Yeah, it's cool. But to me, JOBS application needs to be fixed at DI, DII and DIII.

Recruit generation needs to be fixed at DI.

Then, change scouting trips.

Then, implemented new options when you coach.

Then, give a little more chances for mid-majors and low-end D1 school to compete. There are a lot of suggestions going towards that goal. It does not need to be a revolution, it can be minor tweaks.

As for the scouting periods, yeah, we could have two, I don't mind. But the system is not as bad as it is right now. I could use a five hours first cycle, maybe six.

When you get to a new job in D1, it takes too much time to turn the team around. It took me four years at La Salle. I am going to have a winning season next year in a division with 7 owners. It normally takes less in real life.

I am not for major changes.

Posted by stewdog on 9/16/2015 12:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by crzyballplay on 9/15/2015 7:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 9/15/2015 7:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 9/15/2015 3:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 9/15/2015 3:50:00 PM (view original):
these are interesting plans - it might help people react to them if one could explain - just a few bullets - what the primary goals of these changes are.  Fixing recognized problems/issues?  Enhancing game play?  other?

Some of them - like the greater texture of preferences - seem to me like improvements that should help long known issues - like the ability of non elites to recruit reasonably good players.

Others seem like nice ideas in search of a problem.

The overriding reason for this update is to make the game more fun and realistic.  A secondary reason is to level the playing field more at DI, to give lower prestige schools a chance to get some better players.

seble, your two sentences seem contradictory -- you can either make the game more realistic, or you can give lower prestige schools the chance to get better players, but I don't think you can do both. In real life, South Carolina's not taking a kid from UNC that UNC really wants -- Northwestern's not taking a kid from Kentucky. I am leery of a lot of these changes -- seems to me the issues people complain about can be fixed by adding preferences (which Iooks good to me), tweaking conference cash, tweaking the "jumps" in recruiting, and (in my view, most importantly) fixing recruit generation. I am very concerned about unintended consequences here.

i disagree unc is strongly on seventh woods a top 50 recruit,  a south carolina native and hes last i seen like 75% south carolina 25% unc on his crystal ball projections on 247 sports so i think that was a bad example , and unc has been on him for a few years now.. 

... And if he signs with south Carolina, it would be the first time USC has beat UNC for a recruit in history, right?
That's the point...

i mean i would have to look it up but i highly highly doubt it .. im not going to waste my time looking it up since u got the point.

Posted by dacj501 on 9/17/2015 1:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 9/16/2015 7:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rgerkin on 9/16/2015 6:17:00 PM (view original):
My only comment is that a major overhaul is usually a terrible idea and will likely result in mass exodus of players from the game, as with every other major overhaul in HD and GD.  Some of these ideas might be good, but why not try them out one at a time, and solicit feedback?  You can change money without changing everything else.  You can change scouting without changing everything else.  You can add the second recruiting period without changing everything else.  You need some serious testing here before just upending the entire game.  

According to seble on the first page of the scouting update thread, they will be doing extensive beta testing. I trust it won't be rolled out unless and until it's a better product.

I don't know how to word this to not sound like i'm being a dick, though I will try. 

I've seen this sentiment posted a few times by different users, all of whom have join dates after 2010. That's relevant because 2010 is when the new engine was introduced. 

In 2010 there was what I thought was considered extensive beta testing as well, and it still took 9 months of the game being live to tweak and alter it to just about where it is today. Occasionally Wis added a small amount of credits for everyone for some inconveniences, but by and large it sort of felt, to some, myself included, like we were paying to beta test the game for that 9 months. 

I am not trying to disparage seble. I know very little about programming, but I know it can be a finicky *****, and in a sim like this where so many pieces are intertwined I can certainly understand how many little niggling things might get through the best intentions. I also know that seble cares about this game to some degree, but his bread and butter are working on other projects. 

Additionally, and again, no offense intended to seble, who I think does an admirable job as admin day-to-day generally and who does have the best of intentions I believe, but he does not understand how to play this game at the highest levels (or doesn't have the time to demonstrate he can).

I am very nervous about the scope and breadth of the proposed changes, and my strongest recommendation would be to roll out as many facets of it individually as possible instead of large chunks, to possibly mitigate the inevitable snafus that will arise...

+1000

Posted by pkoopman on 9/16/2015 7:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rgerkin on 9/16/2015 6:17:00 PM (view original):
My only comment is that a major overhaul is usually a terrible idea and will likely result in mass exodus of players from the game, as with every other major overhaul in HD and GD.  Some of these ideas might be good, but why not try them out one at a time, and solicit feedback?  You can change money without changing everything else.  You can change scouting without changing everything else.  You can add the second recruiting period without changing everything else.  You need some serious testing here before just upending the entire game.  

According to seble on the first page of the scouting update thread, they will be doing extensive beta testing. I trust it won't be rolled out unless and until it's a better product.

WIS history suggests this won't be the case.

Posted by seble on 9/15/2015 3:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 9/15/2015 3:50:00 PM (view original):
these are interesting plans - it might help people react to them if one could explain - just a few bullets - what the primary goals of these changes are.  Fixing recognized problems/issues?  Enhancing game play?  other?

Some of them - like the greater texture of preferences - seem to me like improvements that should help long known issues - like the ability of non elites to recruit reasonably good players.

Others seem like nice ideas in search of a problem.

The overriding reason for this update is to make the game more fun and realistic.  A secondary reason is to level the playing field more at DI, to give lower prestige schools a chance to get some better players.

I very much appreciate these intentions and think the ideas are creative and interesting.

But, I fear the worst.

1.  Lesser steps could hit these goals

There are lots of good ideas out there that could enhance game play and level the DI playing field.  Many of them are modest changes - that would have low risk of distortion and I bet would require much less effort to implement.  I think trying some small steps would be much wiser.

2. Unforeseen consequences

These are big changes.  And even discussing them - as we have seen - leads to BIGGER changes as issues are identified that themselves require ripples of further changes.  Major unforeseen consequences are inevitable.

3. Testing will not solve it

Beta testing by a handful of people will identify bugs in the programming.  This field doesnt open, this color is wrong, this or that bit was coded wrong.  Beta testing on the scale that has been tried in the past and is likely in the future will not - cannot - identify unforeseen effects on game play as hundreds of users react dynamically to the changes.  Been there, done that.  Major changes like these will create loopholes, imbalances, quirks and the like.  They may or may not hit the right balance of factors to acheive the stated goals.  Dynamic, large population beta testing will not happen - unless we mean the first few seasons of regular play after the changes are launched

4. The game is good now

Needs some tweaks and needs some marketing.  Doesnt need a new game.  Why not try the much easier path of a half dozen tweaks before trying to reinvent the game?

5. I fear Fox will give up

If my concerns are correct, the major effort by WIS staff will lead to reduced participation during extended transition pain.  It may or may not recover.  This game is clearly not a Fox corporate favorite - if it were they might market it somewhere.  There is no evidence of any marketing.  A troubled transition will lead bean counters at Fox to say - we invested all this effort and the product is down.  Fuggedaboutit.  

Maybe I am wrong.  I am a risk averse kind of guy.  A gradualist.  I expect to reduce my number of teams when this hits, keep a couple to try it out.  I dont think this is a wise move.

I'm with FD.
Tweak recruiting Milage numbers, particularly at higher prestige levels where it happens most often IRL.
Tweak recruit generation to where more diamonds in the rough appear.
Tweak scouting to where it's harder to discover said diamonds and others.

Boom

The issues with recruiting are more the result of empty worlds vs recruiting mechanics.

Mass changes to those mechanics won't solve those problems and will most likely only create new or different problems.

Posted by fd343ny on 9/17/2015 6:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by seble on 9/15/2015 3:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 9/15/2015 3:50:00 PM (view original):
these are interesting plans - it might help people react to them if one could explain - just a few bullets - what the primary goals of these changes are.  Fixing recognized problems/issues?  Enhancing game play?  other?

Some of them - like the greater texture of preferences - seem to me like improvements that should help long known issues - like the ability of non elites to recruit reasonably good players.

Others seem like nice ideas in search of a problem.

The overriding reason for this update is to make the game more fun and realistic.  A secondary reason is to level the playing field more at DI, to give lower prestige schools a chance to get some better players.

I very much appreciate these intentions and think the ideas are creative and interesting.

But, I fear the worst.

1.  Lesser steps could hit these goals

There are lots of good ideas out there that could enhance game play and level the DI playing field.  Many of them are modest changes - that would have low risk of distortion and I bet would require much less effort to implement.  I think trying some small steps would be much wiser.

2. Unforeseen consequences

These are big changes.  And even discussing them - as we have seen - leads to BIGGER changes as issues are identified that themselves require ripples of further changes.  Major unforeseen consequences are inevitable.

3. Testing will not solve it

Beta testing by a handful of people will identify bugs in the programming.  This field doesnt open, this color is wrong, this or that bit was coded wrong.  Beta testing on the scale that has been tried in the past and is likely in the future will not - cannot - identify unforeseen effects on game play as hundreds of users react dynamically to the changes.  Been there, done that.  Major changes like these will create loopholes, imbalances, quirks and the like.  They may or may not hit the right balance of factors to acheive the stated goals.  Dynamic, large population beta testing will not happen - unless we mean the first few seasons of regular play after the changes are launched

4. The game is good now

Needs some tweaks and needs some marketing.  Doesnt need a new game.  Why not try the much easier path of a half dozen tweaks before trying to reinvent the game?

5. I fear Fox will give up

If my concerns are correct, the major effort by WIS staff will lead to reduced participation during extended transition pain.  It may or may not recover.  This game is clearly not a Fox corporate favorite - if it were they might market it somewhere.  There is no evidence of any marketing.  A troubled transition will lead bean counters at Fox to say - we invested all this effort and the product is down.  Fuggedaboutit.  

Maybe I am wrong.  I am a risk averse kind of guy.  A gradualist.  I expect to reduce my number of teams when this hits, keep a couple to try it out.  I dont think this is a wise move.

I strongly agree with fd343ny on all 5 points. After digesting all of this for about a week now--this looks to me similar to what they did to GD--taking a game that needed a few tweaks and throwing a grenade at the game while ignoring some of the minor problems. seble you need to take a deep breath this weekend and think long and hard on what you are about to do. Like fd343ny says above: make a few small tweaks that address some of the problems in the game. Do you not see the ghost town that is GD?

I will make a few predictions here for you seble:

1.IF everything works out with your new massive overhaul--and that is a HUGE if: you will lose 20 to 25% of the current players.

2. IF some things work out and some new problems arise and you end up playing pop-a-mole with the problems: you will lose 30 to 40% of the current players.

3. IF it is disaster and lots of unintended consequences pop up: you will lose 50% of the current players.

PLEASE--highly consider the option of making a few minor tweaks and sitting back and evaluating. Of the above options--#2 is the most likely--and if you do not think that you will lose a lot of customers over this--you are delusional. Sorry man--I do appreciate you trying to fix this game but take a time out and think about the massive extent of what you are doing  here.

Posted by tooslim on 9/17/2015 12:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 9/17/2015 6:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by seble on 9/15/2015 3:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 9/15/2015 3:50:00 PM (view original):
these are interesting plans - it might help people react to them if one could explain - just a few bullets - what the primary goals of these changes are.  Fixing recognized problems/issues?  Enhancing game play?  other?

Some of them - like the greater texture of preferences - seem to me like improvements that should help long known issues - like the ability of non elites to recruit reasonably good players.

Others seem like nice ideas in search of a problem.

The overriding reason for this update is to make the game more fun and realistic.  A secondary reason is to level the playing field more at DI, to give lower prestige schools a chance to get some better players.

I very much appreciate these intentions and think the ideas are creative and interesting.

But, I fear the worst.

1.  Lesser steps could hit these goals

There are lots of good ideas out there that could enhance game play and level the DI playing field.  Many of them are modest changes - that would have low risk of distortion and I bet would require much less effort to implement.  I think trying some small steps would be much wiser.

2. Unforeseen consequences

These are big changes.  And even discussing them - as we have seen - leads to BIGGER changes as issues are identified that themselves require ripples of further changes.  Major unforeseen consequences are inevitable.

3. Testing will not solve it

Beta testing by a handful of people will identify bugs in the programming.  This field doesnt open, this color is wrong, this or that bit was coded wrong.  Beta testing on the scale that has been tried in the past and is likely in the future will not - cannot - identify unforeseen effects on game play as hundreds of users react dynamically to the changes.  Been there, done that.  Major changes like these will create loopholes, imbalances, quirks and the like.  They may or may not hit the right balance of factors to acheive the stated goals.  Dynamic, large population beta testing will not happen - unless we mean the first few seasons of regular play after the changes are launched

4. The game is good now

Needs some tweaks and needs some marketing.  Doesnt need a new game.  Why not try the much easier path of a half dozen tweaks before trying to reinvent the game?

5. I fear Fox will give up

If my concerns are correct, the major effort by WIS staff will lead to reduced participation during extended transition pain.  It may or may not recover.  This game is clearly not a Fox corporate favorite - if it were they might market it somewhere.  There is no evidence of any marketing.  A troubled transition will lead bean counters at Fox to say - we invested all this effort and the product is down.  Fuggedaboutit.  

Maybe I am wrong.  I am a risk averse kind of guy.  A gradualist.  I expect to reduce my number of teams when this hits, keep a couple to try it out.  I dont think this is a wise move.

I strongly agree with fd343ny on all 5 points. After digesting all of this for about a week now--this looks to me similar to what they did to GD--taking a game that needed a few tweaks and throwing a grenade at the game while ignoring some of the minor problems. seble you need to take a deep breath this weekend and think long and hard on what you are about to do. Like fd343ny says above: make a few small tweaks that address some of the problems in the game. Do you not see the ghost town that is GD?

I will make a few predictions here for you seble:

1.IF everything works out with your new massive overhaul--and that is a HUGE if: you will lose 20 to 25% of the current players.

2. IF some things work out and some new problems arise and you end up playing pop-a-mole with the problems: you will lose 30 to 40% of the current players.

3. IF it is disaster and lots of unintended consequences pop up: you will lose 50% of the current players.

PLEASE--highly consider the option of making a few minor tweaks and sitting back and evaluating. Of the above options--#2 is the most likely--and if you do not think that you will lose a lot of customers over this--you are delusional. Sorry man--I do appreciate you trying to fix this game but take a time out and think about the massive extent of what you are doing  here.

I also agree with FD and fear this is the beginning of the end of HD as we know it. The new development isn't going to increase revenue but it will costs. I fear fox will give up and we'll be left with crap.

so you're saying this is the end of the worlds as we know it?

....and I feel fine.

Actuslly I don't feel fine. I just read the developers chat and its obvious that seble doesn't care what any of us think and already had his mind made up, he doesn't understand the game as we players do and he is going to kill it.

I know you're reading this, so why did you even ask for our feedback as you've ignored some very intelligent voices that have known and played the game a long time and were in pretty much unanimity, you are going to destroy it with your arrogance, thanks.

there is so much here to consider its hard to even take it all in. going to take a crack at a response though - pasting sebles, my comments in bold:

Timeline

-          There will be two recruiting periods during the season.  Period 1 will be the final 5 calendar days of the conference schedule.  Period 2 will be 3 calendar days following the job change period.

-          Signings are allowed in the final 2 days of Period 1 and throughout Period 2.

-          Coaches who change jobs would have Period 2 to fill any remaining openings at the new school.  They would be given new scouting/recruiting resources based on remaining openings.
This schedule still creates major problems for new coaches to a program, unless there are at least some new players generated or something. Walking into every good player left, already considering someone, is a REALLY nasty situation to walk into. Ask anyone who missed the first cycle of d1 recruiting while coaching in high d1... its a train wreck. But, thats only for 1 season - and can half be forgiven. You need to let coaches 100% cut the players though, not just the % chance you mention below. Also, you probably need to give them 100% budget for every opening plus every player they cut - let them decide at the open.  That still is only a half measure, but its really important to soften that blow. Also, EEs have still not been addressed, as far as I've seen. What the plan? You can basically either declare them before recruiting session 1, or not have recruiting before EEs, or royally screw up those folks and all of high d1. A compromise might be rolling 2 dice for EEs - one before recruiting 1, the other before recruiting 2. This simulates the fact that most coaches have a good idea where their players are leaning, if they will go if they have the  chance. So give the first weight 2/3rds to 4/5ths of the weight and then roll the last die and go let coaches know the first outcome, so they can at least plan. You have to give them some of the money up front though or something, or they will be really screwed still. I really think you have to have a strategy of 1) not moving recruiting (only moving an  enhanced scouting system in-season) or 2) compensating the folks who get royally screwed on the deal with half measures. doing nothing would be way too harsh for way too many people.

-          We could potentially allow new coaches to free players from their LOI to create more openings.  Players may accept or reject that offer.

Recruits

-         Will be generated with preferences

·        Playing time

  Wants to play right away

  Doesn’t care
This would be great! Tied to promises, I presume?

·        Distance from home

  Prefers far away

  Prefers close-by
Also great - make it more meaningful than it is today, especially for close-by, especially if you pull the distance advantage as discussed below.

  Doesn’t care

·        School’s recent success (maybe relative to expected success)

  Wants high level of success

  Wants to re-build the program
This may be grasping a bit, very similar to players who want PT, they go hand in hand. I can see like, a "stuck-up ness" or something, and if you want to make it REALLY interesting, you could tie that stuck-up ness to the multiplier on prestige?

  Doesn’t care

·        Conference strength

  Wants to be in a strong conference

  Doesn’t care
OK, explain this to me... how can you be for eliminating bonus money (post season bonus), which is literally a conference strength bonus in recruiting - while contemplating a conference strength bonus for recruits? This makes literally 0 sense to me. If you didn't see my post, you have to realize bonus money offsets the difficulty of increased recruiting competition, that comes from being in a super conference. In d2/d3, the money DOES NOT make up for the increased competition. What saves this game from its low population is the clustering in common conferences. Don't disincentivise that. Cut d1 bonus in half, or something, if your goal is addressing d1 imbalance. D2/D3 does not suffer this problem, I really believe the vast majority of coaches would agree with that. You have a real point about a pain in d1... but don't let that unnecessarily ripple into d2/d3!

·        Tempo

  Wants high tempo

  Wants slower tempo
I don't think this makes any sense... really... variation for variation sake doesn't fly, and I've always thought including play style in recruiting preferences would be a terrible idea. Including play style into team decisions (for the opposing team, particularly) is a terrible idea as well - thats where I usually think about it - with respect to the part of the game where the defense is doing stuff to line up with the other team... but in recruiting, you have a similar problem. You don't want coaches coaching in some funky way to abuse some logic you've written based on their in-season actions. I would, I know others would too, its not a good way to enhance the game... and you have enough good ideas here not to need to. I see the realism component but really you want coaches coaching to their team, not coaching to incentivise future recruits. More recruits, at least top ones, want uptempo style, definitely more than want slowdown style. If you are realistic in this area, you sort of have to emulate that too - and you can see how that could get out of hand!

  Doesn’t care

·        Style of play

  Wants perimeter offense

  Wants paint offense

  Wants strong defense
Same as the above...  

  Doesn’t care

·        Offensive System

  Triangle

  Motion

  Flex

  Fastbreak

  Doesn’t care

·        Defensive System

  Man-to-man

  Zone

  Press
I can see the O/D ones, but also, in the game today, because man/press and zone/press are considered offenses, a disproportionately large % of players like press. Make it an even split along the lines, and give combo sets 50% credit for the recruits for each, or something. Also, I like how this incentivised unused sets (would be great for the fb/zone high d1 program I co-coached in one world!). But, I would still consider leaving it out. Its just weird. You took personalities out for a reason, I thought. By the way - are coaches going to know about this stuff? By that, I mean these preferences? That is pretty essential, I don't see anything about that anywhere...

  Doesn’t care

·        Coach longevity

  Wants a long-time coach
Dangerous territory...

  Doesn’t care

·        Specific conference

·        Specific school(s)

 

 

Resources

-         Each school gets “Attention Points” based on number of openings. These essentially replace the low level recruiting actions.

·        20 points per opening.

·        These points can be distributed to any number of recruits, in any proportion.

·        When each cycle runs (every 3 hours or possibly longer), points are credited for that team/recruit, with modifications for prestige and how recruit preferences match school.

·        Coach can re-allocate points at any time.

-         X number of campus visits total to use throughout the period.

·        Number varies by division

  DI gets 3 per opening

  DII gets 2 per opening

  DIII gets 1 per opening

·        Cannot be used until there is very significant interest between a recruit and school.

·        Each recruit has a limit of 5 total campus visits, so they will be picky about accepting them.

·        Each school may only offer one campus visit to each recruit.

-         X number of home visits total to use throughout the period.

·        Number varies by division

  DI gets 9 per opening

  DII gets 6 per opening

  DIII gets 3 per opening

·        Cannot be used until there is significant interest between a recruit and school.

·        No limit to total home visits by a recruit.

·        No limit to home visits between a school and recruit.

-         Promises

·        Starting spot

  Pretty big positive impact

·        Minutes

  Options of 10, 15, 20, 25

  Big positive impact

-         Inform of getting redshirt

·        Negative impact

·        Guarantees that the player, if signed, will be ok accepting a redshirt

-         Scholarship Offer

·        Major positive impact

·        Can be withdrawn, but major negative impact
There is a lot here... the big ones, obviously, are the elimination of distance altogether!! Wow. That is like, so huge, that if you put that in 1 update, by itself, with literally nothing else, it would be considered a huge update. I know you never believe me when I say things like that... so maybe some other coaches can affirm my view that if that was done, by itself, it would be considered "huge" just to help align perceptions a bit. I don't mean by that, its bad, its just very, very large in scale. Basically, I'm just beating that same drum about how I like a lot of this but its grown too large in scope to be considered reasonable for 1 update. I have long begged you to adjust *some* recruits to be national in scope. Doing all, in today's game, would be an unmitigated disaster. In the olden days, people recruited nationally, because there was no potential and no FSS. You could consider players from everywhere. I loved it - I could compose my team exactly as I wanted, and my one and only long time d2 program was immensely successful as a result. But, it also ruined the game, it burnt me out so bad - it took 8 plus hours per season just to LOOK for the players. Thats up front - it was not unusual for me to spend 12 up front. Potential made that impossible, and that was really great. Now, you have this scouting limitation - similar to FSS. That could really make a difference - but a big part of what made the difference, wasn't the FSS cost, it was that the good player were now more easily identifiable to local coaches, and the gap between the good and the bad grew - making it really likely a local coach of any prestige level, could ward you off. Take away distance, and that goes away. Is it enough, to have some scouting limitation? I don't know, but distance advantage wasn't enough in the old days! So I worry. I don't conclude, I just am concerned, its a real concern. In general, no distance for some top % of recruits who are labelled as such (numbered, starred, whatever, doesn't matter), that's great, thats a clear winning. No distance for EVERYONE, thats a major gamble.


Signings

-         Recruits may give a verbal commitment before the signing period if a school is a good match for the recruit’s preferences and one school is leading by a large margin.

·        Recruit may go back on a verbal, but it would take more effort than normal from competing schools.

·        At start of official signing period, most verbal commitments will immediately sign.

-         Each recruit has a tendency for when he will make a decision, which affects both verbal and official.

-         The recruit’s decision on a school depends on the cumulative points from the above recruiting tools. 
All VERY interesting. Huge, but interesting. I keep an open mind here and minimally find these suggestions very interesting, but the number of HUGEs continues to grow and frighten. Frankly, my vote is - keep your scouting / recruiting core (with some adjustments based on feedback), with modifications to avoid the massive ripple effects (aka keep the recruiting schedule the same and at most half d1 bonus money while leaving d2/d3 in tact. And don't materially modify dropdrown/pulldowns). 

·        I’d like to make it an odds-based decision instead of always picking the leading school.  So, for example, school A has 10k points and school B has 8k points. So the odds would be something like 75% school A and 25% school B. 

·        This would give the final decision some suspense and give the underdogs a few wins.
I think this is interesting but if its not that close, it should be 100%. For close battles, the ones where its like one school is 60K and another is 63K, converted effort, yeah - a random could definitely work there. 60 vs 75 and probably even 60 vs 67 should not have a random factor.

 

While the randomness part is congruent with real life, it also worries me.  Coaches constantly quit or threaten to quit when they get a crappy RNG and lose 1 friggin game.  What's the backlash going to be when a school loses a stud recruit that they poured a ton of resources into (and knew they had more resources into the kid than any other school) and the kid signs elsewhere?  That's not a minor, 1-game consequence, that could be a 2 to 3 season program changing consequence.  Just doesn't seem like it's going to go over well....

It's stupid and helps...again...the coaches who may not be able to win battles against superior coaches.

The common theme is lets help the coaches who have trouble competing in the current system. In the current system, good coaches win, good coaches take crappy teams and build them up to NT teams and are rewarded for their success with post season cash. Some move up to more prestigious locations and repeat. God forbid we try to reduce the amount of post season money in order to restore some balance that SOME people see at D1. Lets just take a jack hammer to it and take it ALL away, thus making UMBC just as attractive as BC.