I voted for 24 hr no signings - 3 days.

But I'd also be down for no signings for the first 2 cycles or 12 hours. I'd be fine with that too.

i support a signing-free period, even if it's just 1 cycle allowing people to assess battles and open up a new recruit or two. strongly prefer not to add any extra time/days to the game. as it is now, if you sign people in the first session and have no EEs, you have a looooooooong boring wait between seasons...even longer if you don't make the postseason or lose quickly.

Let's analyze from the point of view of the game as a whole, not from the point of view of any particular team or division.

A non-signing period at the start of session two would benefit three classes of coaches. (1) Coaches with multiple EE's. (2) Coaches who change jobs. (3) Coaches who totally screw up their recruiting in session one.

(1) Notice that I said "multiple." One EE is something you can adequately prepare for in session one.
(2) When you change jobs you get to look at the team(s) you might take, what their roster is, who they have already signed. You get the same info about your new rivals and conference foes. You know the lay of the land. You make a choice. Live with it.
(3) I have no sympathy for these guys.

So the proposed delay benefits a few D1 coaches who have multiple EE's, and a few coaches who change jobs. It benefits very few (don't mistake volume for numbers) and directly or indirectly disadvantages many. For every coach it advantages there are several coaches who have done nothing wrong who are directly disadvantaged. Thus, it is an easy choice from the point of view of the game as a whole. No need to extend the season, adding a boring period of inactivity for most coaches (and anguish for some). Option 3, leaving it as it is, is the clear choice overall.

Posted by CoachSpud on 11/11/2016 11:45:00 AM (view original):
Let's analyze from the point of view of the game as a whole, not from the point of view of any particular team or division.

A non-signing period at the start of session two would benefit three classes of coaches. (1) Coaches with multiple EE's. (2) Coaches who change jobs. (3) Coaches who totally screw up their recruiting in session one.

(1) Notice that I said "multiple." One EE is something you can adequately prepare for in session one.
(2) When you change jobs you get to look at the team(s) you might take, what their roster is, who they have already signed. You get the same info about your new rivals and conference foes. You know the lay of the land. You make a choice. Live with it.
(3) I have no sympathy for these guys.

So the proposed delay benefits a few D1 coaches who have multiple EE's, and a few coaches who change jobs. It benefits very few (don't mistake volume for numbers) and directly or indirectly disadvantages many. For every coach it advantages there are several coaches who have done nothing wrong who are directly disadvantaged. Thus, it is an easy choice from the point of view of the game as a whole. No need to extend the season, adding a boring period of inactivity for most coaches (and anguish for some. Option 3, leaving it as it is, is the clear choice overall.

Your point 1 is not entirely correct. Where you can get screwed is when someone low on the draft board (80's/90's) goes unexpectedly, even if it is only 1 EE. That can happen (and has happened to me) when teams go on unexpected runs in the NT. I don't think WIS should be in the business of punishing coaches for success -- at least not if they want to grow the game.

I think the larger question is what WIS' overall game goal is? Is WIS trying to make the game similar to real-life, or not? Certainly, "realism" has been a guide to game changes in the past -- hence the introduction of EEs in the first place. In my opinion, if WIS is including the "realism" of EEs, WIS also ought to be including the "realism" that teams with EEs are able to replace them with good players. When Duke/UCLA/Kentucky have a kid jump early, even if unexpected, they aren't stuck taking a walk-on -- they go out and get another good player. Now, if "realism" isn't the goal, why do we have EEs at all? Remove 'em, and all sorts of problems are solved.

I Support the 12 hour non-signing or 24 hours....either way.

"Your point 1 is not entirely correct. Where you can get screwed is when someone low on the draft board (80's/90's) goes unexpectedly, even if it is only 1 EE."

One EE is certainly something that a sharp coach can prepare for. It cannot be a surprise to a coach at that level that "someone low on the draft board (80's/90's)" could go EE. Numerous coaches have already posted their successful strategies on the forums.

(2) When you change jobs you get to look at the team(s) you might take, what their roster is, who they have already signed. You get the same info about your new rivals and conference foes. You know the lay of the land. You make a choice. Live with it.
(3) I have no sympathy for these guys.

Changing jobs... I mean wouldn't you want it to be as smooth as possible so you do not lose players.. If it takes 5 years to rebuild a team, it's bound to hurt the game because people will quit. So make second session interesting for people switching team.

How about starting recruiting back one day earlier and make that 24 hour period the "set up" period, and then keep the actually length the same. Recruiting drags on as it is now! Or add one day extra to part one recruiting.

24 hour non-signing period is good i think for this reason as well:

HD 3.0 has encouraged battles, and this shows up a lot in the last 2 cycles of Period 1.
This has made the new recruiting process fun in my opinion.

The battling in those last 2 cycles are often risky and strategic and also pretty cool and kamikaze, but there should be a period in Session 2 where everyone chills, resets, and re-strategizes. Otherwise the weird balls-out final Period One cycles have ridiculous carryover, whereas i think things should be separate... i mean, two weeks have passed... again chill for 24 hours. Just my opinion.

Posted by wvufan76 on 11/11/2016 1:48:00 PM (view original):
How about starting recruiting back one day earlier and make that 24 hour period the "set up" period, and then keep the actually length the same. Recruiting drags on as it is now! Or add one day extra to part one recruiting.

The only people this would bother are the two NT tile game participants. Every body else is free to set up recruiting this day.

Posted by wvufan76 on 11/11/2016 3:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wvufan76 on 11/11/2016 1:48:00 PM (view original):
How about starting recruiting back one day earlier and make that 24 hour period the "set up" period, and then keep the actually length the same. Recruiting drags on as it is now! Or add one day extra to part one recruiting.

The only people this would bother are the two NT tile game participants. Every body else is free to set up recruiting this day.

Second session is after job changes

Look at this sink hole of a post these are all the people who complained about 3.0.....

I think this is a workaround proposal because better solutions have been proposed and ignored by WIS.

The EE problem should be solved by what's been proposed 1000 times (seemingly) already -

option 1: remove EE's from the game
option 2: have them declare before the start of recruiting session 1

Now I agree that switching jobs can now be an issue under 3.0 but to place a red light on recruiting session 2 may have negative consequences for all those that worked strategically during session 1 to find late signing recruits - especially those at a lower division recruiting up. This situation could require an entire other discussion about whether that should be happening but I do see it as an issue that should be considered because you're not just giving owners changing jobs the extra time but all owners a chance to swoop in on recruits.

Personally, knowing it might be difficult to catch up in the 3.0 design I will avoid taking over a team with very many open scholarships unless it's my dream job that's opened up.

One side note on my thoughts - I'm still with very little D1 experience at all and practically none at high level D1. I just took over Penn State recently (about to finish my second season) and it is brutal to come in to that level conference with a low prestige team and turn it around. Just finished a 4-23 season and can only hope to get some recruits to turn this around!

Address the EE problem of the players leaving declaring last day of part 1 recruiting. Do not lengthen the part two recruiting please.