I always liked considering credit in the old game because I felt like it gave you incentive to try to recruit early, and it seems like if a player was interested in a school as his top choice for a long time, that should count for something. But it should be somewhat diminishing like at signing, on signing day the credit could look like this, with the person leading for that recruit getting considering credit in the amounts that they were leading for each of these periods. I think this would increase early competition. Right now there is not much incentive.

Day/Period CREDIT
1-1 1%
1-2 1%

2-1 2%
2-2 2%
2-3 2%
2-4 2%

3-1 3%
3-2 3%
3-3 3%
3-4 3%

4-1 3%
4-2 5%
4-3 10%
4-4 10%

5-1 15%
5-2 20%
5-3 25% (SIGNING CYCLE)

IN BATTLES THAT WENT TO THE VERY END, IT COULD LOOK SOMETHING LIKE THIS

Day/Period CREDIT
1-1 1%
1-2 1%

2-1 1%
2-2 1%
2-3 1%
2-4 1%

3-1 1%
3-2 1%
3-3 1%
3-4 1%

4-1 1%
4-2 1%
4-3 1%
4-4 1%

5-1 1%
5-2 2%
5-3 4% (SIGNING CYCLE)
5-4 4%

6-1 5%
6-2 6%
6-3 8%
6-4 8%

4-1 10%
4-2 10%
4-3 15%
4-4 15%

Or maybe the earlier times should count for a little more..

I do agree. I think this alligns with the goal of making recruiting work more intuitively. But I think we should be careful and I'd suggest we really limit the extent of this additional credit, as it's already hard enough to salvage a class in session 2 if you dropped the ball or weren't the coach in session 1.

This will DECREASE competition as team will be even LESS likely to challenge early leaders.
Don't really like the idea. Nice effort though.

Yeah let's make the game more complicated and confusing for no reason.

Hard pass.

Agree with Mully on this one. It will also make replacing EEs even tougher IMO.