mets:

i think most everybody agrees 100% with #1.
#2 is getting twisted. i tried to explain better in my last post. i agree with you in principle, but there should be a budget recovery after losing out on recruits so you can chase another. maybe 50%? i mean, if a mid-major team w/ C- prestige chases the #2 SG in country and loses, well they are stupid. but if they chase the #30 and a top tier team drops down and wins him on a flip, shouldn't they be able to recover part of that budget and steal the #79 SG from a D2 team rather than no having a chance because they're out of money and have to take a walk-on? in the current system this isn't possible and a D2 team would keep the recruit they probably could never win in real life over a mid-major D1.

this has been 95% great dialog. happy to see a lot of good ideas, including some that have changed my mind a bit.

Posted by shoe3 on 7/7/2021 8:29:00 PM (view original):
D1 recruiting is fine, for the most part. Isn’t what I would have designed, but sure beats what used to exist. D2 and D3 recruiting should be - and mostly are - a function of finding what D1 schools leave on the table, and as power D1 fills up (until November anyway, then we’ll see I guess) we’ll get to see the recruiting game operate more as was designed.

The problem is *certainly* not a lack of recruits, nor a lack of playable recruits. The problem, where it exists, is in the choices that coaches continue to make. That’s not the game’s problem to “fix”. Too many coaches still have the mindset of “my players all must be *this good*” rather than simply trying to adapt to the landscape and compete rationally for good classes year after year. If more coaches spread more effort around more recruits, there would be universally less complaining about a lack of good recruits.

The one kind of valid thing that has always stood out from this post since beta is that taking over a new team is unnecessarily difficult, thanks to not only most good recruits being either off the board or heavily invested in, but the ridiculous “new coach reduction” that most outgoing coaches either don’t understand or completely abuse and manipulate, which prevents new coaches from having any real chance at even competing for most good recruits unless the last coach was *very* thoughtful about how recruiting was done. The fix has always been just add (or reserve) a certain number of “late bloomers” who explode on everyone’s radar after a big final season. I’d say mostly jucos, mostly starting in the 550 OVR rang, with potential ranging from 600-~700. So not superstars, but decent stopgap players that new coaches (and everyone else) can start fresh with in the second session. That would be a worthy and welcome fix, long overdue, really. But it’s really just one season, so the net effect is that it makes coaches think harder about changing jobs, and how much they give up in the short term in that exchange. So not a deal-breaker by any means. While I certainly don’t plan to win in year 1, I’ve never had a problem putting a class together (even massive rebuilds like current Michigan St) that I feel will set me up to be competitive 3-4 seasons down the road, which should be the point*.

*Obviously, this doesn’t get into the asinine firing plan, which does potentially throw all of this into flux, but I guess I’ll cross that bridge if and when we get there.

"massive rebuilds like current Michigan St"

hahaha I'm sorry but the stuff you say is just so ridiculous sometimes, and it makes me immediately disagree with everything else you say subconsciously.

Posted by shoe3 on 7/8/2021 6:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mlitney on 7/8/2021 4:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 7/8/2021 3:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dw172300 on 7/8/2021 3:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by themonstars on 7/8/2021 2:37:00 PM (view original):
Gigrant is dead on with the absurdity of an elite team losing a coin flip and ending up having to offer a guy that had one offer from a D3 school. That's totally ridiculous and, while certain things can't be true to life in any simulation, this is just a situation that is laughably terrible.

I think recruiting should be less about managing limited resources, i.e. recruiting dollars, and should be almost all about prestige/preferences.

So what's the game? You get to Duke and you can basically pick from any recruits who preferences match, anyone who's not at an A or A+ prestige team is out of luck?

Sounds fun

So this is where I think we get into why this upcoming firing gambit is so poorly conceived. I know Adam understands that a good game requires “problems” at every level, disruptions, choices that users have to make, choices that have real consequences. The game that exists *already* has those problems baked into high D1. That’s what 3.0 was all about, what this whole thread complains about. Feature, not a bug. This firing thing is likely designed to be that kind of “disruptive problem”, but the miscalculation is that it is going to act as a poison pill for all the “problems” that already exist, because now we’re talking about losing teams, not just losing recruits.

Introduce these absurd firing expectations, and now all these existing problems are untenable. The game that exists will truly be unplayable, at least at its current price point. Unless the admins have a real quick epiphany about that, I’m afraid this frustrating but lovable game is really on the brink of collapse within a couple years.

I just don't see it. This game has been on life support for many years now. If anything, the new developers have breathed new life into it. We've seen so many new and returning players in the past 6 months. This firings change affects such a small percentage of the overall jobs in a world. If they back off the restrictions a bit, it will only really matter to maybe 1-3% of the world population.

But you're really only looking at this from the side of someone losing a team. On the flip side, imagine all of the coaches that will be happy to actually have a shot at their dream job. UNC might actually be available at some point?

If the firings are done correctly, they'll **** off a few people but make the game more dynamic. The expectations will be clearly laid out so if you don't want to deal with the pressure of winning coin flips, then just take a team that isn't on the list. Just grab some buddies and form a mid-major super conference. But if you want to coast forever on your A+ baseline prestige that you got back in 1973, its not going to happen anymore (and it shouldn't).

The job hiring logic update now allows mostly any coach to get a P6 job. Fine, now prove that you belong there.

I know you don’t see it. You’ve always been looking at this myopically, as they are. The whole point here is that now the folks at high D1 have to care that much more about all the “problems” that already exist, and then those problems trickle down to everyone from a gameplay standpoint. If you have to worry about having a connection severed with a team you’ve waited years for, and paid hundreds of dollars for, you’re going to play the game differently. 13$ per season is way, WAY too high for the casual kind of “oh I’ll just **** around and see if I can turn this dumpster fire at UConn into a Sweet 16 team in the next 4 (or 6, or 8) seasons, and if not, oh well, I’ll start again somewhere else” kind of game they apparently want this to be.

They are delusional if they think folks are going to pay that much for that kind of experience, to have the team yanked away right as it is prepared for the next guy. If they go through with this firings plan, they will have to make all sorts of changes to the structure of game to keep folks at D1, and if this thread is any indication, all of those changes are likely to make the game much, much worse.

And none of this was necessary. All they had to do was just sit back and let the coaches who wanted to try D1, try D1. Those that “fail” and didn’t like it would go back to lower levels. Those that “fail” and want to stick it out would be paying full price for the product (which… I mean, if the game really IS on “life support”…). The sky is falling act was a true disaster.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. But I'll tell you this... If there is a truly some sort of angry mob after the firings update, they can always tone it down or simply remove it. Or possibly make some changes to EE's and recruiting that will alleviate some of problems. Nothing is set in stone.

Unlike past leadership, these guys are actually paying attention and accepting feedback. I'm sure they're aware that they can test these ideas and adjust if/when necessary. They're not going to just **** off half the userbase and then idly watch everyone leave.

When the expectations are clear for those high D1 jobs, you can choose to accept that risk or not. If you want to play casually, then don't take those jobs. It's as simple as that. You'll know exactly what your $13 is paying for so you'll have no one to blame but yourself. You still have the option to play the game any way you want. And new coaches trying D1 has almost nothing to do with firings. Do you think a new coach is going to get the Duke job? There's still 300+ D1 jobs available for "trying out".

No one should be able to get the UCLA job and then play it casually for the next 50 seasons with no consequences or expectations (no matter how much money they've paid). A+ baseline prestige schools hold a lot of power and advantages. For every coach that rage quits because he lost his A+ baseline, there will be 10 coaches that are excited because the UCLA coach is bad and about to get canned. An opportunity that didn't exist before.

With proper firing metrics and a clear understanding of expectations, this won't affect many people. And the coaches that it does affect will know exactly what they're getting themselves into. The top jobs should be competitive. We shouldn't have to hold their hands and softly whisper that everything is going to be okay because they've spent hundreds of dollars.

Posted by Ceej_Money on 7/9/2021 9:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 7/7/2021 8:29:00 PM (view original):
D1 recruiting is fine, for the most part. Isn’t what I would have designed, but sure beats what used to exist. D2 and D3 recruiting should be - and mostly are - a function of finding what D1 schools leave on the table, and as power D1 fills up (until November anyway, then we’ll see I guess) we’ll get to see the recruiting game operate more as was designed.

The problem is *certainly* not a lack of recruits, nor a lack of playable recruits. The problem, where it exists, is in the choices that coaches continue to make. That’s not the game’s problem to “fix”. Too many coaches still have the mindset of “my players all must be *this good*” rather than simply trying to adapt to the landscape and compete rationally for good classes year after year. If more coaches spread more effort around more recruits, there would be universally less complaining about a lack of good recruits.

The one kind of valid thing that has always stood out from this post since beta is that taking over a new team is unnecessarily difficult, thanks to not only most good recruits being either off the board or heavily invested in, but the ridiculous “new coach reduction” that most outgoing coaches either don’t understand or completely abuse and manipulate, which prevents new coaches from having any real chance at even competing for most good recruits unless the last coach was *very* thoughtful about how recruiting was done. The fix has always been just add (or reserve) a certain number of “late bloomers” who explode on everyone’s radar after a big final season. I’d say mostly jucos, mostly starting in the 550 OVR rang, with potential ranging from 600-~700. So not superstars, but decent stopgap players that new coaches (and everyone else) can start fresh with in the second session. That would be a worthy and welcome fix, long overdue, really. But it’s really just one season, so the net effect is that it makes coaches think harder about changing jobs, and how much they give up in the short term in that exchange. So not a deal-breaker by any means. While I certainly don’t plan to win in year 1, I’ve never had a problem putting a class together (even massive rebuilds like current Michigan St) that I feel will set me up to be competitive 3-4 seasons down the road, which should be the point*.

*Obviously, this doesn’t get into the asinine firing plan, which does potentially throw all of this into flux, but I guess I’ll cross that bridge if and when we get there.

"massive rebuilds like current Michigan St"

hahaha I'm sorry but the stuff you say is just so ridiculous sometimes, and it makes me immediately disagree with everything else you say subconsciously.

I just recruited 9 players in the second session for my first season at Michigan St, in which I am switching the offense and defense, mr. ceej$. Please let me know how your definition of “massive rebuild” conflicts.

Posted by mlitney on 7/9/2021 10:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 7/8/2021 6:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mlitney on 7/8/2021 4:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 7/8/2021 3:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dw172300 on 7/8/2021 3:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by themonstars on 7/8/2021 2:37:00 PM (view original):
Gigrant is dead on with the absurdity of an elite team losing a coin flip and ending up having to offer a guy that had one offer from a D3 school. That's totally ridiculous and, while certain things can't be true to life in any simulation, this is just a situation that is laughably terrible.

I think recruiting should be less about managing limited resources, i.e. recruiting dollars, and should be almost all about prestige/preferences.

So what's the game? You get to Duke and you can basically pick from any recruits who preferences match, anyone who's not at an A or A+ prestige team is out of luck?

Sounds fun

So this is where I think we get into why this upcoming firing gambit is so poorly conceived. I know Adam understands that a good game requires “problems” at every level, disruptions, choices that users have to make, choices that have real consequences. The game that exists *already* has those problems baked into high D1. That’s what 3.0 was all about, what this whole thread complains about. Feature, not a bug. This firing thing is likely designed to be that kind of “disruptive problem”, but the miscalculation is that it is going to act as a poison pill for all the “problems” that already exist, because now we’re talking about losing teams, not just losing recruits.

Introduce these absurd firing expectations, and now all these existing problems are untenable. The game that exists will truly be unplayable, at least at its current price point. Unless the admins have a real quick epiphany about that, I’m afraid this frustrating but lovable game is really on the brink of collapse within a couple years.

I just don't see it. This game has been on life support for many years now. If anything, the new developers have breathed new life into it. We've seen so many new and returning players in the past 6 months. This firings change affects such a small percentage of the overall jobs in a world. If they back off the restrictions a bit, it will only really matter to maybe 1-3% of the world population.

But you're really only looking at this from the side of someone losing a team. On the flip side, imagine all of the coaches that will be happy to actually have a shot at their dream job. UNC might actually be available at some point?

If the firings are done correctly, they'll **** off a few people but make the game more dynamic. The expectations will be clearly laid out so if you don't want to deal with the pressure of winning coin flips, then just take a team that isn't on the list. Just grab some buddies and form a mid-major super conference. But if you want to coast forever on your A+ baseline prestige that you got back in 1973, its not going to happen anymore (and it shouldn't).

The job hiring logic update now allows mostly any coach to get a P6 job. Fine, now prove that you belong there.

I know you don’t see it. You’ve always been looking at this myopically, as they are. The whole point here is that now the folks at high D1 have to care that much more about all the “problems” that already exist, and then those problems trickle down to everyone from a gameplay standpoint. If you have to worry about having a connection severed with a team you’ve waited years for, and paid hundreds of dollars for, you’re going to play the game differently. 13$ per season is way, WAY too high for the casual kind of “oh I’ll just **** around and see if I can turn this dumpster fire at UConn into a Sweet 16 team in the next 4 (or 6, or 8) seasons, and if not, oh well, I’ll start again somewhere else” kind of game they apparently want this to be.

They are delusional if they think folks are going to pay that much for that kind of experience, to have the team yanked away right as it is prepared for the next guy. If they go through with this firings plan, they will have to make all sorts of changes to the structure of game to keep folks at D1, and if this thread is any indication, all of those changes are likely to make the game much, much worse.

And none of this was necessary. All they had to do was just sit back and let the coaches who wanted to try D1, try D1. Those that “fail” and didn’t like it would go back to lower levels. Those that “fail” and want to stick it out would be paying full price for the product (which… I mean, if the game really IS on “life support”…). The sky is falling act was a true disaster.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. But I'll tell you this... If there is a truly some sort of angry mob after the firings update, they can always tone it down or simply remove it. Or possibly make some changes to EE's and recruiting that will alleviate some of problems. Nothing is set in stone.

Unlike past leadership, these guys are actually paying attention and accepting feedback. I'm sure they're aware that they can test these ideas and adjust if/when necessary. They're not going to just **** off half the userbase and then idly watch everyone leave.

When the expectations are clear for those high D1 jobs, you can choose to accept that risk or not. If you want to play casually, then don't take those jobs. It's as simple as that. You'll know exactly what your $13 is paying for so you'll have no one to blame but yourself. You still have the option to play the game any way you want. And new coaches trying D1 has almost nothing to do with firings. Do you think a new coach is going to get the Duke job? There's still 300+ D1 jobs available for "trying out".

No one should be able to get the UCLA job and then play it casually for the next 50 seasons with no consequences or expectations (no matter how much money they've paid). A+ baseline prestige schools hold a lot of power and advantages. For every coach that rage quits because he lost his A+ baseline, there will be 10 coaches that are excited because the UCLA coach is bad and about to get canned. An opportunity that didn't exist before.

With proper firing metrics and a clear understanding of expectations, this won't affect many people. And the coaches that it does affect will know exactly what they're getting themselves into. The top jobs should be competitive. We shouldn't have to hold their hands and softly whisper that everything is going to be okay because they've spent hundreds of dollars.

There was 20+ pages of angry mob, and the response was to lay low, but very clearly move ahead. Don’t be naive.

“With proper firing metrics” - but they’re not going to use the proper metrics, which already exist and are baked into the game, and simply need to be reactivated and (maybe strengthened *slightly* if the idea was to actually remove far-below-standard folks). They’re going to stick to postseason wins, which is precisely the wrong metric. And because they are intentionally using the metric that *doesnt* show overall strength of a coaches performance, we know that the intent is not to establish some kind of benevolent meritocratic standard, but rather simply to disrupt their way into getting more users to eventually spend more money by switching teams more often - and that’s how we know it’s a gambit, they’re placing a massive bet that long time users will not exit the game entirely when we’re separated from programs we’ve built. I’m not opposed to the game making more money, but they are making a miscalculation. They don’t understand the user base, and the valuation of this product, and I also don’t think they understand the long term effect of alienating long term users in pursuit of new ones (especially in this case, when in doing so they are also creating an environment that is inhospitable to long term sustainability).

You’re short-sightedly focused on one step of what happens when this short term minor “log jam” at power conference level is cleared up by firings, a situation that would have worked itself out anyway if given a few more seasons (2 A+ jobs were open in Phelan this season, for example). You’re not thinking ahead. With jobs opened up, users already have the opportunity to move freely. The highly competitive environment that already exists at high D1 naturally pushes coaches out of their own accord every season, and you’d know that if you had more experience and paid more attention there. They already have the benefits they are looking for, more mobility, if they just have the patience to let it play out, and let more users come in. So the question comes back to - do we want fuller conferences and worlds or do we not? The game was designed to have at least half-full worlds. We are just now approaching that at D1 in some worlds. But now we’re getting close, and some folks are acting like it’s a disaster, and we have to remove people who are “camped”.

And look, you can be callously dismissive of long time users and their investment in their programs all you want, but at the end of the day, we don’t get paid millions of dollars to put fans in seats of an auditorium taxpayers paid for. Customers pay to play this game. So maybe consider checking where exactly your attitude is coming from.

Posted by gigrant on 7/9/2021 7:14:00 AM (view original):
i don't agree with the "back-up plan" discussions. how can you have a back-up plan if you lose a bunch of coin-flips and don't have budget left? i'm not talking about a mid major with a C prestige chasing 5 stars. that is suicidal and deserves failure. but chasing a 2 star recruit, and then a high prestige drops in to take him. why can't that mid-major then go chase another 2 or even just a zero star with potential after losing the battles? this is why late preference guys are important - they are the fall back options for everyone. but you can't fall back if you budget is gone. to me, this is the biggest problem - you can't recover. in real life ALL teams can try to recover. but we are denied that opportunity here. running a pre-existing A prestige program is very easy, and the last update on recruiting didn't change that. building a strong program is a challenge, as it should be. i feel most of the people not in agreement with improving recruiting are coaches holding on to their cake programs. they don't want to be challenged. i think that mentality is predictable.

“i feel most of the people not in agreement with improving recruiting are coaches holding on to their cake programs. they don't want to be challenged. i think that mentality is predictable.”

I just want to note that I have been holding a pretty steady argument for 5+ years, and when we all started 3.0 beta, I had barely even begun getting into D1 (I think my now-retired original ID was a handful of seasons in at Rutgers, and maybe had just started the dumpster fire of Virginia when beta began). Then I was the guy who didn’t have any experience with a good program, with EE caliber talent, who couldn’t know what it was like to lose battles for elite recruits, etc etc. My argument has always been, and still is, that these kinds of proposed changes end up benefitting the high prestige teams the most. It is very ironic that now I’m the guy with the “cake programs” that doesn’t want to be challenged, lol.

But my approach to these discussions is generally the wider the prestige window within which teams can reasonably compete for a recruit, the better, so you know, it does still take a lot of gymnastics to turn “manage your own gameplay and accept the rational consequences of your choices” into “don’t challenge me.” The whole appeal of 3.0 is increased battles.

1. One session only, after early entrees leave and after new coaches are hired. New coaches get screwed so hard in current set-up.

I think this would take a lot of work. Since the problem is that a new coach is given a very tough road, I would focus on fixing that. Options to help the new coach in session two

a. new coach gets extra $$
b. new coaches get one special early cycle for action at the start of the second session - no signings but to open players, add effort
c. increase the % of old coach effort that carries over to new coach

2. No budgets, just limits on recruiting actions per player per avail scholly. Once a player signs, if it was with a different team you get your actions back for the next guy. Why should good teams take sub-D3 walk-ons after striking out? This would solve that horrible problem. It’s unrealistic for an ACC team to be stuck with 3 guys with 450 overall ratings just because they lost 3 coin flips that didn’t make much sense. Does anybody remember the time real life Kentucky missed out on three recruits and ended up with 3 drunk frat boys instead? If you want to spread your actions out amongst several players, so be it.

Not clear to me what the problem this BIG change is designed to solve. Coaches need to prep backup plans and blend some 4 year okay guys in with the stars.

3. There can still be early/whenever/late, just during one session.

This is just part of suggestion #1

4. Make the elite in-coming freshmen better. And make more crap level guys available too (500-550 overall ratings). There just is not enough guys to go around, especially now that everyone and their brother can be in D1 after a season or two in the world at D3.

I think there are plenty of recruits, but agree that elite FR should arrive and be more immediately useful even dominant - there should be a handful of very high IQ recruits who arrive with B and may even B+ or A- IQs.

5.Keep the preferences. This is one of the few parts that works well and should stay. Some players want certain things, such as starting at a mid-major rather than mop up duty at an elite. Some want the mop-up duty. It’s all good.

I dont think preferences are broken - but I think stronger preferences and more preferences would help lower prestige schools compete for an elite player now and then

- wants cold climate/warm climate
- wants great academics/needs relaxed academics
- wants a school that is also big in football???
- wants a school that is also big in lacrosse???????

plus - how about pipelines - sign a guy from a high school and your efforts get a boost at that school for three seasons - likewise, sign a guy from a foreign country and you get a boost there for three seasons....?

Posted by mullycj on 7/8/2021 10:23:00 PM (view original):
Some think DI recruiting is broken because they dont succeed at it. Then come up with crazy ideas that would actually break DI recruiting.
2 recruiting sessions is broken
everything else is a mild inconvenience

This is how i feel.

Posted by gigrant on 7/9/2021 8:51:00 AM (view original):
mets:

i think most everybody agrees 100% with #1.
#2 is getting twisted. i tried to explain better in my last post. i agree with you in principle, but there should be a budget recovery after losing out on recruits so you can chase another. maybe 50%? i mean, if a mid-major team w/ C- prestige chases the #2 SG in country and loses, well they are stupid. but if they chase the #30 and a top tier team drops down and wins him on a flip, shouldn't they be able to recover part of that budget and steal the #79 SG from a D2 team rather than no having a chance because they're out of money and have to take a walk-on? in the current system this isn't possible and a D2 team would keep the recruit they probably could never win in real life over a mid-major D1.

just to kinda clarify my own posts on the similar subject on #2, i agree that there's an issue with the difficulty of fallback options. i just come at it from a totally different angle solutions wise, i am not a fan of getting back resources and sort of major changes to the way resources work, as a means to solve that problem.

where i am coming from on that front is that the competitiveness for great vs decent recruits feels a little bit out of whack to me, and i get i very well may be in the minority on this. i love the competition on the high quality recruits, its my favorite part of the 3.0 changes by a wide margin (also like preferences a good bit but still). but it feels to me like the level of competition on decent recruits is higher than i would expect - it feels like there should be a decent step down in competition for recruits in as you step down the echelons of talent.

if you'll allow me to loosely tier recruits as (elite, great, good, decent), it felt to me when i returned and started in 3.0 (~2yrs), there was more competition than i expected on all fronts. i was pleasantly surprised to be honest. also, i felt like the balance between competition for elite/great and good/decent recruits was reasonable... i thought it was strained even then - that it was a bit too hard to get decent and good players, and that too many of them were getting battled for. but reasonable.

and again this is just my opinion, but now with the higher pop, it feels significantly too hard to get those good and decent recruits. i just don't think there's enough of them, and there is too much demand. with the way RS2 signings work, happening very quickly with no intervening cycles between RS1 and RS2 for coaches to adjust to backup options (and with d2 schools signing many such players in cycle 1 of RS2), the system is just not mechanically very conducive to folks efficiently connecting with needed backup options. i get there is a skill there, and folks can be good at it, but my opinion is the balance is just off.

beyond the raw competitive balance, i think getting warm bodies, decent (but definitely not great or elite) players, should be fairly easy - to allow for a more casual experience, for those who prefer it.

lot of areas where there could be solutions, anything from the way scouting works in 3.0, to the way recruit pools were eliminated for 3.0, to tweaking recruit gen in ways a lot of us talked about when recruit gen was worked on in 2.0 (maybe even tying to actual human pop), to weird schemes like getting your resources back or eliminating them altogether, and more... not tied to a particular solution. i definitely think the balance is off now though and that d1 cannot sustain the population it has, if it remains so challenging just to fill scholarships with warm bodies.

Perhaps there should be diminishing returns on recruiting actions?

Anything can be tweaked, and constructive dialogue is always a good thing.

Personally, I returned to HD after an absence of almost 10 years earlier this year, and I fell in love with the new way of recruiting. I've never felt fulfilled at a high-D1 school, so my experience is different from most, but I love the feeling when I land a gem at my little, C prestige school in the northeast. It feels like I've earned something.

I'm not the biggest fan of the two-period setup, nor the weight of a recruit wanting to sign early or late (it's gotten to where, if a very good recruit wants to sign late, I almost don't even consider them because I know a power program likely has them as a backup). Everything else, though? No complaints.

Posted by shoe3 on 7/9/2021 11:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Ceej_Money on 7/9/2021 9:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 7/7/2021 8:29:00 PM (view original):
D1 recruiting is fine, for the most part. Isn’t what I would have designed, but sure beats what used to exist. D2 and D3 recruiting should be - and mostly are - a function of finding what D1 schools leave on the table, and as power D1 fills up (until November anyway, then we’ll see I guess) we’ll get to see the recruiting game operate more as was designed.

The problem is *certainly* not a lack of recruits, nor a lack of playable recruits. The problem, where it exists, is in the choices that coaches continue to make. That’s not the game’s problem to “fix”. Too many coaches still have the mindset of “my players all must be *this good*” rather than simply trying to adapt to the landscape and compete rationally for good classes year after year. If more coaches spread more effort around more recruits, there would be universally less complaining about a lack of good recruits.

The one kind of valid thing that has always stood out from this post since beta is that taking over a new team is unnecessarily difficult, thanks to not only most good recruits being either off the board or heavily invested in, but the ridiculous “new coach reduction” that most outgoing coaches either don’t understand or completely abuse and manipulate, which prevents new coaches from having any real chance at even competing for most good recruits unless the last coach was *very* thoughtful about how recruiting was done. The fix has always been just add (or reserve) a certain number of “late bloomers” who explode on everyone’s radar after a big final season. I’d say mostly jucos, mostly starting in the 550 OVR rang, with potential ranging from 600-~700. So not superstars, but decent stopgap players that new coaches (and everyone else) can start fresh with in the second session. That would be a worthy and welcome fix, long overdue, really. But it’s really just one season, so the net effect is that it makes coaches think harder about changing jobs, and how much they give up in the short term in that exchange. So not a deal-breaker by any means. While I certainly don’t plan to win in year 1, I’ve never had a problem putting a class together (even massive rebuilds like current Michigan St) that I feel will set me up to be competitive 3-4 seasons down the road, which should be the point*.

*Obviously, this doesn’t get into the asinine firing plan, which does potentially throw all of this into flux, but I guess I’ll cross that bridge if and when we get there.

"massive rebuilds like current Michigan St"

hahaha I'm sorry but the stuff you say is just so ridiculous sometimes, and it makes me immediately disagree with everything else you say subconsciously.

I just recruited 9 players in the second session for my first season at Michigan St, in which I am switching the offense and defense, mr. ceej$. Please let me know how your definition of “massive rebuild” conflicts.

I don't care if you had to recruit 20 people. Taking over an A+ baseline school that is an A prestige is not a massive rebuild. I'd say that's questionably a regular rebuild. Texashick took over a 10-17 team at Duke that had a B prestige, so was Duke a mega-gargantuan rebuild? You took over a 20-11 team, so I think I speak for most mid-majors when I say you are annoying when you say that.

“i feel most of the people not in agreement with improving recruiting are coaches holding on to their cake programs. they don't want to be challenged. i think that mentality is predictable.”

totally disagree with this... i agree with some of your statements about problems in recruiting, but 100% disagree here. folks who want changes, folks who don't want changes, just about everyone is advocating honestly for what they think is good for the game. their circumstances probably bias them to some degree, but that is true for everyone on both sides. its besides the point, but most of the ideas in this thread aren't even anti big-program, so the line of thinking doesn't even make sense.

there's no point starting a thread about recruiting changes if the response to disagreement is to suggest the folks who disagree are selfishly guarding their fiefdoms.

Posted by Ceej_Money on 7/9/2021 6:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 7/9/2021 11:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Ceej_Money on 7/9/2021 9:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 7/7/2021 8:29:00 PM (view original):
D1 recruiting is fine, for the most part. Isn’t what I would have designed, but sure beats what used to exist. D2 and D3 recruiting should be - and mostly are - a function of finding what D1 schools leave on the table, and as power D1 fills up (until November anyway, then we’ll see I guess) we’ll get to see the recruiting game operate more as was designed.

The problem is *certainly* not a lack of recruits, nor a lack of playable recruits. The problem, where it exists, is in the choices that coaches continue to make. That’s not the game’s problem to “fix”. Too many coaches still have the mindset of “my players all must be *this good*” rather than simply trying to adapt to the landscape and compete rationally for good classes year after year. If more coaches spread more effort around more recruits, there would be universally less complaining about a lack of good recruits.

The one kind of valid thing that has always stood out from this post since beta is that taking over a new team is unnecessarily difficult, thanks to not only most good recruits being either off the board or heavily invested in, but the ridiculous “new coach reduction” that most outgoing coaches either don’t understand or completely abuse and manipulate, which prevents new coaches from having any real chance at even competing for most good recruits unless the last coach was *very* thoughtful about how recruiting was done. The fix has always been just add (or reserve) a certain number of “late bloomers” who explode on everyone’s radar after a big final season. I’d say mostly jucos, mostly starting in the 550 OVR rang, with potential ranging from 600-~700. So not superstars, but decent stopgap players that new coaches (and everyone else) can start fresh with in the second session. That would be a worthy and welcome fix, long overdue, really. But it’s really just one season, so the net effect is that it makes coaches think harder about changing jobs, and how much they give up in the short term in that exchange. So not a deal-breaker by any means. While I certainly don’t plan to win in year 1, I’ve never had a problem putting a class together (even massive rebuilds like current Michigan St) that I feel will set me up to be competitive 3-4 seasons down the road, which should be the point*.

*Obviously, this doesn’t get into the asinine firing plan, which does potentially throw all of this into flux, but I guess I’ll cross that bridge if and when we get there.

"massive rebuilds like current Michigan St"

hahaha I'm sorry but the stuff you say is just so ridiculous sometimes, and it makes me immediately disagree with everything else you say subconsciously.

I just recruited 9 players in the second session for my first season at Michigan St, in which I am switching the offense and defense, mr. ceej$. Please let me know how your definition of “massive rebuild” conflicts.

I don't care if you had to recruit 20 people. Taking over an A+ baseline school that is an A prestige is not a massive rebuild. I'd say that's questionably a regular rebuild. Texashick took over a 10-17 team at Duke that had a B prestige, so was Duke a mega-gargantuan rebuild? You took over a 20-11 team, so I think I speak for most mid-majors when I say you are annoying when you say that.

LOL, ok ceej$. I’ll play on your turf.

If you don’t want to define “massive rebuild,” go search Phelan Duke’s year 146 and 147 rosters. Since you’d like to compare, let’s compare the Duke roster Tex inherited with the 3 players I inherited. Let me know which team looks like the better team. Go player by player, I’d like to see your analysis.

(For the record, yes, Tex had to rebuild Duke, in much the same way I had to rebuild UConn in Naismith, A+ teams get beaten down sometimes. The Phelan MSU rebuild is more like my KU rebuild, which was just a complete overhaul after a still fairly high prestige team lost most of its roster through graduation and EE. No less a rebuild, just a very different kind.)