I am just finishing up my first season of play in HD, so take the following idea with a grain of salt or maybe four. If my ideas betray a lack of understanding about the game engine, let me know, but please be kind about it 

Player Improvement

I think that ratings improvement would be more realistic if a percentage of ratings growth for a player would happen based upon minutes played in games, with it heavily weighted towards early in a players career. Right now it seems to be a straight line based upon work ethic and practice time until the player reaches their potential and then it stops.

I would like to see improvement happen rapidly for a player once they are part of the regular rotation and then have the effect taper off once the player has “adjusted” to the level of play. This would have the effect of teams playing a bunch of freshman getting beat around earlier in the season, but making rapid improvement so that by the end of the year they would become much tougher to beat. It would also give coaches a decision to make, do you play the veteran who is better now or the young guy who has more potential, counting on the payoff being the end of the season/next year? It would also result in two equal players being radically different in effectiveness if one spent their freshman year as a starter while the other redshirted, but as the redshirt plays, that gap would narrow.

As an example, let's assume that player A has a current rating of 500 and a ceiling of 700. Right now, that player is going to improve in a linear fashion, where they will be 550 by the end of their freshman year, 600 after sophomore, 650 as a junior, and 700 when they graduate. My suggestion would be to make about half of a players improvement occur based upon how much playing experience that they have, with the affect maxing out somewhere around that of a full time starter. So, for a freshman who gets thrown into the fire, by the end of their freshman year instead of being 550, they would be 625 (100 for the playing experience + 25 from practice/work ethic), and the progression would follow as 650, 675, 700. The player who warms the bench for two years and then plays regularly as a junior would only be rated 550 by the start of their junior year, but would then get the experience bump and would be equivalent to the guy who played as a freshman by the end of his junior year.

This effect may already be part of the engine, but if so I am not sure it is strong enough because it seems that underclassmen are less effective than what I would expect.

Recruiting

My understanding of recruiting is that it is heavily weighted toward how much you have spent on a recruit, becoming almost a bidding war when two or more teams with similar prestige are involved. I like this concept and think that how much attention you show a player matters a lot, however, I think that it should be capped, or at least vary based upon the “personality” of the recruit. If this were to be done, coaches would be able to cast their net a little bit wider, and maybe spend more of their resources recruiting/scouting other players. They would also know that if they are maxing their effort toward a player and still not moving up the list, it is time to cut bait and move on to plan B. Ultimately, I would envision most recruits going with the offer from the highest division/prestige, even when they have been recruited all along by a lower prestige team that has been “showing the love” (although I don't think the prestige effect should be nearly as high when D-II teams or D-III teams are competing for a player). This would suck as the lower prestige school, but to be honest, I think it happens a lot in real life.

Posted by a_in_the_b on 6/25/2012 3:33:00 PM (view original):
More pt = improved WE =faster improvement.

WE increase is based on playing time, whether it's early or late.  You play more early, you have greater gains in WE early.

Posted by ryrun on 6/25/2012 1:32:00 PM (view original):
Most of what you stated about player improvement is incorrect (or, to be more accurate, what you're asking for is already implemented).  Number of minutes played is a factor in improvement rate, along with WE and practice minutes (and perhaps HS GPA, though that may only impact IQ improvement if I remember correctly).

If player A and B have the same potential, work ethic and practice minutes and player A gets 3 min/game while player B gets 20 min/game, player B will improve at a considerably faster rate.  This is why, if you have a very young team, it's usually best to just take your licks and get your younger players the playing time as it will speed up their improvement.

Posted by zhawks on 6/25/2012 1:52:00 PM (view original):
You are very off with your thoughts on recruiting, it has nothing to do with the dollar amount spent on a recruit but everything to do with the 'recruiting effort' you put towards a recruit. While they are indirectly related (you do spend money to get recruiting effort) they are different concepts and is why miles away from a recruit becomes so important.

Posted by bullman17 on 6/25/2012 5:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zhawks on 6/25/2012 1:52:00 PM (view original):
You are very off with your thoughts on recruiting, it has nothing to do with the dollar amount spent on a recruit but everything to do with the 'recruiting effort' you put towards a recruit. While they are indirectly related (you do spend money to get recruiting effort) they are different concepts and is why miles away from a recruit becomes so important.

I get that, but my question is, does there come a point where putting additional recruiting effort into a player produces diminishing returns?  When I read the forums regarding how to win a recruiting battle, it seems to boil down to whoever puts in the most effort (not dollars) is going to win (as long as there is not a significant prestige difference).  It seems to work a lot like free agency in pro sports where you hear back from the player that team X is now the leader, so you need to up your offer (pour more resources in).  I think this is mostly right, but in real life there are all kinds of rules regarding how much contact you can have with a recruit, so a team can max out on a recruit and can't really outdo any other teams that have also gone "all in" for a player.

Frankly, I think that recruiting is implemented pretty well and this is a minor quibble, but I just wanted to throw this thought out there.

Posted by bullman17 on 6/25/2012 4:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ryrun on 6/25/2012 1:32:00 PM (view original):
Most of what you stated about player improvement is incorrect (or, to be more accurate, what you're asking for is already implemented).  Number of minutes played is a factor in improvement rate, along with WE and practice minutes (and perhaps HS GPA, though that may only impact IQ improvement if I remember correctly).

If player A and B have the same potential, work ethic and practice minutes and player A gets 3 min/game while player B gets 20 min/game, player B will improve at a considerably faster rate.  This is why, if you have a very young team, it's usually best to just take your licks and get your younger players the playing time as it will speed up their improvement.

Do you think that the improvement rate is dramatic enough?  My thought is that there ought to be a pretty significant bump once a player starts to play regularly in addition to the regular, more linear way that a player improves.  In my experience, it seems that most players will make a pretty significant jump in effectiveness once they have adjusted to the speed of the game.  Practice and work ethic are still real important, I am just wondering if the improvement based on actual gametime experience is given enough weight.

Posted by bullman17 on 6/25/2012 4:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ryrun on 6/25/2012 1:32:00 PM (view original):
Most of what you stated about player improvement is incorrect (or, to be more accurate, what you're asking for is already implemented).  Number of minutes played is a factor in improvement rate, along with WE and practice minutes (and perhaps HS GPA, though that may only impact IQ improvement if I remember correctly).

If player A and B have the same potential, work ethic and practice minutes and player A gets 3 min/game while player B gets 20 min/game, player B will improve at a considerably faster rate.  This is why, if you have a very young team, it's usually best to just take your licks and get your younger players the playing time as it will speed up their improvement.

Do you think that the improvement rate is dramatic enough?  My thought is that there ought to be a pretty significant bump once a player starts to play regularly in addition to the regular, more linear way that a player improves.  In my experience, it seems that most players will make a pretty significant jump in effectiveness once they have adjusted to the speed of the game.  Practice and work ethic are still real important, I am just wondering if the improvement based on actual gametime experience is given enough weight.

Posted by mullycj on 6/25/2012 7:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bullman17 on 6/25/2012 4:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ryrun on 6/25/2012 1:32:00 PM (view original):
Most of what you stated about player improvement is incorrect (or, to be more accurate, what you're asking for is already implemented).  Number of minutes played is a factor in improvement rate, along with WE and practice minutes (and perhaps HS GPA, though that may only impact IQ improvement if I remember correctly).

If player A and B have the same potential, work ethic and practice minutes and player A gets 3 min/game while player B gets 20 min/game, player B will improve at a considerably faster rate.  This is why, if you have a very young team, it's usually best to just take your licks and get your younger players the playing time as it will speed up their improvement.

Do you think that the improvement rate is dramatic enough?  My thought is that there ought to be a pretty significant bump once a player starts to play regularly in addition to the regular, more linear way that a player improves.  In my experience, it seems that most players will make a pretty significant jump in effectiveness once they have adjusted to the speed of the game.  Practice and work ethic are still real important, I am just wondering if the improvement based on actual gametime experience is given enough weight.

Yes it is.  Take FR 2 players with the same WE.  Have one play 20 mins/game and give the other a RS and you will see how much the difference is.

Posted by zhawks on 6/25/2012 6:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bullman17 on 6/25/2012 5:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zhawks on 6/25/2012 1:52:00 PM (view original):
You are very off with your thoughts on recruiting, it has nothing to do with the dollar amount spent on a recruit but everything to do with the 'recruiting effort' you put towards a recruit. While they are indirectly related (you do spend money to get recruiting effort) they are different concepts and is why miles away from a recruit becomes so important.

I get that, but my question is, does there come a point where putting additional recruiting effort into a player produces diminishing returns?  When I read the forums regarding how to win a recruiting battle, it seems to boil down to whoever puts in the most effort (not dollars) is going to win (as long as there is not a significant prestige difference).  It seems to work a lot like free agency in pro sports where you hear back from the player that team X is now the leader, so you need to up your offer (pour more resources in).  I think this is mostly right, but in real life there are all kinds of rules regarding how much contact you can have with a recruit, so a team can max out on a recruit and can't really outdo any other teams that have also gone "all in" for a player.

Frankly, I think that recruiting is implemented pretty well and this is a minor quibble, but I just wanted to throw this thought out there.

Think of it this way it's not how you can win the battle but it's what battles you can win. That is the ultimate key to winning (especially at high D1). 

No - there is not a point where ROI becomes worth any less than it was in the first place in regards to recruiting, the same recruiting tool, at the given cost to you is still worth the same. However, given who you are up against and the rest of the recruiting scene your ROI could very well have been 0 to begin with.

Basically, what I am getting at is: Don't fall in love with a player. There is always an alternative player that will fit into your scheme you just need to find him. Don't over extend yourself, especially not early and especially not if you've fallen in love with a player (you'll likely end up with nobody). My rule of thumb (I'd hang onto this for when you get to D1) is to show my hand for # ships - 2 early. So if I have 1 ship open I almost always sit back, watch the recruiting scene and hope that one of my top 5-10 guys ends up being right for the picking. The only time I go against this is if I have 2 openings, I usually do go for 1 guy. I expect whatever ships I didn't use early will be walk ons (shows strength in recruiting, and allows you to easily pick off most attackers) and if you find before signings you are sitting very strong you can use the knowledge you've seen on what's going around in recruiting to easily find one or two more guys.