So I'm in that dead zone in recruiting in Allen (all players signed, nothing to do 'til they show on rosters...*yawwwwwwn*) and also lamenting the fact that in 13 scouting visits my assistant never bothered to check into the perimeter shooting potential of an SG I pulled down (grrrr!) which led to the following thought that I posted in our conference chat, but I'll throw it out here and see what folks think.

What if...instead of color-coded potentials, HD used ratings spreads the way Madden used to (and maybe still does...my console gaming days ended when I had kids old enough to claim the console non-stop...but fortunately they're not old enough to realize there are new games to be bought constantly)

So instead of buying FSS and seeing Joe Schmoe's current rebounding rating of 43 and that number in blue, you would see the current rating and then a spread of 52-76 (this might be too wide a split, but for illustrative purposes we'll start there), indicating that his maximum rating lies somewhere in that continuum. You'd see the same thing for each of the kid's ratings.

With each SV taken, the range of those spreads would narrow down and get closer to the player's actual max rating in that skill. Ideally, there would be two types of scouting visits..."standard" ones, which narrow each rating range slightly, and "targeted" ones, where the coach can pick 2 categries and get 2x the effect in narrowing the range in those two categories at the cost of it only having 1/2 the effect of narrowing the range on all other ratings. In my mind's eye, I see both SV's costing an identical price.

Potential advantages:

1. With added dollar expenditure, provides a clearer picture of where the player will end up than we have now. At the same time, allows some teams to roll the dice and take a flyer on a player on the cheap and hope to get lucky.

2. Allows me to target attributes that are important to me as a coach, but forces a tradeoff to get that information if I choose to pursue it.

3. Makes SV's more relevant. Unless I'm pulling a kid down, is there really a point to sending more than 1-3 right now (at least in lower divisions?). And if I am sending my assistant coach to go watch a kid, shouldn't I at least be able to tell him what to watch for instead of bringing me back five reports that my point-guard-to-be sucks at blocking shots and probably will never get any better?

Things to ponder

1. Do all players start with ratings ranges and FSS merely narrows the range for all players in states purchased? Do coaches have to make contact with players (via call, coaches call or a letter) in order to get the first range of rating?  (I'm thinking there's an initial spread, FSS narrows it for all in the state and from there SV's are needed to narrow it down further) If FSS is required, then something needs to be done to account for foreign players currently uncovered by FSS...

2. Would this require a restructuring of funds (i.e.-does it make information "too expensive" to get for D2 and (especially) D3 players?

3. Does it give coaches too much knowledge about where kids will end up ratings-wise before they get on roster? Does it make things too vague for coaches tastes?

4. Do I need to stop thinking and go back to sampling tequila instead?

All good questions. Most of the suggestions that people make to make hd more like a console game are frankly awful, but this is one of the best ideas I've seen in awhile. Would love to see it implemented.

I think the drawback to getting more specific is that recruiting wars will get even worse than they are now. There's a certain reward level for coaches able to read between the lines of a coaches report that will be obliterated by adopting a number range system. In D3, this could prove pretty lethal given the limited resources available to recruit.
Recruiting is still much of an art in real life, too, and even good staffs strike out on young players. I'd prefer to keep that element of random whiff in the game.