"But you can't sign BCS quality players with nothing but the second cycle to work with unless you get a healthy dose of dumb luck."

True enough. Which should tell a coach with an open mind, trying to do his best with what 3.0 offers, to do a better job in the first period to line up some backups. Are al the guys who say how they did exactly that lying? I don't think so.

point well taken, I have always preferred deep dish pizza

Posted by CoachSpud on 11/6/2016 10:58:00 PM (view original):
"But you can't sign BCS quality players with nothing but the second cycle to work with unless you get a healthy dose of dumb luck."

True enough. Which should tell a coach with an open mind, trying to do his best with what 3.0 offers, to do a better job in the first period to line up some backups. Are al the guys who say how they did exactly that lying? I don't think so.

We're talking about people who are changing jobs. What are they going to do in the first session to line up backups?

True enough. When changing jobs you have to rely on the preparation the previous coach did.

Posted by CoachSpud on 11/7/2016 6:47:00 PM (view original):
True enough. When changing jobs you have to rely on the preparation the previous coach did.

and when the previous coach was SimAI, that's basically nothing.

Would it be that hard to add a couple non-signing cycles to the second session? Would that really give too much of an advantage to the power schools? I'm not sure why this is even controversial.

"... basically nothing."

When I changed jobs, the previous sim coach had done quite a bit of recruiting.

And when I just changed jobs, the sim had contacted 10 recruits total, 8 of which had signed. Of the remaining 2 recruits, my school doesn't even show up on the Considering list. Please try and foster conversation that will improve the game and not counter it.

When I took over MSU which was at A- prestige the previous coach who was a human did no recruiting and I ended up signing 0 people with 5 openings.

Obviously there is a lot of variability and risk in changing jobs. Isn't that as it should be? I think it is. Let's all "please try and foster conversation that will improve the game and not counter it."

Posted by slicknick777 on 11/8/2016 7:09:00 AM (view original):
And when I just changed jobs, the sim had contacted 10 recruits total, 8 of which had signed. Of the remaining 2 recruits, my school doesn't even show up on the Considering list. Please try and foster conversation that will improve the game and not counter it.

At D1, Sim has contacted several hundred recruits! Big despairity in Sim recruiting at D2 and D3.

How about all players with late preference, will not sign for four cycles after the EE's declare! That would enlarge the potential pool, and every EE that declares allows the school a 20 AP premium above the cap of 80.

Those two things will help replace EE's.

Posted by slicknick777 on 11/8/2016 7:09:00 AM (view original):
And when I just changed jobs, the sim had contacted 10 recruits total, 8 of which had signed. Of the remaining 2 recruits, my school doesn't even show up on the Considering list. Please try and foster conversation that will improve the game and not counter it.

+1 changing jobs is unnecessarily difficult right now. And guess what.... you have to change jobs to move up. And isnt that what most folks want- to have vets move up to D1 eventually. Seems pretty contradictory to me.

Or, you could look at it as earning advancement instead of being handed advancement. Advancing is actually pretty easy right now if you accept the risk/challenge of that first season. Potato, potahto.

Posted by CoachSpud on 11/8/2016 8:52:00 AM (view original):
Obviously there is a lot of variability and risk in changing jobs. Isn't that as it should be? I think it is. Let's all "please try and foster conversation that will improve the game and not counter it."

So do you have an answer to my previous question? Why is it a problem to move signings back 24 more hours in the second session? Will that really give too big an advantage to people who had EEs or changed jobs?

Changing jobs is something that should be encouraged, not discouraged. One person moving "up" or over allows another person to move into that newly vacated job, and so on down the line. It also allows gives more people a chance of going for their RL favorite team or alma mater, for example if there is a higher rate of job switching. To have a feature that is essentially punitive in nature to take a new job is just not good business, setting aside the real life or fairness arguments. It's already difficult enough to walk away from a team that you have built up with high caliber players to take over a job that perhaps has a higher baseline prestige but is currently in shambles. Using tarv's example, he will be OK, because he only has 1 senior. So he will be able to re-load next recruiting class. But what if you're taking over a team with 5 outgoing seniors and also 5 juniors on the roster. Now you're going to be looking at filling 10 spots with scholarship money and APs for 6. What if that team has a Soph who is an early entry candidate the following season. You may have 11 players to fill. I don't think a complete overhaul is necessary, and I don't personally favor giving an extra 20 AP bonus for each EE on top of the 20 you already get. I think tarv's proposal is reasonable, not extreme. There is already a lot of down time between seasons, so I'm sure there is time to play with adding some non-signing cycles into the mix. It's really not any different than the 1st signing period where signings don't occur instantly. And I'm not really too concerned with Tarv, b/c the cream always rises, IMO. Tarv, you'll be fine and you'll kill it next recruiting season. I'm more concerned with those newer to the game that may want to move up. I don't think it makes sense to dis-incentivize them from changing jobs.