Overall, I would prefer the current recruiting system with some tweaks over any season long recruiting or other overhaul. Here are some things I would consider looking at:

1.) National Recruiting - By making it easier for schools to recruit nationally as opposed to regionally it will increase competition between the top schools over the top recruits. I'd like to see UNC, UCLA, and Michigan State battling over a 5 star recruit as opposed to UCLA scooping up the 5 stars in California it wants because it's the highest prestige in the area.

2.) Increase Recruiting Competition in Conference - I'm in the best D2 conference in Crum. There is maybe, MAYBE, one or two battles a season between our conference mates. One of the first things I was told when I first joined HD years ago was "Don't battle conference mates." I've always thought this was dumb and is completely backwards. If I'm at Duke, I should be competing with UNC for recruits, not leaving the best PG in the area completely alone because UNC found them first and I don't want to hurt the conference. The only way I can see this improving is to drastically lower or remove the benefits you receive from conference mates' success. I also think this would help alleviate the problem of entire Big 6 conferences with monster recruiting budgets and high prestiges absolutely dominating every world. Hopefully that problem has been slightly diminished by the recent conference prestige adjustments.

Posted by llamanunts on 6/27/2012 11:42:00 AM (view original):
A note: any suggestion to increase the number of battles really should address what happens to the losers.  As it stands now, the loser is just plain BONED.  It's too large a price to pay.

I do not agree with this at all.  Yes the loser of the battle takes a hit, but how often does a school with 5 schollies go all in on 1 player and not get him??  If you only have 1-2 schollies and lose a battle, you get 1-2 walkons, hardly crippling to a program.  If you have 5-6 schollies and lose a battle, yeah it hurts, but you probably still got 2-3 other serviceable players.   Just make the recruit generation a little deeper, and there would be fall back players to go after.  Yes they are lesser quality, but that's life.  If you are afraid of a battle, get out of big time D1. 

I am about to start my 8th season at Iowa, my only big 6 team, and this is the first time I've had a roster that might be able to make a run.  The main reason for that was in my 2nd, 3rd and 4th seasons, I lost battles. It set me back, but I recovered.   Man up and get in some fights.  Watching Duke score 5-6 studs without a battle should NEVER happen under any recruiting system.  If duke aint fighting carolina, or syracuse aint fighting uconn, or indiana and kentucky, etc, something is wrong. 

A way to decrease the importance of money without actually changing the money supply:

Have recruits take into consideration "percent of budget spent on them" along with total recruiting effort, prestige, etc. For example School A with a $6,000 budget and School B with a $15,000 budget both spend $3,000 on a recruit with everything else being equal (total effort, distance, prestige, etc.). School A has a slight advantage because it spent 50% of its budget on the recruit, while School B only spent 20% of its budget.

Maybe a way to help out the little guy with only one or two open schollies?

I agree with namshub - I don't want to have to learn an entire new system if the current one is overhauled. This is not my day job!

I would like to see the top 10 players at each position HAVE to start, and 11-20 HAVE to play. If they don't, then they automatically transfer and the coach is ridiculed in public. That way, at least a few of the top recruits don't languish on a top team's bench for the first year or two. Instead they will be playing for a team that might not have been able to sign them otherwise.

Posted by milkamania on 6/27/2012 12:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by llamanunts on 6/27/2012 11:42:00 AM (view original):
A note: any suggestion to increase the number of battles really should address what happens to the losers.  As it stands now, the loser is just plain BONED.  It's too large a price to pay.

I do not agree with this at all.  Yes the loser of the battle takes a hit, but how often does a school with 5 schollies go all in on 1 player and not get him??  If you only have 1-2 schollies and lose a battle, you get 1-2 walkons, hardly crippling to a program.  If you have 5-6 schollies and lose a battle, yeah it hurts, but you probably still got 2-3 other serviceable players.   Just make the recruit generation a little deeper, and there would be fall back players to go after.  Yes they are lesser quality, but that's life.  If you are afraid of a battle, get out of big time D1. 

I am about to start my 8th season at Iowa, my only big 6 team, and this is the first time I've had a roster that might be able to make a run.  The main reason for that was in my 2nd, 3rd and 4th seasons, I lost battles. It set me back, but I recovered.   Man up and get in some fights.  Watching Duke score 5-6 studs without a battle should NEVER happen under any recruiting system.  If duke aint fighting carolina, or syracuse aint fighting uconn, or indiana and kentucky, etc, something is wrong. 

+1000

More battles between top schools would be great for HD. The way it is now, top schools keep collecting more and more carryover because they don't have to battle anyone, then eventually mid-majors have no chance against top schools simply because of the massive amount of $$$ they have stockpiled.

Posted by usc4life on 6/27/2012 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by milkamania on 6/27/2012 12:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by llamanunts on 6/27/2012 11:42:00 AM (view original):
A note: any suggestion to increase the number of battles really should address what happens to the losers.  As it stands now, the loser is just plain BONED.  It's too large a price to pay.

I do not agree with this at all.  Yes the loser of the battle takes a hit, but how often does a school with 5 schollies go all in on 1 player and not get him??  If you only have 1-2 schollies and lose a battle, you get 1-2 walkons, hardly crippling to a program.  If you have 5-6 schollies and lose a battle, yeah it hurts, but you probably still got 2-3 other serviceable players.   Just make the recruit generation a little deeper, and there would be fall back players to go after.  Yes they are lesser quality, but that's life.  If you are afraid of a battle, get out of big time D1. 

I am about to start my 8th season at Iowa, my only big 6 team, and this is the first time I've had a roster that might be able to make a run.  The main reason for that was in my 2nd, 3rd and 4th seasons, I lost battles. It set me back, but I recovered.   Man up and get in some fights.  Watching Duke score 5-6 studs without a battle should NEVER happen under any recruiting system.  If duke aint fighting carolina, or syracuse aint fighting uconn, or indiana and kentucky, etc, something is wrong. 

+1000

More battles between top schools would be great for HD. The way it is now, top schools keep collecting more and more carryover because they don't have to battle anyone, then eventually mid-majors have no chance against top schools simply because of the massive amount of $$$ they have stockpiled.

Too much of a blanket statement on my part.  I should have realized that approximately 96% of any discussion focuses on D1.

In D2 or D3, which comprises only about 2/3 of, y'know, everything, you're BONED.

Please also note that I did not say anything about wanting fewer battles.  I suggested that people address the predicament of the loser... and should have specified D2/D3.

I hope their or tweaks, not a whole new system. Just beginning to understand parts and become comfortable with this one. Some food for thought.

Allow preloading of recruiting activity for  the first cycle.

Multiple SV's give multiple info. This would help some with the 1-2 scolly teams going aginstg the 4-6 scholly teams. Practically speaking, if you have little schooly money you can't afford both FSS and have enough recruiting $ to tie up a player,  defend your player or go late on a player. Reward the coach  who does multi SV's for his effort.You pay for it, you should get it.  As it is now you pretty much get the same info over and over. That's not realistic.

Guaranteed mins/starts. Make them more valuable and important. Use then to get players, but make coachs understand they must honor the promise. Make it clear if they do not meet the 80% rule that the player will definitely transfer. Also make the guarantee through the entire season including the post season. As it is now, there is alot of huffing and puffing , but few players actually leave. If a coach uses promises to get a kid great, but also make him have to play him like he promised
 all year. How effective do you think guarantees  would be if a coach said,  I promise to start you during the regular season, but not for the important games.

In the vein of what I'd want if starting from scratch, a couple of ideas:

1. Expand what you can promise a recruit, and make those promises matter. For example, offer the ability to promise a start in future seasons (as GD does), or the ability to start at a certain position--so a SG might give greater consideration to a team promising him a start at the 2. Make those promises carry weight, and punish those coaches who don't fulfill their promises--a loss in reputation, say, or the departure of the player from the program. Make it much less likely that an elite player will attend a school where he's just going to sit on the bench for two seasons.

2. The ability to use $$ to develop pipelines into certain areas, or even specific high schools--guys from a given HS would be more likely to attend my school if I've recruited from there in the past, for example.

ah yes pipelines - another way to create texture

some increase in the value of effort if you recently recruited a guy from the same small geographic area (not state, something more uniform)

some big increase in the value of effort if you recently signed a guy from the same high school

Posted by metsmax on 6/27/2012 2:08:00 PM (view original):
ah yes pipelines - another way to create texture

some increase in the value of effort if you recently recruited a guy from the same small geographic area (not state, something more uniform)

some big increase in the value of effort if you recently signed a guy from the same high school

To that I think I should automatically get any players coming from a High School or JuCo where I coach ;)

I think it was some small JuCo in the midwest where I found myself as the recruits coach. Still makes me laugh every time.

Posted by taniajane on 6/27/2012 9:28:00 AM (view original):
well I like the idea of recruiting During the season.....even if perhaps only after league play started. it would keep interest in the recruiting phase longer and more simulate real life.

The issue with inseason recruiting IMO is likely a huge coding task (I know seble said that he was open to it) but since SIMs do not currently recruit with money and distance as human coaches do it would be a huge change.

I would love to be able to see all levels of HS players (I'll settle for Jr and Sr) have their ratings change slightly, more so from Fr-So, slower the next year, etc. You can 'recruit' anyone you'd like during recruiting (possibly limits on how many visits to younger players), recruits are able to give 'verbals' at any time throughout their senior year.

Posted by coachcali on 6/27/2012 10:50:00 AM (view original):
This is a money related suggestion in  regars to recruiting. Make tournament money more like RL. Instead of tourney $ being equally divided 12 ways divide  tourney $ into 14 or 15 shares with the team responsible for winning the money getting 3 or 4 shares and the rest of the conference getting a share each.Example 15 shares, tourney team 4 shares, the other 11, 1 share each.

This would reward the teams doing heavy lifting. After all they went further than the others. It would be an incentive to grow and get better for the other human  coached teams in the conference.

This has been something I have been wanting for a while, my idea has always been: 30% of postseason money earned to the school, 70% to the conference (the school earning it will get 1/12 of that share as well). This would help limit an overall conferences power based on just two or three good schools.

Re: billyg

i have probably had more success with last minute tactics, playing games with old promises, and winning recruits by outspending a school in the short term, that i could never outspend in the long run - than the vast majority of coaches. so i have no hatred for those tactics, although they certainly have been used against me (where else would i get the idea?). i think if you put a moderate cap, say 10K/cycle, on d1 recruiting - that would really change the game substantially, and for the better. that would stop people winning recruits largely because somebody else was foolish enough to actually want to sleep for 3 consecutive hours =) 

I've used this tactic religiously for years as well, at D1 it is extremely powerful, especially given a good knowledge of recruiting, both in general and what is going on around you. I don't think that it needs to go away and am hesitant to get rid of it. If you are going to do it I would consider possibly putting this in place for the first 24 hours (before considering credit starts) and once that starts be done with a limit. 

I am also curious to know who you know that sleeps between noon-7 pm cst, because that's typically when I make these moves.

We need more texture and variability, all which can be done in the current system. 
-- Add more mid-level players who can improve to recruit generation
-- Make promises matter more to some
-- Make distance matter more to some
-- In the same way that a top player wouldn't be willing to accept a redshirt, he shouldn't accept a 5min/game bench role at a top team
-- Make winning tradition matter more to some
-- Make potential cloudier and ratchet up the potential improvements for some of the mid-level recruits so there is more potential to grow top flight guys by their junior, senior years. 

Posted by zhawks on 6/27/2012 2:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmax on 6/27/2012 2:08:00 PM (view original):
ah yes pipelines - another way to create texture

some increase in the value of effort if you recently recruited a guy from the same small geographic area (not state, something more uniform)

some big increase in the value of effort if you recently signed a guy from the same high school

To that I think I should automatically get any players coming from a High School or JuCo where I coach ;)

I think it was some small JuCo in the midwest where I found myself as the recruits coach. Still makes me laugh every time.

or let each of us secretly identify to WIS our actual high school and get a bump for that school

I have recruited one kid from my actual high school and thought it was terrific