A Petition (& rant) to Seble: Fix Recruiting NOW!! Topic

Posted by survivor45 on 8/16/2010 2:48:00 PM (view original):
"Maybe it's just an anomaly in the system and I have to let it go."

So School 1 & School 2 are within about the same distance away from a recruit.

- School 1 has a B prestige; School 2 has a C+ prestige
- School 1 spends $25,000 on a recruit (with more HVs & CVs); School 2 spends $15,000
- School 1 offers the recruit a starting spot; School 2 does not
- School 1 offers 25 minutes of playing time; School 2 does not

- School 2 wins the recruit. Why? I'm stumped.

I thought maybe the recruit could have been swayed by the previous season's record (supposedly, that could make a difference) but School 1 was a NT At-large team (2nd round) and School 2 missed both tournaments.

I'd be curious to know how the new engine formulated this recruit's decision-making. 
If that's really how it went down, he needs to send a ticket.

He's got prestige, more recruiting effort and promises, and loses at the same distance? That's not possible ... unless there's another factor involved. (Boosters?)
8/16/2010 2:56 PM
not sure if I read it all, how about the timing of the effort?

effort expended after a certain point is discounted, I have never seen anyone attempt to explain the magnitude of such a discount, I have an idea that it is fairly substantial money spent the first few cycles might count double or triple money spent around signings time????

Send a ticket in, this should be something CS is willing to explain, typically recruiting stuff is logical and does follow a math formula, unless you found a glitch, which I seriously doubt.
8/16/2010 3:12 PM (edited)
Was there an early considering credit? 

(WHich looking up, is what Oldresorter just said.  Duh)
8/16/2010 3:16 PM
Agreed that it's not recruiting that is broken. It's just the lack of talent in the generation of new recruits that I have an issue with. And yes, BCS schools are affected, just not the UNC's and Dukes :p

Just reposting from another similiar thread, because I am fairly fed up after the last few months of fiascos (replaying games, letting worlds roll over repeatedly and multiple times, other trivial things that I am sure bothered me but have been forgotten because the new recruit generation tops them all)...It seems for every step forward with this game, it takes two steps back...that's regression, not progression...

It also depends on how populated a world is...trying to remain competitve in the ACC in Knight at Georgia Tech has gotten to be nearly impossible for me at the moment with the changes to recruit generation...if I get involved in a high end battle it's costing at least 100K plus promises to land any guy of enough quality to make a difference (even then it's no guarentee). I can't even land SR transfers and local "role' players like I once did, since the talent level is so low now THOSE guys are going for 10k to 20k.

While recruiting battles are interesting, and the decision making process is interesting...being eviscerated like a bleeding seal in shark infested waters two years in a row is not so much :(

I've pretty much resigned myself to taking on two walk-ons a year, plus two formerly D2 quality players for four years, and TRYING to get 8 decent enough players to hopefully win 4 to 6 ACC games, and with these new recruits that's probably the best I can even hope for looking forward.

Sure, I could drop to D2 and probably dominate but...I used to love trying to compete in the ACC, NOW it's I "like" trying to win 4 to 6 ACC games...when that gets old I will just drop the team (like I probably should have done after that replaying games fiasco) and try and find another basketball sim :p


While I enjoy "realism" in my games, this has gotten to the point where "realism" is trumping fun and at the end of the day...GAMES SHOULD BE FUN :)


Right now am kicking myself in the *** for still caring and not just moving on like I should have months ago.

So yes, please find some middle ground with the generation of new recruits, there are just not enough recruits to go around for the lower BCS and mid-majors to even remain CLOSE to competitive. And AGAIN, this only applies to D1...D2 and D3 seem fine.
8/16/2010 3:49 PM
I submitted a ticket asking for my recruiting history to be sent back to me, just to make doubly sure that I have reported everything here accurately. 
8/16/2010 4:00 PM
Posted by girt25 on 8/16/2010 2:56:00 PM (view original):
Posted by survivor45 on 8/16/2010 2:48:00 PM (view original):
"Maybe it's just an anomaly in the system and I have to let it go."

So School 1 & School 2 are within about the same distance away from a recruit.

- School 1 has a B prestige; School 2 has a C+ prestige
- School 1 spends $25,000 on a recruit (with more HVs & CVs); School 2 spends $15,000
- School 1 offers the recruit a starting spot; School 2 does not
- School 1 offers 25 minutes of playing time; School 2 does not

- School 2 wins the recruit. Why? I'm stumped.

I thought maybe the recruit could have been swayed by the previous season's record (supposedly, that could make a difference) but School 1 was a NT At-large team (2nd round) and School 2 missed both tournaments.

I'd be curious to know how the new engine formulated this recruit's decision-making. 
If that's really how it went down, he needs to send a ticket.

He's got prestige, more recruiting effort and promises, and loses at the same distance? That's not possible ... unless there's another factor involved. (Boosters?)
If everything is correct, boosters would be about the only thing left that could have made up that large of a difference.
8/16/2010 5:07 PM
From what I've seen in recruiting there is no comparison between the top 20 (5-star) overall new recruits vs. old recruits.  The new ones do have better starting numbers.  After those top 20 it drops quickly.  So I agree that the mid-majors certainly are going to be affected by the new recruits they get but as g0at says so will the mid to lower half of the teams in the major conferences.

As for D2, I've still been able to get players about the same caliber as I got previously.   Of course the recruits available to the top D2 teams are much higher rated than before and the D2 teams that go after them will face a far greater chance of bumping heads with the D1s.

As for potential I haven't really seen much change in the number of high categories for those D2 recruits. If anything the FT category has about tripled in the number of recruits that are high potential.   But I have seen a little more red on the FSS screens and less average potential categories.


I agree with those that say there is now an even larger emphasis placed on recruiting.   But not just from the FSS vantage point but from additional Scouting Evaluations.  
Of those with the high potential it seems an unusually large percentage of the high categories are now becoming high-high.  In the past if a player had 6 high categories you were lucky to get a couple of those to be high-high.  After a closer look at the new guys it now seems a much greater percentage of those high potentials are actually high-high.

In the past Rupp session I landed three players with a combined 20 high potentials.   14 of those 20 were high-high.  They are out there but it took much more time to find them.
And more than ever it appears some guys in the 180-200 position spots were better than players in the 80-100 spots.   Interesting to see multiple D1 teams battle over a #80 PF when I felt the guy ranked 80 spots lower was better than the guy they were battling for.

In Allen I recruited the #109 C but  redshirted him because I also signed an unranked C with 10 high potential categories. 
8/16/2010 5:16 PM (edited)
Yes, but recruiting is way down on the list of fixes that need to be done. How about just re-hiring the original programmers of hd?
8/16/2010 5:19 PM
Posted by damon_h1992 on 8/16/2010 5:19:00 PM (view original):
Yes, but recruiting is way down on the list of fixes that need to be done. How about just re-hiring the original programmers of hd?
If this is way down your list, I'd be curious as to what is high up on your list?
8/16/2010 5:22 PM
Posted by dcy0827 on 8/16/2010 5:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by damon_h1992 on 8/16/2010 5:19:00 PM (view original):
Yes, but recruiting is way down on the list of fixes that need to be done. How about just re-hiring the original programmers of hd?
If this is way down your list, I'd be curious as to what is high up on your list?
Job process has always been my #1
8/16/2010 5:26 PM
Posted by Iguana1 on 8/16/2010 5:16:00 PM (view original):
From what I've seen in recruiting there is no comparison between the top 20 (5-star) overall new recruits vs. old recruits.  The new ones do have better starting numbers.  After those top 20 it drops quickly.  So I agree that the mid-majors certainly are going to be affected by the new recruits they get but as g0at says so will the mid to lower half of the teams in the major conferences.

As for D2, I've still been able to get players about the same caliber as I got previously.   Of course the recruits available to the top D2 teams are much higher rated than before and the D2 teams that go after them will face a far greater chance of bumping heads with the D1s.

As for potential I haven't really seen much change in the number of high categories for those D2 recruits. If anything the FT category has about tripled in the number of recruits that are high potential.   But I have seen a little more red on the FSS screens and less average potential categories.


I agree with those that say there is now an even larger emphasis placed on recruiting.   But not just from the FSS vantage point but from additional Scouting Evaluations.  
Of those with the high potential it seems an unusually large percentage of the high categories are now becoming high-high.  In the past if a player had 6 high categories you were lucky to get a couple of those to be high-high.  After a closer look at the new guys it now seems a much greater percentage of those high potentials are actually high-high.

In the past Rupp session I landed three players with a combined 20 high potentials.   14 of those 20 were high-high.  They are out there but it took much more time to find them.
And more than ever it appears some guys in the 180-200 position spots were better than players in the 80-100 spots.   Interesting to see multiple D1 teams battle over a #80 PF when I felt the guy ranked 80 spots lower was better than the guy they were battling for.

In Allen I recruited the #109 C but  redshirted him because I also signed an unranked C with 10 high potential categories. 
IG - I took alot of heat for making a prediction that some wise d2 coach is going to put together a team that could be ranked in d1, looks like you are on your way to do so.  You've been at this forever, you seemed pretty happy with this change during beta testing, is it everything you hoped for?

I did not like the change conceptionally, but I was shocked at how low the mid range d1 recruits were dropped to and in the mid to hi d1 level, how many red pot guys there are.  In d2 players, I like you have almost found the opposite, lots of interesting guys.

The trick in d1 for the guys trying to win it all will be to blend the interesting hi pot guys with the all red elite players in such a manner that it works.

What seem wrong about d1 in a nutshell, is due to location (recruit rich location) or due to market (sim coaches in the area or coaches who don't know how to recruit) some d1 coaches are going to recruit 800 level classes unopposed, while others will fight to put together a team the way it was meant to be with maybe one elite player and one or two hand picked role players..

Naitonalized recruiting would fix it, by in all honesty, I think nationalized recruiting would be a bloodbath, might be noone left standing, but after a few sessions under seble's recruiting system, I am hitting a point who cares, this was no longer meant to be fun anyhow - challenging yes, extraordinarily time consuming for sure - fun - just isn't.
8/16/2010 5:27 PM
Posted by damon_h1992 on 8/16/2010 5:19:00 PM (view original):
Yes, but recruiting is way down on the list of fixes that need to be done. How about just re-hiring the original programmers of hd?
for some reason i feel pretty confident that the bridge between Fox and TK has been burned to the ground...
8/16/2010 6:02 PM
hindsight 20/20 update :  The last 2 seasons in Rupp with the new recruit changes well....  It feels like big 10 inter-conf battles were way way up - not sure about other confs.  This could be a byproduct of the recruiting change - if so I like it.  the unwritten rule of "don't battle with your conf"  is kind of collusive anyways.  
8/16/2010 6:09 PM
NT starts tonight in Allen, and the BCS conferences received 29 NT bids. In the previous four seasons they'd gotten between 21-24.
8/16/2010 6:32 PM
Posted by oldresorter on 8/16/2010 3:12:00 PM (view original):
not sure if I read it all, how about the timing of the effort?

effort expended after a certain point is discounted, I have never seen anyone attempt to explain the magnitude of such a discount, I have an idea that it is fairly substantial money spent the first few cycles might count double or triple money spent around signings time????

Send a ticket in, this should be something CS is willing to explain, typically recruiting stuff is logical and does follow a math formula, unless you found a glitch, which I seriously doubt.
I think dilo said that he was "on" the recruit "early", but what he meant by that exactly I'm not sure.
8/16/2010 6:46 PM
◂ Prev 1...15|16|17|18|19...28 Next ▸
A Petition (& rant) to Seble: Fix Recruiting NOW!! Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.