Seble has said that recruiting changes are upcoming next. What kind of things are we hoping to see addressed or things changed? For those of us that went through the implementation of FSS how successful did you feel the beta was? Worth the time and effort? How could it be more useful?

Seble- recruiting is the very essence of your game. It would be fantastic if you could join in the discussion, nobody is looking for any promises or deep WIS secrets, just the opportunity to hear your vision when you make updates that greatly impact the game.

edits:

Note: I will try to compile some of the similar thoughts (and the differences) after this thread has had some discussion.

Also give a thumbs up to those posts that you like ideas in.

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

allow changes in moves during that period, just like any others

yes, I know that SIM action doesnt post until an hour or two before 6 pm - no need to change that - people can post there moves taking a risk of SIM action

(the reason I say that is that changing the timing of SIM moves would require, I think, a chain reaction of changed timing on end of job search, draft, etc etc.......if SIMs COULD easily recruit say 12 hours earlier that would be terrific but not essential

Pre load the 6PM cycle

The ability to send the same effort to multiple players at once...this would be the best non game effecting change possible. Just put a check box next to their name so you can check as many players as you want and do the same action to all...mostly send phone call, but also will be nice for removing people from your list

Scouting trips with ability to pick what you want scouted, even if it is not individual things but something like 2 categories with the stats split up. Maybe 1 that is better for a big man and 1 better for a guard, or even 2 with a split that makes you pick both to get the info you need like 1. BH, Ath, LP, Blk, STa and 1, Spd, def, per, reb, ft  plus whatever i missed. At least then even if you pick both you know you will get all of the info rather than 10 reports on PER for your center with low prestige.

It's a good discussion to start.  I would ask that you think about how you'd like it to work if you could build it from scratch.  Don't get locked into just improving the current system.  We're very open to overhauling recruiting to make it more fun and less like work.

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.

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.

I think you need to reduce the importance of money. Schools don't even bother battling elite schools because it would just be a waist of money for them. This leads to the elite schools constantly dominating and it becomes increasingly difficult to knock them off. 

I wouldn't mind if the initial ratings were a bit more unclear unless you put in more scouting effort or whatnot.  For example, for a given kid, maybe his base LP rating that every coach can see is 60-90.  If you scout his state w/FSS, maybe it narrows to 63-73.  If you do some evals, maybe you eventually determine it's actually 67 (after 1st eval, maybe you see it's 63-70, 2nd eval 64-68, 3rd eval hones in to 67).  Something along this line that makes it a bit harder right off the bat and with minimal FSS spending to determine who to go after.  Right now it's probably a bit too diagnose kids ratings and project where they'll end up.  Also, perhaps more diamonds in the rough will be available under this system.

I also think it would be good to make recruiting of the 4* and 5* kids more national vs. regional like all of recruiting seems to be.

Posted by seble on 6/27/2012 9:17:00 AM (view original):
It's a good discussion to start.  I would ask that you think about how you'd like it to work if you could build it from scratch.  Don't get locked into just improving the current system.  We're very open to overhauling recruiting to make it more fun and less like work.

Seble, first thanks for chiming in!

Personally, I think that recruiting money could be be re-done. I think it should be a set amount for x # of ships, i.e. 6 openings gets $X not # of openings times $15,000 + tournament money.

I also think that if tournament money is given out by game played that the winner of the NT / PI should get some extra for their conference.

Postseason related - I do think at the very least players should gain IQ (even if at a slower speed then regular games), instead of 0 development at all.

I'll throw in my couple of suggestions.  1 -  star level recruits at D1 need a minimum level of effort to consider you, say $2000 per star or something to that effect.   We'll see more battles if that A+ team with 4 5 stars considering him didn't get them all for a visit and a scholly.   2- high level recruits should have IQ's allowing them to make an impact as freshmen, but it should come with the requirement of playing time/ start promises.  3 - targeted scouting evals for foreign recruits.  make them more expensive, but make sure our ***'t coach doesnt tell us the same stat over and over without telling us if the PG we're looking at can pass.  4 - pre load the first cycle.  missing it can be disastrous, and pre loading benefits far outweigh the risks of battling a SIM.  5 - mass phone call option.  such a pain to have to individually send calls to 30-40 potential drop downs.  6 - improve the potential of most recruits.   too many D1 level recruits have 6-7 low potential categories, especially in their core skills.   even making them average, as most recruits improve with college level coaching, would increase depth and competitiveness.    lastly, while this isn't specifically about recruiting, make stamina/fatigue more important.  I hate losing to a team with 7 guys running slowdown with no discernable detriment.  3 walkons every year so you can get extra recruiting dollars should have some negative effect attached to it, and the slower rate of improvement isn't it

Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 6/27/2012 9:34:00 AM (view original):
I think you need to reduce the importance of money. Schools don't even bother battling elite schools because it would just be a waist of money for them. This leads to the elite schools constantly dominating and it becomes increasingly difficult to knock them off. 

You will never be able to reduce the importance of money, and if you are talking about nobody bothering elite schools it isn't always about the money but likely more prestige related anyway.

I think you can reduce the amount of money, but that will never reduce the importance of money (actually it would make it even more important).

Could make the d1 money follow the same pattern as the other divisions. Also, if we do a complete new recruiting system I think a test world would be in order.

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.

the "rehaul all of recruiting" idea is an interesting one, i hope jskenner finds his way here, i remember that in all my conversations with coaches on a new recruiting scheme, he has some of the best ideas (not necessarily that i agreed with every detail, but a couple of the ideas really struck me). if this path is taken, i beg the WIS community for patience, rushing something like that can only be bad - and also for the foresight from CS to bring back the beta world (not alpha or pre alpha world, just the beta world, please).

anyway, i have a couple comments on the "overhaul" idea, but first among them is, don't do it unless there is a damn good reason.

the current system is close, in my opinion. there are a lot of down sides to changing to other systems - season long recruiting in particular - as well as a non-auction style short period recruiting (based on preferences as such) - especially the risk that there are problems in the transition, which is basically guaranteed, the question is just, how severe? anyway, in general, most of the ideas ive heard from coaches fall into those 3 categories, when you talk about basic scheme/model - either people want to improve the current situation, the short term auction style recruiting, or they want to change to a short term preferences driven model (where money still matters, but some recruit might for whatever reason favor particular schools, or might really need a promised start, or maybe he wants to go to a small time school where he can really make an impact, or wants to bring back a once-storied program, or whatever. you would have to discover these preferences, which could be very tedious if over done, but they would possibly out weight actual spending). the other model people seem to bring up a lot is a season long recruiting model, where you can either do effort or research all season (most of the downsides are on the effort side of things, there is little harm in letting people have a small budget for scouting and evals and such during the season, and maybe even a little effort - but you don't want a new coach to walk into a school with a pre-determined set of recruit. at least, i dont :)

i am curious if coaches have ideas for other major models out there? it seems to me there are a million details in any of those models, and much room for variation. id also be curious to know peoples' feelings on those models.

my personal opinion is a season-long recruiting session could take away the fun and excitement of a short recruiting cycle, unless you held off the substantial investing in players until that short cycle. id be fine with that, or stick to a short cycle. i also think going to a preferences based model would get really annoying if it went too far, but i would strongly support a *moderate, very moderate* move in that direction. i think it would be fantastic to have to promise star freshman and therefore make an important "preference" on their feelings on starting/playing time ("i am god's gift to man kind, i must start immediately!!" or "im a pretty confident guy, ill happily duke it out with anybody for a starting spot, i don't need promises"). i think if you let people scout and discover recruiting preferences during the season, that would be fine, as long as new coaches had a *brief* window in which to play catch up. however, im definitely against (at this time, open to change) a full-blown season-long model as well as a non auction style model, in general, i think we could spice up the auction style model, but i think that is what is going to appeal to most coaches - if you spend more money on a guy, within reason, he will come to your school. prestige and maybe some desire to start or not can modify those things, but fundamentally, its all got to come down to dollars and cents, i think. your dollar may be worth more than mine, but if i outspend you by double, triple, at some point, ive got to win, all preferences be damned ;)

I like the current system in many ways.  It is the heart of the game, and changing it substaintially could be very dangerous.

I think pre-loading the first cycle would help the west coast US coaches that work.

I think some improvement to scouting trips is needed.  The current scouting trip is fine, but maybe a target eval that gets you 1 or 2 attributes would be very very useful.  Especially for internationals, but really for anyone, even D3 where you want to see if a high potential is very high or medium high.

I think recruiting money at D1 should be reduced slightly by changing the amount of $ per NT game from $20,000 to $15,000.  This would not change much, but help the little guys a slight amount. 

I do not want season long recruiting.  I do not want players that randomly emphasize academics/location/etc.  The favorite school system shows how silly those things could be.  The auction format is great tension and fun. 

I think it would be reasonable to make certain players demand playing time in order to sign.  But figuring this out should be easy and up-front.  Like once you FSS a state you can see that the #1 SF in the country requires a 20 minute promise and a starting promise in order to consider you.  This would allow teams to know they cannot stash a ton of talent on the bench.  Alternatively, some top players might be ok with sitting, making them even more valuable.  This feature would have to be pretty easy to ID to increase the fun, and not hidden.  I would think it would be treated like favorite school today.  A "required PT to consider" feature.