This is a move that could simplify the game for everyone, and render the 1,000-mile rule moot. On the other hand, it would obviously remove a strategic element from the game.

I don't care either way, and I regret not including a "don't care" option in the poll. Nonetheless, it'd be interesting to see how this goes among those who have a preference.

Thanks and have a great day.
 

FSS was a good idea. It's an interesting part of the game. Even if you are someone who doesn't like it/thinks the game can do without it, it was added intentionally to be part of the game.

The 1,000 mile rule is an arbitrary rule that looks to prevent cheating, not alter the game itself. To get rid of something that is fundamental to what the game is in order to meet the goals of an arbitrary rule makes no sense.

No. Ill take it a step further and suggest that FSS reports should be purchased per recruit instead of by state. Somewhere in the $20-50 range.

I don't think I would like it if we purchased FSS per recruit instead of per state, especially at that price.

Right now it costs $6.50 per recruit for FSS (before discounts). There is no way I want to pay even $20 per recruit by comparison.

If you're going to do it, give us the option - current rate of $6.50 per recruit plus discounts for multiple states to lower that even further, or you can get individual recruits for $10 each or something like that.

Either way, $20 to $50 is absurdly high.

id pay 20 dollars in a second. if a third of recruits are of interest to you, two thirds arent, so you are basically paying 20 bucks without getting to drill down further. if i could pick and choose for 20 dollars, i would. but its also a huge pain in the ***, and i feel like it would ruin recruiting.

in general, the national style of recruiting before potential was exceedingly time consuming and exceedingly boring. cutting things down with potential was good, even though the realities of recruit generation make it questionable which method of recruiting was more fun. but to me there is no way i would want to recruit nationally in d2/d3 again. 

Haven't done the math, but 6.50 might be right on what it averages out to. However, when you buy a state, your looking at players at all three levels. I'd say most coaches are only interested in 5-20% of the recruits that you get from a report when buying by state. A DIII coach doesn't need a report on DI players. So looking at it from that perspective, I think 20-50 is about right when you figure out the usable information that a coach gets when purchasing a whole state.

Plus I think it would add a greater element of strategy to recruiting.

but its also a huge pain in the ***, and i feel like it would ruin recruiting.

That was a part of my point too but I didn't exactly articulate it well.

?

Posted by creilmann on 5/29/2013 4:02:00 PM (view original):
No. Ill take it a step further and suggest that FSS reports should be purchased per recruit instead of by state. Somewhere in the $20-50 range.

I'd be OK with each coach choosing either to recruit an entire state under the current cost or the $20-$50/kid option.  Each coach can choose whichever they want and can even mix and match. 

Alas, we'll have to wait for the SIM baseball update to run its course and then whatever else is on the agenda before anything is done in HD.  And when "anything" is done, it'll come from left field and will be something that nobody has ever discussed here (anybody still using player roles?). 

Posted by jdno on 5/29/2013 5:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by creilmann on 5/29/2013 4:02:00 PM (view original):
No. Ill take it a step further and suggest that FSS reports should be purchased per recruit instead of by state. Somewhere in the $20-50 range.

I'd be OK with each coach choosing either to recruit an entire state under the current cost or the $20-$50/kid option.  Each coach can choose whichever they want and can even mix and match. 

Alas, we'll have to wait for the SIM baseball update to run its course and then whatever else is on the agenda before anything is done in HD.  And when "anything" is done, it'll come from left field and will be something that nobody has ever discussed here (anybody still using player roles?). 

(anybody still using player roles?)

Sure do.  That's how I initially sort recruits.

I'd much rather see FSS costs scaled per division.  I have a D2 and a D3 team.  My D2 team doesn't usually have any problems targeting FSS reports, but in D3 I don't see any point in paying to scout high level D1 players I will never be able to sign.  Not at $3k per open scholarship.

I know it's cheaper to wait until signings start, but you're basically writing off half the recruiting process.  It would make more sense to me if D3 coaches only paid for a state according to the total unsigned D2+D3 players there.  D1 and D2 don't honestly need all that much help.  By the time a D3 coach has bought FSS and tried to pull a player down, just about all of that $3,000 for one player is shot.  No room for error, no room for battles.

Not that this game will ever change in a meaningful away, but I can dream.

I'd honestly rather see FSS removed or scaled down. Maybe an unknown factor. Like speed potential might be known but athleticism potential unknown. Then you would have to scout to get the missing info. Of course it would help if scouts were more effective. Just my two cents.

yep, agree slicknick, I'd also be in favor of limited knowledge like that

Posted by udm_mike on 5/29/2013 5:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jdno on 5/29/2013 5:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by creilmann on 5/29/2013 4:02:00 PM (view original):
No. Ill take it a step further and suggest that FSS reports should be purchased per recruit instead of by state. Somewhere in the $20-50 range.

I'd be OK with each coach choosing either to recruit an entire state under the current cost or the $20-$50/kid option.  Each coach can choose whichever they want and can even mix and match. 

Alas, we'll have to wait for the SIM baseball update to run its course and then whatever else is on the agenda before anything is done in HD.  And when "anything" is done, it'll come from left field and will be something that nobody has ever discussed here (anybody still using player roles?). 

(anybody still using player roles?)

Sure do.  That's how I initially sort recruits.

Player roles is a valuable tool for my recruiting.      

I've always liked the idea of paying for FSS on a mileage basis, and not per state. I admit that having the ability to buy reports for far away states allows one to recruit in that state, but it's also less realistic that a D3 school is going to be able to find and pull in recruits from 800 miles away. I'd rather be buying FSS for all recruits within a mileage radius if we're going to change things.