Add a time factor in addition to money. High prestige conferences will always have more money but time will be equal to all programs.

Limit players to 5 campus visits. Don't allow visits until 24 hrs before signing. Show the visit schedule on the recruit profile.

Limit coaches to one visit per player per cycle. Limit a player to 5 coach visits per cycle.

Reduce the value of Future Stars. Highlight only 4 categories for each position. Make the team call the coach or scout the player to reveal other categories.

Add Visit Coach as a category. Give coaches more influence over players. Allow teams to develop relationships.

Show a player's Top 9 schools 3 high 3 med 3 low. Along with a check box if the team shows interest in a player. He can cut his list throughout the evaluation to let schools know how they are doing.

Refine scouting. Have a watch player and an evaluate player option. The cost option would be the same but the time option would vary. A watch would take 30 min and reveal a single category and have a minor player influence. An evaluation would take 2 hrs reveal 3 categories and have a major player influence. In addition each scout would reveal a category on other players. A watch would reveal a category about his opponent. An evaluate would reveal a category for his 4 teammates. A coach could evaluate up to 3 games in a single visit.

would not work for D1 and D2,  plus how do you acct for more than 5 coaches recruting 1 guy?  first come first serve?  then how would a higher prestige coach sign a player if 5 lower prestige coaches fill up the recruit visits before the higher prestige coach can get on him.

It does work. It's called reality. Let's face it in reality a kid can only have about 3 coaches visit him a week.

The player decides which coach he wants to talk to FIRST. He's going to have conference preferences, location preferences and prestige preferences that will factor in to who he wants to see, as well as how many teams he wants to visit with. He may ask you visit his coach instead. His coach could have say 15 appointments available. You could request a player visit and be granted a coach visit instead. Build a relationship with the coach and he may be able to get you in to see the player

That's also where the scout angle comes in. An unlimited number of coaches may watch and evaluate a player. Based on who is watching him, the player can decide which schools he wants to meet with.

As it exists right now, the coach is useless, the scouting report is useless. All you have to do is visit the kid and bring him to school. The team with the most money and highest prestige points wins. It's very cut and dry. But that's not how it really works.

You have to be deep in the game to get a player interview. Scouting matters a lot. A coach is often the single most important factor.

His list will also foster more competition between conference rivals. Once he's "considering" a school now, other conference members back away. But by showing his list of schools, which may include 3 or 4 members of the same conference they will be less likely to back down.

so you believe it is realistic that if five DIII schools arrange coaches visits to a kid and Kentucky or Duke calls, the kid wont let them visit?  really?

Posted by mamxet on 11/5/2015 11:47:00 AM (view original):
so you believe it is realistic that if five DIII schools arrange coaches visits to a kid and Kentucky or Duke calls, the kid wont let them visit?  really?

The game has been set up so that would never happen (no D3 school can even get a call returned by a kid who is a Duke/UK-level prospect).

But if Florida State, Clemson, Maryland, Virginia and Vanderbilt all arrange coaches visits to a kid for one cycle, then Duke/UK would be out of luck for that cycle (the three hour period). Doesn't mean Duke/UK can't get a visit in the next cycle.

While I'm not sure I would agree with all of iamjoeyd's proposals, I am intrigued by the idea of HD recruiting being less of a pure auction and more of a relationship-based method.  In real life, a coach can land a kid by getting there first and developing a relationship with a player. In this last RL recruiting cycle, Cal landed two top players, including a kid out of Georgia that Duke/UK/UNC all wanted. Cuonzo Martin had developed a relationship with Jaylen Brown back when Brown was a HS freshman and that trust led Brown to Cal.  There is no way in HD for a B school (which Cal bball is right now) to pull a kid that Duke/UK/UNC want and maybe that needs to change.

That's not even close to what I suggested mamxet.

If 50 schools send a home visit request to a player, he accepts 5. Obviously the 5 he accepts will be the ones that best match his criteria (prestige, location, etc.). Then he assigns some to see his coach instead and he promises a later date to others. That's the way it actually happens.

Perfect explanation grimace!

In reality a coaches time is more valuable than his money. Coach Cal has a virtually unlimited budget at Kentucky but he can only visit one kid at a time. It takes 3 hrs or so to visit with the kid and it takes 2-4 hrs to get to the kid. So he can see a maximum of 2 kids a day 5 days a week. His weekends are spent at scout functions.

The problem with per cycle limits is the same as always - battles would have nothing to do with anything related to the game and be decided by which coach could make the most cycles. Making perfect attendance a requirement for battles isn't a way to improve recruiting.

Posted by acn24 on 11/5/2015 1:58:00 PM (view original):
The problem with per cycle limits is the same as always - battles would have nothing to do with anything related to the game and be decided by which coach could make the most cycles. Making perfect attendance a requirement for battles isn't a way to improve recruiting.

thamks ACN thats a much better explanation than what I was trying to say up above

        -  all2matt / waykbordr

That's not necessarily an issue here. You could punch in 5 home visits to a kid if you wanted. But only one would occur in a given cycle. The others would advance to later cycles.

It's possible that you could schedule an entire days worth of cycles at one setting or play more by ear and better manage your recruiting budget.

Interesting idea, but I worry that there would be risk of many unforeseen effects.

Basic idea of limiting activity is worthwhile I think
for example, lets say I am B prestige.  I want to visit a kid but I am not scheduled because 5 A prestige teams take the slots

can I program a backup slot witha kid who is a bit lower on my list?

setting backups becomes quite complex - my backups, your backups.  Do backups bump others' primary visits?

If you dont have backups, then picking the right players to visit becomes a key crapshoot

I think the way seble is trying to do it is the correct way.

Seble is talking about limiting the campus visits that each guy can do .. so a recruit will be more picky and not go everywhere, once he gets to 5 (or whatever the number is, he is not doing any more campus visits).

He is also talking about limiting the number of campus and home visits each team can do.  That means you don't get any extra home visits, regardless of how much money you might have or what conference you are in. 

Money is limited to only helping you find out more info about more recruits in scouting and has no impact on the number of home or campus visits you have.  It would also seem that this will make a home or campus visit be equal regardless of distance (a good thing, I think).  Scouting will cost more at distance, but recruiting effort seems distance agnostic.

Posted by acn24 on 11/5/2015 1:58:00 PM (view original):
The problem with per cycle limits is the same as always - battles would have nothing to do with anything related to the game and be decided by which coach could make the most cycles. Making perfect attendance a requirement for battles isn't a way to improve recruiting.

If iamjoeyd's proposals are done within the framework of the season-long recruiting that seble envisions, then I think it can work.  The idea would be that -- unlike now -- you won't get a list of every prospect in the country, but you will have to search them out. And because recruiting won't be a four day free-for-all, but a season long process, you will be able to miss a day without too much harm.

I suspect the system would work something like this....you run scouting trips/camps/whatever, discover an intriguing prospect. Send your assistant to scout the player and assess abilities.  You call the player and his HS coach and develop mutual interest.  At a certain point, players can take campus visits and have coaches visit them. If 15 schools are trying to recruit the player, he will accept visits in that cycle from 5 schools that he is most interested in.  So if the player doesn't accept your visits offer, you will need to develop a backup plan. 

If Duke/UK/UCLA/Indiana have been on the player since the beginning, then Wake Forest probably doesn't have a chance.  But if Wake Forest is on the guy from the beginning and meets his geographical/playing time profile and Duke/UK have not noticed him until late in the process, it is unlikely they could just show up and steal him away.

From reading what I've read in the Seble links it's going to make things way too complicated. Way too many things happening. It's almost a whole new game.

Recruiting is probably the best part of the game now and doesn't need a complete rebuild as being discussed. The money factor in college recruiting is very realistic. The power of prestige is very realistic. And quite honestly I can discover a pretty good depth of knowledge on the top 1000 players in the country from 247 or rivals, so Future stars is quite realistic.

The only problem it lacks is a time factor. Why not simply attach a time factor to a recruit option. Each team would have money related to success and prestige, but everybody would have the same amount of time. That's program management. If you're out of time, money doesn't matter.

Posted by iamjoeyd on 11/6/2015 11:38:00 AM (view original):
From reading what I've read in the Seble links it's going to make things way too complicated. Way too many things happening. It's almost a whole new game.

Recruiting is probably the best part of the game now and doesn't need a complete rebuild as being discussed. The money factor in college recruiting is very realistic. The power of prestige is very realistic. And quite honestly I can discover a pretty good depth of knowledge on the top 1000 players in the country from 247 or rivals, so Future stars is quite realistic.

The only problem it lacks is a time factor. Why not simply attach a time factor to a recruit option. Each team would have money related to success and prestige, but everybody would have the same amount of time. That's program management. If you're out of time, money doesn't matter.

I agree - I do NOT want to see recruiting become a complicated and tedious affair where I have to not only learn how to do it all over again, but it takes way too much effort on my part.

I like recruiting the way it is now.