Posted by jsajsa on 6/27/2012 9:30:00 AM (view original):
allow us to post first cycle moves prior to 6 ET

not that the cycle would run earlier or change anything of substance - just allow entry of planned recruiting moves during say the 12 hours prior to the first cycle - which is now the shortest and often the most important

Pre load the 6PM cycle

+1



I see no need for a complete overhaul, just a few upgrades here and there.

+1

Posted by zhawks on 6/27/2012 2:43:00 PM (view original):
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.

well, there is the cycle before/after signing, or 2 after signing type move. which sucks too - ive won a few, when i never could long run - against a school with other battles and other priorities. once he signed his other players, he could have flattened me, but was not able or willing to take the risk at the last second like that. and he didn't necessarily know id only be 30-40k deep, all of it in by the cycle after signings. i just don't think recruiting should have a place for those blitzkrieg type moves, despite enjoying the success they bring me. also, a couple coaches have sitemailed me saying, congrats, enjoy it while it lasts - they had something to do that cost them the ability to look between 5 and 8, or 7:50 and 11:10, so they missed that i jumped on and signed their player.

ive also taken players during the night after signings. AND before, although the before ones, the people obviously could react - just harder when a recruit is no longer considering you.

i personally think spending 10K in a cycle is not very restrictive, you have to be pretty far ahead to sign someone in the first place. i think having to ramp up would be fine. this would also give school the opportunity to get like 3-4 cycles into a player before signings, making it impossible for another school to 1 shot show up. they'd have to at least put in the first 10k sooner, and then go for another 10k of effort. depending on distance and all of course, but in general...

Posted by johnner26 on 6/27/2012 3:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jsajsa on 6/27/2012 9:30:00 AM (view original):
allow us to post first cycle moves prior to 6 ET

not that the cycle would run earlier or change anything of substance - just allow entry of planned recruiting moves during say the 12 hours prior to the first cycle - which is now the shortest and often the most important

Pre load the 6PM cycle

+1



I see no need for a complete overhaul, just a few upgrades here and there.

+1

+1

seble, i admire the extent you seem willing to go to change things to make the game better. however, the bigger and more fundamental the changes, the more important beta testing and all that is. also, i think you should have some higher end teams, some teams who threaten to win championships. this game is a lot different when you compete for (and win) championships, and when you don't. i think you would benefit from having a high end bcs team, a low end one, a mid major, a d2 team, and a d3 team, before you make SUCH drastic changes. otherwise, its impossible to personally weigh the potential impacts of a change on all levels of the game, which i personally feel like has been one of your weaker suits in your time as HD admin, because you were still getting to know the game (obviously, its to be expected).

i think you know i have REALLY been behind many of your changes, especially in theory. but a lot of times, they just don't come out exactly right, and need some tweaking (again, i am in software development, and that is the natural order of things). a lot of it sounds simply fantastic in theory but context is everything, it might be great in one way, but always have that pesky law of unintended consequences to deal with. you can get that critical context 2 ways. 1) have more teams that are more competitive, and 2) in depth exchanges with beta testers. preferably both. i would strongly recommend getting through a good beta round, getting that process all down, and having a highly successful release that is a major change, before you do something INCREDIBLY HUGE like write recruiting from scratch.

im not saying you haven't had highly successful releases. your fix to potential arguably saved this game, it may be the only significant release that didnt change something i didn't like (it didnt fix everything, but what it touched, came out really nicely). and many of your updates since have had a lot of positive. but some of them have needed some context, and you've never had a successful beta round here in HD. i think until that process has been vetted, a from-scratch recruiting system is just too big and dangerous. please don't take that the wrong way, i am honestly one of your biggest supporters and fans (not to say i haven't been critical, i have on a number of occasions, but still). and I in no way mean to belittle the great work you've done on HD, or demean the effort you've put in. however, we've never had the beta testing required for these kinds of game-shaping, life-altering changes, and i don't think its possible for *anyone*, you, me, or programmers better than both of us put together - to pull off something as big and complex as doing recruiting from scratch - without that all-important beta cycle.

gill - i'd be more then happy to assist in a long term beta world on the test site (as I am sure many would), I think one drawback from that is that it could impact how many teams coaches pay for and that could be a reason why it hasn't happened.

I agree with your statement on beta 100% though - I'd strongly urge seble to start the beta world much earlier than we did last time and slowly integrate changes so that he can see what each one does and come out with a super polished update!

Posted by metsmax on 6/27/2012 3:24:00 PM (view original):

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

Each coach could have a 'region' - maybe as easy as grouping states and keeping a running tally of where they are from, you could use that information to give a small bonus or small hit to someone recruiting inside or way outside their regular 'zones'? (just coming up with thoughts here).

Simple shading of the FSS map could show the regions. I would group regions by number of schools though, as that is how recruits are generated. Didn't Rails have a great idea of how to generate recruits differently by region and school conference prestige as opposed to just number of schools? (I am prolly way off on his idea I may have to search for it later).

Posted by jbasnight on 6/27/2012 1:55:00 PM (view original):
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.

in that case you would think that being able t0o promise starts in your second year combined with an 'inform of redshirt' should make them more likely to accept the redshirt.  You would be able to basically say "yes, I'm redshirting you this year, but fred here is graduating, and when he goes you get his spot in the lineup!"  right now you really don't have a combination that says that.

 

Posted by uconnut on 6/27/2012 4:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jbasnight on 6/27/2012 1:55:00 PM (view original):
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.

in that case you would think that being able t0o promise starts in your second year combined with an 'inform of redshirt' should make them more likely to accept the redshirt.  You would be able to basically say "yes, I'm redshirting you this year, but fred here is graduating, and when he goes you get his spot in the lineup!"  right now you really don't have a combination that says that.

 

And what happens when you leave for a new school in the offseason and a new coach comes in?

There should be 3 types of recruits and they should behave differently.

1.  High Prestige Recruits - These type of recruits like higher prestige programs.  Playing for an A+ prestige squad is the most important thing for them.  Their cost is not at all based on distance, but is totally based on Prestige.

2.  Local Players - These type of recruits like to play for instate programs.  The cost is significantly reduced for in state teams and outside of the state, recruiting effort is based on distance.  Prestige matters but not as much as for the "high prestige type recruits".

3.  No preference type recruits - They don't care that much about local schools and are not super interested in playing for the big boys either.  They cost the same amount to recruit by all teams.  They will go to the team that shows them the effort.

The type of visits that I think would be impacted are Scouting Visits, Home Visits, and Campus Visits.  Calls and Letters stay as they are now.

The variable cost visits would be based on prestige for type 1, in-state discount, then by distance by type2, with some prestige modifier.  And cost would be the same for everyone for type 3.

There would be a set percentage of each type of recruit throughout the entire spectrum.

This is an idea about recruit generation I strongly support suggested by dwoelfin:

"WIS should 'de-buff' the overall defense of recruits. Right now defense is going hand-hand with ATH which are both the emphasis points when it comes to BCS recruiting. Right now it's too easy to recruit a team with 6-7-8+ 90+-rated defenders. Every mid to top tier BCS and top notch mid majors even have ZERO problem keeping at least a starting lineup chalked full of highly rated defenders. I'm not even going to get into the whole argument of the comparison to real life in terms of THAT many 90+ rated defenders....but I do believe by making 90+ defenders more scarce it'll make more of a use for 'lock-down' defenders, and studs that play have amazing cores AND a high defense rating are more of a complete package. There should still be top notch recruits, just give more variety in defense ratings. Of course this would only work if the defense ratings were tweaking across the board for every level."

I have seen a couple of suggestions here that I think would qualify as rich getting richer type situations, and as such, I'm not a fan. One is having players continue to improve if their teams are in the NT or PIT. The teams that didn't make the NT or PIT are already presumably worse than those that did. Making the better teams get even better while the worse teams don't is not productive. The other is to divide postseason money unevenly based upon performance. Again, the rich get more rewards, which they use to get even better, while the poor get less and don't improve as much compared to their already richer compatriots. While it may be realistic it is not productive for the game IMO.

Posted by zhawks on 6/27/2012 4:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmax on 6/27/2012 3:24:00 PM (view original):

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

Each coach could have a 'region' - maybe as easy as grouping states and keeping a running tally of where they are from, you could use that information to give a small bonus or small hit to someone recruiting inside or way outside their regular 'zones'? (just coming up with thoughts here).

Simple shading of the FSS map could show the regions. I would group regions by number of schools though, as that is how recruits are generated. Didn't Rails have a great idea of how to generate recruits differently by region and school conference prestige as opposed to just number of schools? (I am prolly way off on his idea I may have to search for it later).

Can't remember who started the thread... There was a rather detailed discussion about recruiting by regions some time ago (the one you are also referring to I'm sure) I can't find it though... I didn't agree with everything in there but a lot of good ideas...

Posted by hughesjr on 6/27/2012 5:23:00 PM (view original):
There should be 3 types of recruits and they should behave differently.

1.  High Prestige Recruits - These type of recruits like higher prestige programs.  Playing for an A+ prestige squad is the most important thing for them.  Their cost is not at all based on distance, but is totally based on Prestige.

2.  Local Players - These type of recruits like to play for instate programs.  The cost is significantly reduced for in state teams and outside of the state, recruiting effort is based on distance.  Prestige matters but not as much as for the "high prestige type recruits".

3.  No preference type recruits - They don't care that much about local schools and are not super interested in playing for the big boys either.  They cost the same amount to recruit by all teams.  They will go to the team that shows them the effort.

The type of visits that I think would be impacted are Scouting Visits, Home Visits, and Campus Visits.  Calls and Letters stay as they are now.

The variable cost visits would be based on prestige for type 1, in-state discount, then by distance by type2, with some prestige modifier.  And cost would be the same for everyone for type 3.

There would be a set percentage of each type of recruit throughout the entire spectrum.

+1

Posted by m4284850 on 6/27/2012 7:09:00 PM (view original):
This is an idea about recruit generation I strongly support suggested by dwoelfin:

"WIS should 'de-buff' the overall defense of recruits. Right now defense is going hand-hand with ATH which are both the emphasis points when it comes to BCS recruiting. Right now it's too easy to recruit a team with 6-7-8+ 90+-rated defenders. Every mid to top tier BCS and top notch mid majors even have ZERO problem keeping at least a starting lineup chalked full of highly rated defenders. I'm not even going to get into the whole argument of the comparison to real life in terms of THAT many 90+ rated defenders....but I do believe by making 90+ defenders more scarce it'll make more of a use for 'lock-down' defenders, and studs that play have amazing cores AND a high defense rating are more of a complete package. There should still be top notch recruits, just give more variety in defense ratings. Of course this would only work if the defense ratings were tweaking across the board for every level."

Again, +1

Maybe a coach has "time" to spend during the season (distance is not a factor) and money to spend during recruiting (distance is a factor). Manage them well and you have better national recruiting.

"time" is used or expired every five games and can be used all at once. Recruits can start to consider during season based on time spent and come out during off season recruiting with a favorite.

Posted by zhawks on 6/27/2012 8:14:00 PM (view original):
Maybe a coach has "time" to spend during the season (distance is not a factor) and money to spend during recruiting (distance is a factor). Manage them well and you have better national recruiting.

"time" is used or expired every five games and can be used all at once. Recruits can start to consider during season based on time spent and come out during off season recruiting with a favorite.

how would you handle coaches changing teams or new coaching picking up a team?