Posted by CoachSpud on 11/7/2016 6:47:00 PM (view original):
True enough. When changing jobs you have to rely on the preparation the previous coach did.

or you can do like the esteemed vandydave did at missouri in tark and dump his APs and probably max effort into a player I am on just out of spite when he knew was quitting. good riddance to that guy.

Thanks, hawk. I'm not too worried about myself either, just posting this to demonstrate that this is a way in which 3.0 could be (and should be) improved.

Posted by tarvolon on 11/8/2016 2:40:00 PM (view original):
Thanks, hawk. I'm not too worried about myself either, just posting this to demonstrate that this is a way in which 3.0 could be (and should be) improved.

I was just buttering you up before our CT game.

Posted by hawkfan1992 on 11/8/2016 2:20:00 PM (view original):
Changing jobs is something that should be encouraged, not discouraged. One person moving "up" or over allows another person to move into that newly vacated job, and so on down the line. It also allows gives more people a chance of going for their RL favorite team or alma mater, for example if there is a higher rate of job switching. To have a feature that is essentially punitive in nature to take a new job is just not good business, setting aside the real life or fairness arguments. It's already difficult enough to walk away from a team that you have built up with high caliber players to take over a job that perhaps has a higher baseline prestige but is currently in shambles. Using tarv's example, he will be OK, because he only has 1 senior. So he will be able to re-load next recruiting class. But what if you're taking over a team with 5 outgoing seniors and also 5 juniors on the roster. Now you're going to be looking at filling 10 spots with scholarship money and APs for 6. What if that team has a Soph who is an early entry candidate the following season. You may have 11 players to fill. I don't think a complete overhaul is necessary, and I don't personally favor giving an extra 20 AP bonus for each EE on top of the 20 you already get. I think tarv's proposal is reasonable, not extreme. There is already a lot of down time between seasons, so I'm sure there is time to play with adding some non-signing cycles into the mix. It's really not any different than the 1st signing period where signings don't occur instantly. And I'm not really too concerned with Tarv, b/c the cream always rises, IMO. Tarv, you'll be fine and you'll kill it next recruiting season. I'm more concerned with those newer to the game that may want to move up. I don't think it makes sense to dis-incentivize them from changing jobs.

Well said. Rebuilds already took awhile and now will be longer. Not the biggest deal in the world I suppose but its not ideal. Still doesnt make sense.

And Im talking about all levels not just D1

Posted by tarvolon on 11/8/2016 1:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 11/8/2016 8:52:00 AM (view original):
Obviously there is a lot of variability and risk in changing jobs. Isn't that as it should be? I think it is. Let's all "please try and foster conversation that will improve the game and not counter it."

So do you have an answer to my previous question? Why is it a problem to move signings back 24 more hours in the second session? Will that really give too big an advantage to people who had EEs or changed jobs?

That's twenty-four more hours of Seble's red light. Twenty-four more hours of Seble's red light is twenty-four more hours of an already bad aspect of 3.0. I prefer that the probabilities of recruiting success depend as much as possible on the value of the coaches recruiting efforts. Seble's red light is directly the opposite of that. I'm still not convinced that EE's require special gifts, but I am certain that if WIS capitulates, it must be in a way that doesn't simply screw the 96% of coaches who have never enjoyed the performance of an EE on their teams.

Posted by CoachSpud on 11/8/2016 9:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 11/8/2016 1:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 11/8/2016 8:52:00 AM (view original):
Obviously there is a lot of variability and risk in changing jobs. Isn't that as it should be? I think it is. Let's all "please try and foster conversation that will improve the game and not counter it."

So do you have an answer to my previous question? Why is it a problem to move signings back 24 more hours in the second session? Will that really give too big an advantage to people who had EEs or changed jobs?

That's twenty-four more hours of Seble's red light. Twenty-four more hours of Seble's red light is twenty-four more hours of an already bad aspect of 3.0. I prefer that the probabilities of recruiting success depend as much as possible on the value of the coaches recruiting efforts. Seble's red light is directly the opposite of that. I'm still not convinced that EE's require special gifts, but I am certain that if WIS capitulates, it must be in a way that doesn't simply screw the 96% of coaches who have never enjoyed the performance of an EE on their teams.

How is it 24 more hours of seble's red light? I mean, it's not just a red light for lower prestige schools, it's a red light for everybody equally.

Recruiting second session is silly broken. I am an A+ School, and after an unexpected EE, this morning when 2nd session began I started putting all my AP into a top 40 ranked Center that had a D2 school at moderate and a bunch of D1 schools at Very Low. Second period, he signs with the D2 school. I never even made it on to the list. Excuse my french but that fcuking ludicrous. A top 200 overall recruit that only had interest from a D2 program would drop everything at a whisper from an A+ Big 6 School in real life. How in the hell can WIS justify this ridiculousness? Serious...A+, fresh of making the NT Championship Game, and I can't even get on the list.

Posted by snafu4u on 11/10/2016 5:18:00 PM (view original):
Recruiting second session is silly broken. I am an A+ School, and after an unexpected EE, this morning when 2nd session began I started putting all my AP into a top 40 ranked Center that had a D2 school at moderate and a bunch of D1 schools at Very Low. Second period, he signs with the D2 school. I never even made it on to the list. Excuse my french but that fcuking ludicrous. A top 200 overall recruit that only had interest from a D2 program would drop everything at a whisper from an A+ Big 6 School in real life. How in the hell can WIS justify this ridiculousness? Serious...A+, fresh of making the NT Championship Game, and I can't even get on the list.

Just wanted to test Tarv's deduction and so far, 2nd period at a big six team with six openings has been silly. Three targets already signed, d2 or d1, I don't know. I am sitting at 51k scouting money and I will need all of it to look at all leftovers since time isn't on my side. I hope to get three players that are allright, not stars, just allright.

Posted by snafu4u on 11/10/2016 5:18:00 PM (view original):
Recruiting second session is silly broken. I am an A+ School, and after an unexpected EE, this morning when 2nd session began I started putting all my AP into a top 40 ranked Center that had a D2 school at moderate and a bunch of D1 schools at Very Low. Second period, he signs with the D2 school. I never even made it on to the list. Excuse my french but that fcuking ludicrous. A top 200 overall recruit that only had interest from a D2 program would drop everything at a whisper from an A+ Big 6 School in real life. How in the hell can WIS justify this ridiculousness? Serious...A+, fresh of making the NT Championship Game, and I can't even get on the list.

Yup, doesn't make much sense. I don't care if you didn't "Plan ahead" or "get backups" this is just not good gameplay.

They need to have signing logic that accounts for this. If Duke comes knocking at your door, you're not going to say "thanks but no thanks, LeMoyne just offered me a guaranteed starting spot".

"Second period, he signs with the D2 school. I never even made it on to the list." Game playability requires that coaches at any level who put in sufficient recruiting effort throughout the first session are rewarded accordingly, not instantly overtaken* by other coaches suddenly appearing to take the recruit, no matter how great the sense of entitlement the new coach may have. Otherwise, why have the first session at all?

"But right now, it's totally unusable for coaches changing jobs." That's not how I have found it. Difficult and full nasty unexpected surprises, yes, but certainly doable. It should be difficult.

Posted by CoachSpud on 11/10/2016 10:01:00 PM (view original):
"Second period, he signs with the D2 school. I never even made it on to the list." Game playability requires that coaches at any level who put in sufficient recruiting effort throughout the first session are rewarded accordingly, not raped by other coaches suddenly appearing to take the recruit, no matter how great the sense of entitlement the new coach may have. Otherwise, why have the first session at all?

"But right now, it's totally unusable for coaches changing jobs." That's not how I have found it. Difficult and full nasty unexpected surprises, yes, but certainly doable. It should be difficult.

No, it shouldn't be difficult. Challenging maybe, but you shouldn't be at a complete disadvantage if you change jobs. I'm on the bandwagon of players not immediately signing in the second session.

"No, it shouldn't be difficult. Challenging maybe..."
Now you're just arguing semantics. Coaches who do substantial and sufficient recruiting throughout the first session deserve the fruits of their labors. To interfere with the majority who did everything right to favor the few is just wrong. That's not semantics.

I just dumped 100 APs onto a guy and before I could offer a scholarship, he signed. Did it again to another player, and he signed. The 2nd session is just a total fail. I think I'm dropping a team because of this crap.

It isn't impossible. Those recruits are all signing with someone. You have to learn how to be that someone. Blaming the game gets you nowhere.

Blindly defending the games flaws gets you nowhere.