maybe, as was suggested earlier, you could increase what it took to be "considering" for the top players (in addition to making thier visits more expensive like ap suggests)

this would be somewhat realistic (if duke wants to recruit a lower ranked role player, they can prolly do it with a phone call, if they want john wall, they are going to have to work at it) and would add strategy by creating more battles (expensive battles) among top teams.

I like it, i have long wanted some way to have more national recruiting. but i agree that most plans would make the rich richer and would not be good for HD. AP seems to have hit on something that could work.

as for the discusssion about d2 and d3... i really dont see the need to tamper with them right now... national recruiting is quite doable in d2 and d3 as it is.

Or maybe the top players didn't show who they were considering until the 2nd day in recruiting? That would be interesting.

Quote: Originally Posted By mlatsko1 on 4/02/2010

Quote: Originally posted by gomiami1972 on 4/02/2010
You all are trying to kill my Hawaii teams. The only advantage I have is distance costs being in my favor when the recruit generator places a big-time recruit on the Islands. This would negate my only chance of competing for a 4-5 star player against the A-level prestige teams in a world.

You get 1 4-5 star guy every few seasons and you have a distance advantage. Or, with the proposed system, you could compete ANY year for every 4-5 star guy with an advantage. I'd take the proposed system

I'll respectfully disagree there, mlatsko. When a good recruit is generated on the Islands every couple of seasons, he is (usually) mine if I really want him. I'll take the 1-in-hand Island recruit and roll the dice on Internationals any day over the proposed system.

Quote: Originally Posted By hitman1979 on 4/02/2010I think you're missing the point that by no longer being constrained by distance, all of the A+ teams will be selecting, rather than recruiting.

You're assuming that UCLA is going to battle Syracuse for the player in New York. When UCLA goes into New York, maybe Syracuse will go into Florida, and so on.

Again, this idea is swell for the top schools. Not so great if you're in the middle (or bottom) of the pack

Especially bad if you are a middle-of-the-pack team in a power conference.

Quote: Originally Posted By hitman1979 on 4/02/2010

I think you're missing the point that by no longer being constrained by distance, all of the A+ teams will be selecting, rather than recruiting.

You're assuming that UCLA is going to battle Syracuse for the player in New York. When UCLA goes into New York, maybe Syracuse will go into Florida, and so on.

Again, this idea is swell for the top schools. Not so great if you're in the middle (or bottom) of the pack

How is this different from UCLA staying in Cali and Syracuse in New York and Miami in Florida? A big 6 school is stil going to get that player most times.

In all fairness to mid-majors I took a look at the ability of mid-majors in Knight to see if they can currently recruit national with success and the answer is yes.

Harvard with C+ prestige got the #48C from Arizona

Southeastern LA with C+ prestige got a player rated #33 at position from KY and the #51 from Michigan. In total they recruited players from 5 states and Mexico.

Old Dominion c prestige recruited players from 6 states included MI and KS. They were also able to get the #12 PG from WV.

If these guys can do it in the current system it should be possible in the proposed system at a much lower cost to these schools.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Also for those not beta testing, recruits are going to look very different than current system. You're not going to have a ton of guys at each position starting with categories in the upper 80's and 90's.