and give everyone a chance to be competitive....

all right so I really dont have an idea but one of you must. So basically, lets get one out in this thread. A lot of people are complaining about the new recruits, about how mid majors cant possibly win, etc. Well lets solve those problems now, we've already done enough complaining about it for a year. If we can think of good solutions, Seble will implament them, thats how he is.

So go ahead, post your ideas.

1) Expand the number of quality recruits so mid-majors have a few to fight over in order to have a possibility to move up. This is the biggest issue today.

2) Change the way sims recruit. A sim with several openings will outbid a human coach with fewer or equal openings because the sim does not care about the scrubs they will also have to get. IIRC, the sim coach spreads app. 2/3 of the recruiting budget among 1/3 of the recruits out of the box (or something like that), thereby driving up recruiting costs in a way human coaches wouldn't...so sims often get, say, one good recruit and 2 awful ones. Please correct if I am wrong or improve if I am generally correct.

3) Create incentives to move up to a higher division. Given comments on the forum, many coaches resist moving to D1 now.

4) I know this has to be difficult, but make the game a bit more predictable so that ratings reflect performance better. Holding variables such as opposing defense, quality of other teammates, etc. constant, there are too many examples of, say, a SG w/ 65 Ath, 85 Spd, 96 Per, 75 BH, and 80 WE shooting .415 for a college career with moderate distribution, zero for 3 pt., and A- or better offense for the JR-SR seasons.

I think #1 is the big issue.  I have been defending the change for the last 100 days, adopting a wait and see attitude, but with the last cycle in Allen, and the 3rd set of "new" recruits being generated, this is out of hand and in danger of ruining my favorite team.

Recruits needed to be toned down, but what happened is that the top 25 players got made better, the 25-50 (Overall) players stayed the same and everyone else got worse.

I keep track and I would say the #25 SG today is most likely worse than the #75 SG before the recruiting change.  This has gone too far.  The gap between the haves and have nots has grown to a chasm and its getting worse.  The #1 SF has an overall above 800, while SFs ranked in the 20s are below 600.  This is true at all positions.  Whoever gets that #1 SF is going to have such a giant advantage. 

I recruited the #11 (#59 overall) Center in Allen 2 seasons ago and he wouldn't have cracked the top 50 centers before the changeover.  If Florida can't find recruits, how would I have survived at Wichita State.

Boost up the value of recruits at 20-200th at their positions at least a little. 

OR

Give us some 50th 60th 70th level recruits that have awesome potential and could some day, with a RS season and be on par with the #1-10 players as juniors or seniors.  Right now the little guys have no hope, and even the B/C level power conference schools have a tough time.

The EE logic is whacked, so that these 825 freshman (Starting) don't leave after their first year.  If you want them to be 1 and done type players, maybe that could work too.

I'm sure someone has come up with this idea before, but why not have some of the top 15 recruits skip college altogether and go straight to the pros???  That way, if the A+ prestige schools want the top guys they have some competition (from the pro ranks) and have to waste some of their money on guys who they won't end up getting.  This will level the playing field out a bit and not allow the big guys to poach so easily.

Posted by elibolender on 9/1/2010 2:09:00 PM (view original):
I'm sure someone has come up with this idea before, but why not have some of the top 15 recruits skip college altogether and go straight to the pros???  That way, if the A+ prestige schools want the top guys they have some competition (from the pro ranks) and have to waste some of their money on guys who they won't end up getting.  This will level the playing field out a bit and not allow the big guys to poach so easily.

If you're going to do something along these lines (giving players the John Wall types, where you know the guy is going pro after one year), then you'd have to also allow players to be much more effective in the FR seasons.  But that would send this post off on a tangent and take away from the original intent of the thread, so in order to avoid that...

Just off the top of my head and a very "throw crap at the wall and see what sticks" line of thinking:

- You could change the FSS into different tiers of players (elite, above average, average, etc) and have teams choose what level of players they want to scout.  For the Big 6 elites, they would obviously always be scouting the elite players.  But then for the mid-majors, they could scout the above average or average players and try to find those diamonds in the rough that everyone is so enamored with.  They would have lower starter stats but more high-high potentials.

- I agree the SIM recruiting needs modified and they probably should incur at least some of a distance disadvantage due to some of the posts up above.

- I don't like the caps on potential - it was touched on above, but you should still be able to improve a low potential kid with enough practice time.  You should have the option to push 30-40 minutes into a low potential area and still see some improvement without it capping.  I know people will come back with RL examples of how Shaq could shoot free throws until his arms fell off and still have a max of 60% from the line, but this isn't RL.  If I want to improve a kid's FT% at the cost of his LP or REB ratings, that should be my choice.  It would have to be drastic enough to where you couldn't get the best of both worlds, but I think it could be done with enough time/testing.

I don't know, just a couple ideas.

I definitely agree sim recruiting needs to be changed. With my C- St. Joe's team I should not see a recruit from PA considering a C+ sim ai team from Nevada with 6 scholarships. Thats just stupid because I either can not beat that team out or it will take a large portion of my funds when the team should not be going after that guy in the first place. 

Ryrun - The Big 6 would still scout all levels (not just elite) to find the "diamonds in the rough" in the lesser levels because they have so much money to burn.  It all goes back to the massive $$$ disparity in recruiting. 

A Wall like FR is effective in this game.  It's just that the Big 6 doesn't have to play those guys because last year's Wall like FR is now a SO (or two years ago's is a  JR) and they are obviously better.  Not all studs are leaving after one season.

One thing I would like to see eliminated is the ability of the same program being able to get three of the top 20 recruits in a year and then another three top 20's the next season.  A lot of top recruits would prefer to go to a mid-major and become the alpha dog right away as opposed to going to UK or UNC where they will sit in this game for a couple years.

1)  Recruit Generation, which has been talked about by previous posters on here
2)  Baseline prestige - do away with it, tweak it, whatever.  It's just as big of a cluster f**k as recruit generation, in my opinion.

If Seble doesn't want to fix recruit generation, he has to fix the baseline prestige.  It has been said that the Mid-Majors can be competitive now, but that is on cycle of how loaded their team is with upperclassmen.  Even if they are able to make a S16 run or better, they are not rewarded for it as much as a Big 6 school.  There are plenty of coaches at Mid-Majors in this game that like to try and push the little guy as far as possible, but then they are left with scraps when recruiting rolls around.  If you want to keep people in the game, you have to show them some kind of reward for their efforts!

Posted by ardthomp on 9/1/2010 3:03:00 PM (view original):
1)  Recruit Generation, which has been talked about by previous posters on here
2)  Baseline prestige - do away with it, tweak it, whatever.  It's just as big of a cluster f**k as recruit generation, in my opinion.

If Seble doesn't want to fix recruit generation, he has to fix the baseline prestige.  It has been said that the Mid-Majors can be competitive now, but that is on cycle of how loaded their team is with upperclassmen.  Even if they are able to make a S16 run or better, they are not rewarded for it as much as a Big 6 school.  There are plenty of coaches at Mid-Majors in this game that like to try and push the little guy as far as possible, but then they are left with scraps when recruiting rolls around.  If you want to keep people in the game, you have to show them some kind of reward for their efforts!

And I'm not talking about monetary rewards, because that part of the game is fine.

Posted by tmacfan12 on 9/1/2010 2:42:00 PM (view original):
I definitely agree sim recruiting needs to be changed. With my C- St. Joe's team I should not see a recruit from PA considering a C+ sim ai team from Nevada with 6 scholarships. Thats just stupid because I either can not beat that team out or it will take a large portion of my funds when the team should not be going after that guy in the first place. 

Right, because no one would EVER go out of state to play.  Why, exactly, shouldn't Nevada be going after that player?  Because it makes recruiting difficult for you?

if the young players start declaring for the draft early once the old recruits are out of the system, i think the recruit generation would be fine

You are trying to make me look stupid but your logic is lacking... in HD D1 teams do not recruit across the country so why are sim ais allowed to? It does not effect elites because they can easily knock off any sim ai that tries to take a top recruit however it does effect mid majors because there are times like the above situation where knocking off a sim is impossible. 

If you want to argue that there should more across country recruiting then that is another issue.

Posted by emy1013 on 9/1/2010 3:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tmacfan12 on 9/1/2010 2:42:00 PM (view original):
I definitely agree sim recruiting needs to be changed. With my C- St. Joe's team I should not see a recruit from PA considering a C+ sim ai team from Nevada with 6 scholarships. Thats just stupid because I either can not beat that team out or it will take a large portion of my funds when the team should not be going after that guy in the first place. 

Right, because no one would EVER go out of state to play.  Why, exactly, shouldn't Nevada be going after that player?  Because it makes recruiting difficult for you?

They also move across the country at a nominal fee. It would take a PA school a ton of money to steal a Nevada player from Nevada, but Nevada sims can steal a PA player from a PA school with relative ease in terms of money spent

What if you made promises more of a factor? If a Big 6 is battling a Mid Major for a decent recruit, and the MId Major offers him a start + 20, then the Mid Major's chances of landing him are greatly increased. And if he gets to the Mid Major school and doesn't start and play 20 minutes his first year, he immediately leaves and bad things happen. Just a thought.

I think a simple solution is to actually have freshman players who can contribute right away.  Despite all the changes in recruiting, we still don't have Carmelo Anthonys in HD.  If elite schools are going to take guys who are going to leave early, at least have the guys who are going to leave early come into the season with the ability to be something other than a filler.  The more of these one-and-done guys that are at elite level schools, the more rebuilding there is at high level places, and the more of an opportunity there will be for mid-level schools to catch up to the power players.