After reading through the suggestions, here is my new proposal for how recruiting will fit into the season schedule.  Hopefully this will solve the problems that were raised.

Scouting Period
     - from the end of new user signups to the end of recruiting

Recruiting Period 1
     - spans the last 5 days (real life calendar days) of the conference portion of the schedule
     - signings allowed for the final 2 days of that 5 day period

Recruiting Period 2
     - spans 3 days (real life calendar days) after the national championship game is complete
     - signings allowed for that entire period

The idea is that some recruits would decide earlier than others, so a good number would be committed already by the end of period 1, but there would still be some that would hold out into period 2.

Early entries and transfers would be known at least by the start of period 2, giving those teams a fighting chance to fill holes.

No recruiting at all would happen between the two periods.  This would allow coaches to focus on the postseason without worrying about recruiting during that time.

This would all still technically fall within one season, as season rollover wouldn't happen until after recruiting period 2.

The job change period would probably fall after recruiting period 2.  It may be possible to have it happen in parallel, but I have a feeling that would cause more problems.

Thanks to everyone for all the good suggestions on solutions.  Now give me some feedback on this proposal.

This is definitely better than the first schedule. It still hurts me a bit that I would have to play out a whole season before recruiting new players, but I really like the idea of scouting/recruiting being a season-long process. 

Is there a structural or coding reason why the second period has to be before the job change period, instead of where recruiting is right now (after jobs, not in parallel)? No big deal to me, but some people seem to be concerned about it.

When you say some will "hold out" does that mean I could be recruiting a kid during the first recruiting period, but since he is programmed to be a "hold out" he won't sign with me until the second signing period?

Posted by kevodaphenom on 9/14/2015 9:46:00 AM (view original):
When you say some will "hold out" does that mean I could be recruiting a kid during the first recruiting period, but since he is programmed to be a "hold out" he won't sign with me until the second signing period?

As I understand it, it's not that players will be "programmed" to be hold outs, but it will depend on where your prestige is, and what other interest the player is getting. This will probably replace what we now know as "pull-downs/drop-downs".

^As it should be. I hope this means that it's possible to pull down more recruits given that they don't receive any interest at their expected level.

Posted by pkoopman on 9/14/2015 9:31:00 AM (view original):
Is there a structural or coding reason why the second period has to be before the job change period, instead of where recruiting is right now (after jobs, not in parallel)? No big deal to me, but some people seem to be concerned about it.

The biggest issue to me is how do you handle scouting and recruiting done by the previous coach?  And I think it's a little overwhelming to take over a new job and immediately be in crunch time of recruiting, probably knowing nothing about the available recruits in that area.  But then again, that's how it is for real coaches when they take over a new job, so I'm not 100% against it.

Posted by kevodaphenom on 9/14/2015 9:46:00 AM (view original):
When you say some will "hold out" does that mean I could be recruiting a kid during the first recruiting period, but since he is programmed to be a "hold out" he won't sign with me until the second signing period?

Well, my thinking is that each kid will have some generated property of a tendency to sign early or hold out. I don't want it to be black and white, where player A signs on day 3 of period 1 and player B signs on day 1 of period 2.  There may be times where a kid has a tendency to hold out, but they get such a strong effort from a school that they end up signing fairly early.  And of course, players who don't get enough interest early on to sign with a team will wait it out.  So I expect there will be some talent left in period 2. 

I really like the idea of making these changes.

Would teams be given some additional recruiting money for Recruiting Period 2...?
So there would be "scouting money", then "recruiting period 1 money", then "recruiting period 2 money"...?  Three separate, independent piles?

I really do like the ideas floated for the split recruiting cycle. I think a point of clarification is still needed on player cuts. I assume these would begin after the NT and before the second recruiting cycle?

Posted by npb7768 on 9/14/2015 11:17:00 AM (view original):
I really like the idea of making these changes.

Would teams be given some additional recruiting money for Recruiting Period 2...?
So there would be "scouting money", then "recruiting period 1 money", then "recruiting period 2 money"...?  Three separate, independent piles?

You would only have one pool of resources for both recruiting periods, but we'd have to add additional resources for early entry and transfer losses.

Posted by possumfiend on 9/14/2015 11:29:00 AM (view original):
I really do like the ideas floated for the split recruiting cycle. I think a point of clarification is still needed on player cuts. I assume these would begin after the NT and before the second recruiting cycle?

Yeah, that's probably when player cuts would happen, possibly even allowed into that second recruiting period.  I guess we still have the question of whether transfers/cuts would sit out a year or be immediately recruitable when they leave.

would the time period be the same for 2/day worlds? 

Also, I think folks generally would be fine with the schedule. the real push back and debate seems to be regarding the season long wait until you can coach your own players.

Also, what about coaches that decide to change jobs and are recruiting for a team they don't coach since they got a better/different coaching job?  obviously they have no incentive to recruit well. 

If you want to make it REALLY like real life, the payers recruited under the departing coach could get all ****** off if you hold them to the letter of intent and have a work ethic drop to 0 unless you cut/release them! (once cut they would naturally start considering the departed coach's new school)

I like the new proposal better than the original one.

A few questions - 

1. Won't teams that have EE or a new influx of money have an advantage in the 2nd recruiting period? Let's be honest, 99% of new coaches who haven't played the game will blow their cash wad in the first 2 days of period 1 and then be screwed for the rest of the periods. 

2. I know you mentioned that these changes are regarding scouting and not recruiting, but I feel that they are connected in many ways. Is there anyway for players to get better between period 1 and 2? Right now certain players blow up in recruiting late and are often overlooked in the early recruiting period. 

3. I have more recruiting comments or questions, but I will leave those until you make a post about recruiting and not scouting. 

I also like the idea of transfer players sitting a year like real life. 

First off seble thanks for your time and efforts on trying to improve this very good game.

I really, really like the basics of how the scouting will change. I (and many other coaches) still struggle though with when you change teams you will have to play an entire season with none of your own recruits. What do you think of putting recruiting period 2 into the beginning of the next season? That way at least if you take over a new team--you would have a player or two of your own so you can begin rebuilding that team. You are going to have extra days anyway when you go through with these changes. I think this would be a good selling point for those of us who are concerned about this aspect of the changes.

Retaining new coaches to me is a high priority and should be thought of when all of this is being done--as I know you are. Here is why I think it would be better for the newbie who is signing up and getting his first D3 job: The first time you recruit in this game is going to be very hard no matter when it is--at the start where it currently is or spread out as now proposed. If you put period 2 at the start of the season the newbie would take over a team where for an example--there had been 4 openings and 2 of those were filled in period 1 the season before. He would now see the scouting reports and would have a chance to get a couple of his own players and go through the process. He would not be trying to fill a 4 person or more class on his first try where if he fails his team is sunk for the next 4 seasons and he would sour on the game. During that first season when the scouting and then recruiting starts, he will now have some experience and have a better idea of what it takes and would better be able to fill a bigger class. Yes, it would be tough to throw all that information at him right away, but if he wants to just have the computer recruit for him--there would be that option.

An unintended consequence with having recruiting periods 1&2 in the same season for current coaches: If you have a bad recruiting season--it would be very simple to just throw in the towel and move to another team, leaving a team with 4 walk-ons to the detriment of that team and his conference mates. To what extent I don't know--but this will happen.