I just wanted to ask if anyone knew when they plan on fixing the recruiting Session 2? It is ridiculous the way it is now. I have yet to sign one player in Session 2 unless I have efforts on him in Session 1. I have heard of a team that had no $$ for recruiting in session one because they had no openings and then 4 EEs happened at season end. They got money for 4 recruits in session 2 but wasn't able to sign one player because they don't leave enough time to turn the recruit your way before they sign with the other team sitting at very high. This needs to change before HD loses even more elite coaches. BIG 6 conferences are barely half full now and fading fast. I will give HD two more seasons to fix it before I bail with prejudice.

I'm with you on this. Second session is a complete mess for those with multiple ees and those that switch jobs. Was not tested long enough or well enough in the beta.

https://www.whatifsports.com/knowledgebase/SubmitTicket.aspx

A lot of people agree with you Storm. They announced a couple weeks ago that they were looking at the EE issue so hopefully they can do something like just have the EEs announce earlier.

My personal view is that a number of issues would be reduced if the first cycle or two of 2nd session had no signings - wish there had been experimentation with that in the beta

I agree too. You can't sign anyone in the second session if you haven't already unlocked them in the first. Of course, ideally you would unlock multiple backup options, but in many completely normal situations it just isn't possible to unlock enough players. Multiple times now I've ended recruiting with a couple walkons and $10k+ just wasted. Several people have had no openings then a couple EEs...not much you can do there. One or two signings-free cycles might fix this without a huge domino effect, and I think it's easy and worth trying.

If I'm not mistaken, you can recruit in RS1 with no openings. You have 20 AP. So, in theory, one can start the process in case of "surprise" EE.

right, and then you're probably 500+ APs behind on any player worth signing, and if your options sign in the first cycle of session 2 you didn't even get the chance to gauge how much you were behind on the options you DID unlock...your only choice was to throw in everything in that cycle on 1 or 2 players and hope for the best. not much strategy in that. and if you lose, well, then....

but, honestly, let's not have the same argument again. we've all made our positions (and experiences) clear--it is for WIS to decide what, if anything, they will do here. it would just be nice if WIS followed up on their previous declaration that they were looking into this.

Most of these threads are "the same argument".

Anyway, I was simply pointing out that you CAN recruit in the first session even with 0 openings. I'm quite sure some people do not know this. I was not trying to make an argument that it would be effective.

Nonetheless, I figure at some point I'll have an EE problem. Rather than complain that I'll be screwed, I'm trying to figure out a way. Right now, dumping all AP/recruiting into 1 "late" signee during the first session, and not a top 100 guy, seems to be the best option.

One can for sure recruit in the first phase without an opening. If one has one EE that is rather clearly going, one should have some shot at getting a DI serviceable replacement. Much tougher if multiple possibilities at different positions or if an unexpected EE or two happen - dont see a way to handle.

With planning, one can mitigate some of the EE issue. With some tweaks to the game, I think one could come up with a good balance - depending of course on ones goals for game play.

I signed a Center during the second session. He then sent me an email this morning saying he wasn't coming to campus after all and is going JUCO instead. Is that normal?

Someone with experience should answer but my guess is he's ineligible. And, from what I understand, it's not uncommon.


As for EE fixes, whatever(if anything) WifS does is NOT going to make the current unhappy happy. Stated or not, their intention was to level the recruiting playing field to present a more marketable product to the general public. If you have great, young players, WifS does not want you to replace them with more great, young players. They want those players to be spread more evenly throughout the schools. And the current system, as much as it's despised by the "old guard", will do that.

I'll add, and I don't quite get the departures unless they're "protest" departures, that the top owners will still be the top owners. Bum Phillips once said of Don Shula "He'll take his 11 and beat your 11. Then he'll take your 11 and beat his 11." The guys at the top will beat the guys like me if we have equivalent teams. They just won't beat me by 90 with their vastly superior team.

cjsweat - that sounds like an ineligible - click on the player and look for the ineligible symbol

if that is what it was, a fraction of your effort will carry forward to the next recruiting cycle and may help you get him - but he will be located elsewhere and may or may not be gettable

mike - on EE's there are some folks who appear to think they should be able consistently to replace an EE with another elite player. I think that is, as you say, not the intent of the game and that is fine

I do think that one should be able to replace EEs with good or at least playable DI players - and I think 3.0 was launched without figuring that out. In the beta, lots of folks offered a host of small, medium and large suggestions to adjust that. Right now, in my view the balance needs fixing to let one have a good chance at replacing an EE with a guy you can use