After reading most of this thread, I think its safe to say that there is a general consensus on these things:

1) In-season recruiting would cause more problems than it would solve.

2) We need more "nationalization" and battling in D1 recruiting.

3) Comprehensive scouting visits (or something to that effect).

4) Extend the first recruiting window by more than 2 hours!

Not sure if this has been mentioned but I would like to be able to prioritize my recruiting page by the position I will play the player at. That way I could say player X is high at SG even though he is listed as a SF.

Thoughts? I currently do this with an excel file, but I don't think it would be too hard to implement.

In-season recruiting would be like having to take your finals over the course of the entire semester. I always have a certainly level of anxiety during recruiting (especially if it's on a weekend and I have to disappear for a few hours; no honey, they're not fantasy players, they're *pretend* players), and it's a nice feeling when it's finished and I can relax. I wouldn't want this over the course of an entire season. I've been playing this game for 10 years, and have taken many vacations and whatnot, and I can think of only a couple of recruiting that I missed (my friend Phil thought you had to offer a scholarship every cycle, so he offered it, then kept removing it - thanks Phil!).

As somebody said earlier, what's needed is some texturing, not a complete overhaul.

Posted by Iguana1 on 6/27/2012 9:52:00 PM (view original):

these were the recruiting regions I came up with a few years ago.
Possibly these were what zhawks was referring to when he mentioned Rails older thread.

overall the total number of teams is roughly the same amongst the regions, but several regions are top heavy in D3 teams (New England/region 1 below) while others (Southeast/region 4 below) have practically no D3 teams.

region 1:  CT, MA, ME, NH, NY, RI, VT
total teams in  D1= 42,  D2= 31,  D3= 120

region 2:  DE, DE, MD, NJ, PA, VA, WV
total teams in  D1= 51,  D2= 47,  D3= 89

region 3:  IA, IL, IN, KY, MI, MN, MO, OH, WI
total teams in  D1= 62,  D2= 46,  D3= 115

region 4:  AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, NC, PR, SC, TN
total teams in  D1= 89,  D2= 80,  D3= 20

region 5:  AK, AZ, CA, CO, HI, ID, KS, MT, ND, NE, NM, NV, OK, OR, SD, TX, UT, WA, WY
total teams in  D1= 80,  D2= 72,  D3= 40
 

The important key to this was the disappearance of a recruits hometown & high school.
A recruit is just from a region, not a specific city.  Doesn't matter if he was from Hawaii or Arizona, as all teams within that geographical region recruit him with the same costs.

If there are 3000 overall recruits that would put about 600 in each region.

Scouting would give you the option of scouting the top third, the middle third, or the bottom third.  Or label them D1 level, D2 level and D3 level.
FSS costs could also vary by region and level.  The top group of all recruits from region 4 (Southeast which D1 heavy) may cost $5000 (or even make it $10000) but scouting the D1 guys from region 1, where there are fewer D1 teams, may only be $2500, or half of the costs of region 1.
The middle third might cost $2000 and the bottom third only $1000.
D3 teams could save money as they don't need to scout the top third, most likely D1 & D2 wouldn't scout the less expensive bottom third.
 

I do like this idea - I do think we could keep players hometowns, etc, no need to re-do that logic. Just associate the state with a region and use that for cost as opposed to using miles?

Posted by milkamania on 6/28/2012 8:26:00 AM (view original):
The main problem with the idea of in season recruiting and signings that no one has answered yet is what to do about job changes.  How can we realistically expect something like this   "This continues throughout the season. Signings start at the mid-point of conference play (so 20 cycles in), recruiting ends the day after the NC (on Reflection Day).""  when the coach can just leave for a different school in the offseason.  I don't want anyone else choosing my players for me (although in all fairness I'd probably do better) if I took that open job later. 

How is that any different from how it is now? I agree this is an issue but not the way you are wording it here IMO. You already have someone else's players when you take a new job - that's part of WHY you chose said job. So why can't it just be the same?

Posted by usc4life on 6/28/2012 11:02:00 AM (view original):
After reading most of this thread, I think its safe to say that there is a general consensus on these things:

1) In-season recruiting would cause more problems than it would solve.

2) We need more "nationalization" and battling in D1 recruiting.

3) Comprehensive scouting visits (or something to that effect).

4) Extend the first recruiting window by more than 2 hours!

While I think it would be futile to try and come up with solutions to every in-season recruiting issue at the moment, i would like to point one thing out:

We are having this discussion amongst people who like the game enough to not only pay for it, but post on the forums and care about influencing the direction of the game by participating in a discussion like this. What about the people who find the game boring? I'm not saying I find the game boring (granted, almost all of my friends who play fantasy sports and sports video games find it boring) but the population of the game hasn't exactly 'taken off' to this point yet. WhatIf has a semi-solid niche fan base as it is, but it certainly isn't capped in terms of fun, is it?

I think there's a lot more "fun" to be had with this game, especially during the season. If the recruiting activity burst were spread out over the season, the game would be more engaging and more fun over the whole season. The option to plan recruit actions days in advance would be a necessity. Technicalities with EE's and available scholarships would take some figuring out (I hadn't thought about EE's yet, myself even). Certain luxuries that people have gotten used to would be gone (i.e. cruising through 6 seasons at once with minimal team management), but my hope is it would be more than made up for in FUN during the whole season.

My 2 cents. I might make a bigger case for it later, or I could just pitch idea #2: trip planning.

Idea #3 is heach coach/assistant coach scouting visits and phone calls, which goes along with comprehensive scouting visits.

Posted by dacj501 on 6/27/2012 9:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zhawks on 6/27/2012 8:14:00 PM (view original):
Maybe a coach has "time" to spend during the season (distance is not a factor) and money to spend during recruiting (distance is a factor). Manage them well and you have better national recruiting.

"time" is used or expired every five games and can be used all at once. Recruits can start to consider during season based on time spent and come out during off season recruiting with a favorite.

how would you handle coaches changing teams or new coaching picking up a team?

Simmy uses 'time' as well (so schools have some players already with a bit of interested if previously sim coached) and you can use the job change period as each day of job changes is also a small recruiting period where you have those days to use time as well (helps a coach moving to a new school).

Also some coaches may move and still want players that they targeted - this way your player has both a consideration of you as a coach and your school.

Time can be used ONLY for players that show you as minimum a backup option.

I hate to have things start 'only when you move to d2' , etc. but you could do that too.

Is there a disadvantage to coaches changing schools? Sure absolutely - but to ultimietly fix recruiting I think we will be forced with a solution that impacts job changing, we just need to find a good way to minimize that.

Haven't read everything, but a few ideas:

-switch D1 scholarship and NT monies (so it is $20k for an opening and $15k per conf nt game)
-increase value of promises and significantly increase penalties for coaches who break them
-extend period to enter 1st cycle action, although it can still run at 8 pm. Sim activity can still show up at same time.
-some recruits require a certain amount of pt. this wouldn't require a promise unless you wanted to go beyond. It would be info available in an eval or fss. Failure to meet it would result in the player transferring. If possible, these expectations should be tied to team's prestige and level. A kid might want 10 minutes at A+ Duke but at B South Carolina would want a start and 20 minutes. Or dropdowns would be fine with no pt at D1, but expect minutes at D2.
-minimum effort to be considered and signed
-I agree in season recruiting doesn't work particularly well

Posted by metsmax on 6/27/2012 11:58:00 AM (view original):
1. no radical change - big risk of unintended consequences

2.  expand the first cycle or allow pre-loading of moves

3.  show us the NEXT season of recruits during the current season - especially in some locations this really matters and would enrich the experience.  Now, what i would LOVE would be if the next season recruits had fuzzy information.  No FSS.  Maybe round the ratings to the nearest 5 or 10.....There looks like there is a good local PG next season....ah, fooey, we learn next season that 70 in passing was a 65 rounded up and his potential there is low....

4.  find some ways to make national recruiting more feasible - many ideas out there

5.  more texture and quirks to recruits (which could help item 4) - make favorite schools matter, make close/far from home matter - have kids who like hot weather, cold weather, strong academics, party schools, some kids who care a ton about starts and minutes, other kids for whom it has little effect, some kids who have great great IQ - like B as freshmen - a handful of those super hoop IQ kids are also highly rated recruits.......texture!

6. improve slightly the quality of recruits in the 50-200 range

I wouldn't mind making favorite school matter - but if we did I think it needs to be a bit harder to find and not right on FSS (maybe coach emails? or visits? etc.)

I love #3 - but I want to go one step further. 4 years.

Posted by zhawks on 6/28/2012 12:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dacj501 on 6/27/2012 9:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zhawks on 6/27/2012 8:14:00 PM (view original):
Maybe a coach has "time" to spend during the season (distance is not a factor) and money to spend during recruiting (distance is a factor). Manage them well and you have better national recruiting.

"time" is used or expired every five games and can be used all at once. Recruits can start to consider during season based on time spent and come out during off season recruiting with a favorite.

how would you handle coaches changing teams or new coaching picking up a team?

Simmy uses 'time' as well (so schools have some players already with a bit of interested if previously sim coached) and you can use the job change period as each day of job changes is also a small recruiting period where you have those days to use time as well (helps a coach moving to a new school).

Also some coaches may move and still want players that they targeted - this way your player has both a consideration of you as a coach and your school.

Time can be used ONLY for players that show you as minimum a backup option.

I hate to have things start 'only when you move to d2' , etc. but you could do that too.

Is there a disadvantage to coaches changing schools? Sure absolutely - but to ultimietly fix recruiting I think we will be forced with a solution that impacts job changing, we just need to find a good way to minimize that.

i like the "time" idea, but for it to really make sense (which I would like) i think you need to take it a step further.


Enter trip planning. sort of.

A trip to Slovakia for a scouting trip might take up 100 time units...but of course, the 2nd scouting trip shouldnt, since you wouldn't fly to and from slovakia again. say the second move is 10 time units. you should really only have to pay for the flight out that cycle, then do all your moves while in the area, then fly back.

While the idea may seem complicated at first, keep in mind that this would also take care of the nationalized recruiting problem somewhat, as teams can more easily recruit across the country. you could have a d2 team own Korea for d2 players since he goes there every cycle. if you made player ratings more invisible at first, and FSS only gave slight indications as to the best recruits, suddenly you have a dynamic where "rumor has it kentucky is good this season" "st. mary's keeps going to australia, let's tap that" "i think uconn is leaving CT open to steal recruits, i will take advantage". Could be pretty cool.

the true cost for teams would be to fly everywhere every cycle, as opposed to a few flights and bus trips in the area local to the school.

Posted by zhawks on 6/28/2012 12:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by milkamania on 6/28/2012 8:26:00 AM (view original):
The main problem with the idea of in season recruiting and signings that no one has answered yet is what to do about job changes.  How can we realistically expect something like this   "This continues throughout the season. Signings start at the mid-point of conference play (so 20 cycles in), recruiting ends the day after the NC (on Reflection Day).""  when the coach can just leave for a different school in the offseason.  I don't want anyone else choosing my players for me (although in all fairness I'd probably do better) if I took that open job later. 

How is that any different from how it is now? I agree this is an issue but not the way you are wording it here IMO. You already have someone else's players when you take a new job - that's part of WHY you chose said job. So why can't it just be the same?

It's clearly different than what we have in place now. Now, when you join a new team, you get to recruit IMMEDIATELY and sign your OWN players. With in-season recruiting, you take over a team, inherit a class of freshman from the PREVIOUS coach, then wait until your second season for the first class of your own recruits.

EDIT: That said, if we could have an in-season system where players you recruited at your old school carried over some interest to your new school, that would be a great idea. There are many RL examples of coaches switching schools and taking some of their recruits with them.

Posted by jetwildcat on 6/28/2012 12:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zhawks on 6/28/2012 12:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dacj501 on 6/27/2012 9:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zhawks on 6/27/2012 8:14:00 PM (view original):
Maybe a coach has "time" to spend during the season (distance is not a factor) and money to spend during recruiting (distance is a factor). Manage them well and you have better national recruiting.

"time" is used or expired every five games and can be used all at once. Recruits can start to consider during season based on time spent and come out during off season recruiting with a favorite.

how would you handle coaches changing teams or new coaching picking up a team?

Simmy uses 'time' as well (so schools have some players already with a bit of interested if previously sim coached) and you can use the job change period as each day of job changes is also a small recruiting period where you have those days to use time as well (helps a coach moving to a new school).

Also some coaches may move and still want players that they targeted - this way your player has both a consideration of you as a coach and your school.

Time can be used ONLY for players that show you as minimum a backup option.

I hate to have things start 'only when you move to d2' , etc. but you could do that too.

Is there a disadvantage to coaches changing schools? Sure absolutely - but to ultimietly fix recruiting I think we will be forced with a solution that impacts job changing, we just need to find a good way to minimize that.

i like the "time" idea, but for it to really make sense (which I would like) i think you need to take it a step further.


Enter trip planning. sort of.

A trip to Slovakia for a scouting trip might take up 100 time units...but of course, the 2nd scouting trip shouldnt, since you wouldn't fly to and from slovakia again. say the second move is 10 time units. you should really only have to pay for the flight out that cycle, then do all your moves while in the area, then fly back.

While the idea may seem complicated at first, keep in mind that this would also take care of the nationalized recruiting problem somewhat, as teams can more easily recruit across the country. you could have a d2 team own Korea for d2 players since he goes there every cycle. if you made player ratings more invisible at first, and FSS only gave slight indications as to the best recruits, suddenly you have a dynamic where "rumor has it kentucky is good this season" "st. mary's keeps going to australia, let's tap that" "i think uconn is leaving CT open to steal recruits, i will take advantage". Could be pretty cool.

I like your idea, but to help national recruiting I don't want distance to be a factor of how much time it takes to do a task, 100% realistic? no not really, but just because it's RL doesn't mean it's best for HD. Maybe to make distance a somewhat factor you limit the number of recruits you can target, amount of 'time' spent per cycle on a recruit, or maybe you can only travel to a different state per game?

Posted by usc4life on 6/28/2012 12:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zhawks on 6/28/2012 12:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by milkamania on 6/28/2012 8:26:00 AM (view original):
The main problem with the idea of in season recruiting and signings that no one has answered yet is what to do about job changes.  How can we realistically expect something like this   "This continues throughout the season. Signings start at the mid-point of conference play (so 20 cycles in), recruiting ends the day after the NC (on Reflection Day).""  when the coach can just leave for a different school in the offseason.  I don't want anyone else choosing my players for me (although in all fairness I'd probably do better) if I took that open job later. 

How is that any different from how it is now? I agree this is an issue but not the way you are wording it here IMO. You already have someone else's players when you take a new job - that's part of WHY you chose said job. So why can't it just be the same?

It's clearly different than what we have in place now. Now, when you join a new team, you get to recruit IMMEDIATELY and sign your OWN players. With in-season recruiting, you take over a team, inherit a class of freshman from the PREVIOUS coach, then wait until your second season for the first class of your own recruits.

EDIT: That said, if we could have an in-season system where players you recruited at your old school carried over some interest to your new school, that would be a great idea. There are many RL examples of coaches switching schools and taking some of their recruits with them.

Yup I agree it is different, but the underlying idea is similar. You're always coming in with someone else's players. Now coaches need to pay more attention to what recruiting is going on for job changes.

And I am fine with keeping signings to only after jobs or something like that so you could take a new job and theoretically recruit a whole class of FR yourself and not use the previous coaches players they were recruiting, but it would be a bit harder. This could help at high D1 when a coach changes to an elite in a conference some of the players he may want to target he hasn't yet (do to previous coach) and it would be harder for them to win said recruit.

Posted by zhawks on 6/28/2012 12:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by milkamania on 6/28/2012 8:26:00 AM (view original):
The main problem with the idea of in season recruiting and signings that no one has answered yet is what to do about job changes.  How can we realistically expect something like this   "This continues throughout the season. Signings start at the mid-point of conference play (so 20 cycles in), recruiting ends the day after the NC (on Reflection Day).""  when the coach can just leave for a different school in the offseason.  I don't want anyone else choosing my players for me (although in all fairness I'd probably do better) if I took that open job later. 

How is that any different from how it is now? I agree this is an issue but not the way you are wording it here IMO. You already have someone else's players when you take a new job - that's part of WHY you chose said job. So why can't it just be the same?

Z, the main difference here is that you change jobs, THEN recruit. So you can shape the roster somewhat before you coach a single game... 

So I could have a good season at NCSU, but trouble recruiting, then bail, maybe even to a better spot? Then whoever comes in gets my prestige bump from the good season, but my crappy players or my walk-ons, and has to wait a whole season to get rid of them? That is the big difference.