the visit suggestion on the table.

I like the idea of extending the first cycle, but by a more moderate amount.
Sometimes I can't get out of work on time and miss the first cycle. I would prefer a slightly longer first cycle (like maybe from 1 to 7 PM), because taking advantage of that 2 hour window is SO important to the process. I don't want my recruiting efforts so heavily damaged by my RL schedule - that takes some of the fun out of the game when the 5-7 window lines up with my after-school tutoring program. 

However, if you make the window a full 24-hour window....I think recruiting will be a massive cluster****, with a lot more luck coming into play. I think a 6 hour window would be best. 

Posted by cburton23 on 10/29/2014 11:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 10/29/2014 11:02:00 AM (view original):
The problem with the 1st cycle is that it is only 2 hours and, if you have top prestige D1 school you can stick your flag into a recruit and avoid battles.

The OP is focused on the issue that you only have 2 hours to enter actions in the most important cycle.  GD has a 24 hour 1st cycle (which is deadly slow to me).  However, that gives you an opportunity to search recruits and enter actions.  In HD, you can pick out recruits and stick them in your summary, but then you've got to make sure to be available within those 2 hours to take any action.  I think that's a big concern too.  The 8 pm cycle just needs to start earlier (or permit some actions to be entered early).

If you are at D3 or D2, that might not hurt you, so long as you can get a coach call in to each recruit.  In fact, often it is the best strategy to figure out who is recruitable and who isn't (and make sure you're notified if somebody drops).  It hurts only if you strategy is to try to recruit the best JuCo that shows up on your D2 list.  Everyone knows that can get expensive and is precarious for D2 coaches.   

The restriction from make HV or CV during the 1st cycle would (a) reflect reality better (in that you could scout, call coaches, mail materials, but could not visit a recruits home or schedule a CV until later in recruiting) which would have the benefit that (b) coaches couldn't just stick their flags in the considering list early and scare away competition.  The result would be increased competition for recruits.  Thus, many schools would bleed out some of their recruiting budget and you'd get greater variance in recruiting results.

Like I said though, most do not respond well to the idea.  It's possible that just making ranked recruits require certain promises or minimum effort based upon both position ranking and Overall Rank would do it too.  Of course, Kentucky can sign the best 5 freshmen, IF all 5 are promised starts and brought in on campus visits!  Otherwise, a few should peel off and say "Don't think you really want me to go to your school and so..and..so is promising me that I'd start."   That would be a little complicated to program, but it would be relatively transparent as everyone can see the rankings.

The first cycle thing seems silly to me.  Make yourself available during those 2 hours or don't.  It would be fine to make it a 3 hour window, but we have an entire day to scout and get ready, doesn't seem like a big deal to be available during that time.  Delaying the use of CVs and HVs simply delays the inevitable.  Now people will just put a stake in the recruit the next cycle.  That issue will be resolved if we just put some minimums on top level guys like you stated.

It is sometimes a big deal because of my job. I always scout and get ready beforehand, but that doesn't mean I can always log on in that 2 hour window. 

I get that, but would one hour make a difference?  And can't you just jump in on the second cycle?  The first cycle is not the end all be all of recruiting.

I'm not against the idea, I just don't think its that important.

Posted by cburton23 on 10/29/2014 3:19:00 PM (view original):
I get that, but would one hour make a difference?  And can't you just jump in on the second cycle?  The first cycle is not the end all be all of recruiting.

I'm not against the idea, I just don't think its that important.

Yeah - I'm saying from 1pm to 7pm, or something like that (much more than a 1 hour difference). Also, I often jump in on the second cycle. While I've had many successful classes having to jump in on later cycles, it's a disadvantage. 

Not sure about D1 but at lower levels, recruiting cash is scarce. If you miss the first cycle and then find that 5 coaches are on a guy, it's really not worth it to go to battle. I think it really is an advantage to get an earlier start than the other coach. What would really be nice is to have the ability to at least scout players in one cycle before we all go into battle blindly. FSS isn't enough information to decide which player to pursue usually. I absolutely 110 percent agree that the two hour window is so incredibly annoying. Really it's nonsensical. The recruiting period takes place over several DAYS. Why does that first cycle when you can start scouting recruits only last two hours?

My suggestion is to extend the two hours to five hours to allow time to scout and contact kids without anyone knowing what other coaches are doing and then allow maybe two cycles more before the system starts reporting who is battling who. Basically instead of 2 hours, maybe 8 or 10 hours. I think the recruiting period is too long anyway.

Having a day and half before to search is great but you can't scout recruits in that timeframe (why, I don't know).

Some people have jobs and here in the west coast, that two hour time span is between 3p and 5p. Basically right in the work day everytime.

But I'm not holding my breath for meaningful changes in the game. You would think with vast empty conferences across the worlds, there would be more of an emphasis on common sense changes to the game that would invigorate the loyal players already here. I wish I could buy HD, I could run it a lot better than Fox.

Posted by bbunch on 10/29/2014 6:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cburton23 on 10/29/2014 3:19:00 PM (view original):
I get that, but would one hour make a difference?  And can't you just jump in on the second cycle?  The first cycle is not the end all be all of recruiting.

I'm not against the idea, I just don't think its that important.

Yeah - I'm saying from 1pm to 7pm, or something like that (much more than a 1 hour difference). Also, I often jump in on the second cycle. While I've had many successful classes having to jump in on later cycles, it's a disadvantage. 

+1.  3pm-7pm is by far the busiest time of the day for me and I never have the luxury of taking 5 minutes out to get on a computer and put in 1st cycle actions.  And as bbunch said, it's a pretty huge disadvantage.  Extending it to around lunchtime would help immensely so I could put in my first round of actions during my lunch break.  (I'm also sure my friends would appreciate a longer first cycle so they don't have to keep helping me out by inputting the laundry list of actions I give them for the first cycle.) 

i have always been an advocate of longer first cycle... but wouldnt it make more sense to extend it the other way?...so 6pm to 11pm eastern  (although in my perfect world i guess i would say 2 or 3 pm until 11pm.)  

i usually dont have trouble getting my recruiting done in that 6 to 8 pm window,  and when i cant,  its not the end of the world... but i think it would be fairer to have a longer window.

actually,  i think if the overall length of recruiting is left as long as it is... it would be an improvemnet if every cycle were 6 hours.  i have allways assumed that the 3 hour thing is done to drive the addiction for nutjobs like me that cant not look at least once every 3 hours.


ryan is OR  right?   either way,   goood suggestions ryan.