I would like to see something implemented to keep teams from not doing anything for the entire recruiting period, then going in and poaching in the final cycle before signing. I think considering credit should be increased, or at the very least make late recruiting actions like that less effective. This might help the lower level D1 teams keep some of the recruits they had been recruiting all along. Perhaps the number of cycles that a recruiting action was made would also count for something. In other words, if you contacted a recruit every cycle, even if it was just a call or letter, this would count for something.

Posted by acn24 on 5/31/2013 11:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 5/31/2013 10:36:00 AM (view original):
I think your example is a bit extreme. I don't doubt some HD recruits have gotten 115 home visits, but this is not the norm. 

That said, I do think campus visits should be capped at 1 per recruit per school. Once you've used the campus visit for a kid, it should no longer be an option in future recruiting cycles.

Wait until you have some serious D1 battles, 115 HVs is nothing, that's not even $40k for a local recruit.

In general I'm not a huge fan, by placing limits on the amount of actions you'll be making prestige MORE important, which will help the rich get richer. Remember that promises are affected by prestige too, the same promise from an A+ is more valuable than from an A-, which is more valuable from a B.

I'm also pretty strongly opposed to anything that adds more emphasis to a completely random part of the game (recruit preferences). I have had a decent run at UCLA and it has been probably 4-5 seasons since ANY CA recruit has listed me as their favorite school, and probably more like 15 seasons since there was a 2-star or better.

I have dropped the equivalent of 330 HV on a single recruit. My first 5 star was signed with an 170 HV bombardment over 2 cycles. 

Posted by chapelhillne on 6/1/2013 1:35:00 PM (view original):
I would like to see something implemented to keep teams from not doing anything for the entire recruiting period, then going in and poaching in the final cycle before signing. I think considering credit should be increased, or at the very least make late recruiting actions like that less effective. This might help the lower level D1 teams keep some of the recruits they had been recruiting all along. Perhaps the number of cycles that a recruiting action was made would also count for something. In other words, if you contacted a recruit every cycle, even if it was just a call or letter, this would count for something.

I like the idea of considering credit a whole lot except I don't like the thing about credit for contacting a recruit every cycle (it would be realistic, I just don't wanna have to wake up between 3 and 6 during recruiting).

Completely disagree here, no cap is necessary and if all teams hit the cap on a recruit, isn't the best team always going to get the player?  To communize the  process makes zero sense to me.

Jet, you always just seem to be looking to "level the playing field" because you can't get to a high(er) level D1.

Posted by chapelhillne on 6/1/2013 1:35:00 PM (view original):
I would like to see something implemented to keep teams from not doing anything for the entire recruiting period, then going in and poaching in the final cycle before signing. I think considering credit should be increased, or at the very least make late recruiting actions like that less effective. This might help the lower level D1 teams keep some of the recruits they had been recruiting all along. Perhaps the number of cycles that a recruiting action was made would also count for something. In other words, if you contacted a recruit every cycle, even if it was just a call or letter, this would count for something.

Gridiron Dynasty does something like that. Also the more heavily a player is recruited the harder it can be for a new team to get his late visits to stick.

Posted by emy1013 on 6/1/2013 1:56:00 AM (view original):
Didn't read all the whole thread so sorry if this was brought up earlier, but with a cap on actions, why wouldn't the top teams just continue to recruit by maxing out their "caps", and use their prestige advantage to win.  If it gets close, use a promise.  Voila, the top teams never lose a battle.  Lower prestige teams can't "out-action" them, so it becomes easier for the top teams to stockpile talent.  This just looks to me like a rich-get-richer suggestion.

This too...his solution seems to be ill-conceived and short-sighted...looks to be becoming a trend.

Posted by plague on 6/1/2013 2:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by chapelhillne on 6/1/2013 1:35:00 PM (view original):
I would like to see something implemented to keep teams from not doing anything for the entire recruiting period, then going in and poaching in the final cycle before signing. I think considering credit should be increased, or at the very least make late recruiting actions like that less effective. This might help the lower level D1 teams keep some of the recruits they had been recruiting all along. Perhaps the number of cycles that a recruiting action was made would also count for something. In other words, if you contacted a recruit every cycle, even if it was just a call or letter, this would count for something.

Gridiron Dynasty does something like that. Also the more heavily a player is recruited the harder it can be for a new team to get his late visits to stick.

I like that idea a lot about making it harder for a new team to get late visits to stick, if a player is heavily recruited already.  Anything to make it harder for a team to come swooping in at the signing cycle, especially if they have done no recruiting the whole time. Just don't think it's realistic to think that a coach of a big 6 team would sit out recruiting, then go to a prospects house 150 times in the last couple of days leading up to signing. That might land him some kind of restraining order, plus he'd probably be fired for loafing the rest of the recruiting time. I just like things to be as realistic as possible. (Plus I'm a bit bitter right now about losing a recruit at the last minute) 

a per cycle cap addresses this - so long as one can pre-load recruiting action in advance for upcoming cycles

I like that idea a lot.

Posted by stinenavy on 6/1/2013 3:07:00 AM (view original):
Agreed with Emy. If someone is an A+ wouldn't they just max out HV/CV on 3-4 players at the initial 8 PM cycle, clap their hands, and be done with their recruiting?

Also proximity and favorite school seem to mean jack diddly in terms of winning battles. Promised start/minutes a bit more, but not much in D1.

I didn't see if you requested that those should be rewarded more.

promises should absolutely be rewarded more.

the end goals of this are:

-Make battles more about the other factors: promises, preferences, etc
-Permit going after more recruits and creating more battles by reducing the punishment for stretching yourself too thin

Posted by stinenavy on 6/1/2013 3:07:00 AM (view original):
Agreed with Emy. If someone is an A+ wouldn't they just max out HV/CV on 3-4 players at the initial 8 PM cycle, clap their hands, and be done with their recruiting?

Also proximity and favorite school seem to mean jack diddly in terms of winning battles. Promised start/minutes a bit more, but not much in D1.

I didn't see if you requested that those should be rewarded more.

double-post

I have no problem making promises worth more, but I think it should be tied to other recruiting efforts. I don't like the notion that a promise all by itself can be a magic bullet to overwhelm everything else. That's too cheap and easy. Make promises a multiplier to other recruiting efforts. That way promises are worth much more than they are now, but you still have to heavily recruit the player by other means.

Not a big fan of some of the other ideas being thrown around... action limits, increasing considering credit, etc. Recruiting is already heavily tilted against people who miss the first cycle or first day of recruiting. These ideas would only amplify that. Recruiting strategy is predicated on who to recruit and when to recruit them. It seems a lot of people want to try and minimize or eliminate the latter component, and force recruiting to be done mostly upfront. Anything that serves to limit one's options as recruiting progresses is a step in the wrong direction, IMO.

couple a cap with more randomness in who a player chooses.  Make the player choose the team instead of it solely being the teams bidding on the player.  The team with the prestige advantage wouldn't always win then.

Posted by professor17 on 6/2/2013 2:36:00 PM (view original):
I have no problem making promises worth more, but I think it should be tied to other recruiting efforts. I don't like the notion that a promise all by itself can be a magic bullet to overwhelm everything else. That's too cheap and easy. Make promises a multiplier to other recruiting efforts. That way promises are worth much more than they are now, but you still have to heavily recruit the player by other means.

Not a big fan of some of the other ideas being thrown around... action limits, increasing considering credit, etc. Recruiting is already heavily tilted against people who miss the first cycle or first day of recruiting. These ideas would only amplify that. Recruiting strategy is predicated on who to recruit and when to recruit them. It seems a lot of people want to try and minimize or eliminate the latter component, and force recruiting to be done mostly upfront. Anything that serves to limit one's options as recruiting progresses is a step in the wrong direction, IMO.

I have not noticed that missing the first cycle or first day is a detriment to recruiting. Is this true?  I just gave up on a battle to a coach who did not recruit until the cycle of signings, he signed both his recruits by jumping on the cycle before signings of teams with much lower prestige than him. I am not complaining what the person did and after reading his conference corner it appears that was his strategy, I am just saying it does not appear to be a negative.

I don't see the problem with, you spend the most money/put forth the most/best effort and you win