I sitemailed a dozen or so coaches awhile ago with this idea to make recruting national and wanted to share with the rest of the community to get more feedback.

Get rid on cost of home visits, campus visits, and evaluations based on miles from school. Instead, make the cost for these tied to the player ranking (edit - or Acn24's idea of tied to number of stars). Here's an example for let's say PG's (all other 4 positions would cost the same):

Ranking (Home/Campus/Evaluations)
1-5 $1500/$3230/$700 (equivalent to international)
6-15 $814/$1357/$597 (900 miles today)
16-35 $623/$1196/$440 (avg. 900 and 290 miles)
36-75 $432/$1036/$282 (290 miles today)
76+ $310/$806/$160 (50 miles today)

1. Recruit generation does not matter as this opens up recruiting nationally.
2. Top players will cost more even if only considering one school, which would give the top teams less remaining money to take players away from mid-majors and lower.
3. Makes it harder for teams with 6 open scholarships to sign all top talent for cheap because no other team will battle them because of the amount of cash they have. With this cost structure a team going after 5 players in the top 15 of their position should be attractive to battle.

I like the idea. It would make things interesting for those top recruits. I dont play the lower levels, but how would this affect DII and DIII?

It's too bad this would never work, due to the player rankings being as broken as they are.

It also would be significantly less true to the reality of recruiting, which I think they're trying to recreate as well as possible...

Quote: Originally posted by sully712 on 4/01/2010I like the idea.  It would make things interesting for those top recruits.  I dont play the lower levels, but how would this affect DII and DIII?

I was only thinking of making the change for DI. I only have one DII team and have players on my roster this season from 10 different states. Maybe someone else can chime in on if they also think DII and DIII are already able to recruit nationally.

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

I agree the player ranking system is not great. However, I would like a more national recruiting. As of now, it really depends too heavily on recruit generation.

Quote: Originally Posted By dahsdebater on 4/01/2010It also would be significantly less true to the reality of recruiting, which I think they're trying to recreate as well as possible..

Why would you think that?

Are internationals at the current price structure? That could leave a pretty significant advantage to schools on the borders who could recruit Canadian/Mexican 4-5 stars at the local rate. Perhaps do your price breaks on # of stars vs. rankings?

How about for guys that want to play far from home anyone farther then whatever the distance is has to pay the same amount as if they were 100 miles away....

I like acn24's idea, and also tmacfan12's idea - a hybrid of using a star-based tier system and an allowance for recruiting local stars, but maybe it should be more like 70 miles, or even 40-50.

At Maryland, at 100 miles I'm still getting the benefit of recruiting guys in Philadelphia and Richmond, who aren't local in terms of the real world recruiting pool.

Edited first post to include acn24's idea of tied to number of stars.

More interesting Ideas. The other one I have heard is have the top 10 at each position or all 5 stars have a set pay scale (like Internationals).

Not really sure I support any of these tho, recruiting isn't perfect but I think working on how recruits are distributed (based on bcs conf teams in the area v lower level teams) is a much better solution then completely revamping recruirting.

I think that recruiting costs beyond 360 miles should be lowered 25-33%. That would open things up a little more. Would not be national recruiting but would make things more interesting.

Just a random thought about distance and realism that has always seemed odd...

Yes, it does cost more to travel longer distances. But you'd never have that cost 30x+ like HD does. So on 1 hand, I think there is something to the distance, while on the other, right now, it's absurd.

I'm still thinking this through AP... I love the idea of balancing the cost for ALL high end recruits. And I know that you've said that this would only apply to D1. But I'm trying to think up a uniform standard for D2/D3 as well.

Don't let this comment pull the thread off of topic, but I've got this hatred for the walk-ons that end up on teams. In the new system, I'd like to see a way to create better walk-ons @ D1 (even D2) and mix it in. I think both issues could be addressed as one. Even if this means that D2 gets to deal with the potential of their Jr. / Sr. leaving and going to D1, just like elite D1s deal with early entry. Or if it means that a top level D2/D3 recruit might decide to walk-on at a local D1 school. Obviously some indication would need to be given to the D2/D3 that there is the potential for this.

As for the core of your system, I'm down with it, completely. It may need balanced, because I can see 3-4 top 10 guys signing. But if I know that the A+ school is going for 4 of them and I know the cost is significantly more for each one... then I'd definitely take a few shots.