Recruiting et al. Topic

Rails
Posts: 263 (0)
Hall of Famer
21 193 13
Prospect
Or it could make it harder and more realistic for top teams so that there would be some risk in getting drop downs from 200+ miles.  Perspective.  By definition wouldn't everyone going after the same players make it harder??  You lost me on the easier part.
8/27/2010 9:03 AM
sidereal33
Posts: 12 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 101 3
Prospect
I lean against a free FSS system, but do feel like it costs too much for what it is (particularly at the D3 level).  I do like the Diamond in the Rough Idea though, but would prefer to see it on a more wide scale basis if recruiting is going to remain as it is. 

I think my big problem with the scouting service is that IRL scouting is not an exact science and there are differences of opinion about how good a player is and how much that player might improve.  IRL scouting certainly aids a coach in analyzing a recruits ability and might help to narrow the focus on which athletes to pursue in recruiting, but IRL a coach also has the ability to personally observe the recruit and form his own opinion.  

In Hoops Dynsasty, we don't have this.  I know that when I look through the list of recruits and I see a PG with SP = 50, I also know that my rival coach down the road sees the same thing.   I also know that if we both subscribe to FSS we will both see if that 50 is green, red, or black.  The problem is (assuming we all subscribe to FSS) that there is no possibility for me to see a hidden potential that my rival doesn't and vice versa.  And while at the end of the day we might all have a different opinion of how that 50 Speed rating will translate into actual performance on the court, we should all agree that a black 50 is better than a red 49 and worse than a green 51.
8/28/2010 8:23 AM
coach_billyg
Posts: 2072 (0)
Hall of Famer
92
Pro
i am totally against a free FSS system.

one of the great points of potential was that it really introduced a second aspect to the straight auction style recruiting. now, we have a decision to make - spend money finding the best players, or getting the best players we have found. its a very real trade off, and there is a lot of strategy in it. personally, i also feel it breaks up the monotony of spending all your time before the first cycle, finding the first player, and then simply dumping more money into them for the rest of recruiting.
8/31/2010 6:34 PM
jcfreder
Posts: 66 (0)
Hall of Famer
187
Prospect
At the very least, it seems like the "Word on the Street" shoudl be free. IRL you can get this sort of info about a recruit from the press or message boards.
10/13/2010 3:47 PM
creilmann
Posts: 582 (0)
Hall of Famer
134 4
Prospect
I'm in agreement with billy on this.  Making FSS free eliminates another recruiting strategy.  I'm all for making it more affordable at the DII and III levels, but not free. Another option might be to eliminate state-wide reports and only allow coaches to purchase individual FSS reports.  Maybe somewhere in the $10-$50 range for each individual FSS report.
10/26/2010 11:19 AM
rusticity
Posts: 152 (0)
Hall of Famer
164 20 3
Prospect
Low priority request - but I imagine it would be quick and easy.

On the recruiting summary page can you make more options for sorting recruits under the "Priority" heading.  As it stands there are four, "Not set", "Low", "Medium", "High".  I imagine it would not be too difficult to just drop the L,M,H and just make that list numbered and go 1-20 or whatever and give us more sorting capabilities.  Or am I the only one looking to sort recruits into finer categories (i.e. per position as well as priority for instance)?
11/6/2010 2:18 AM
asher413
Posts: 609 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 9 2 25 248 23 73 4
Rookie
I would like to be able to add more sorting- for me I want to be able to keep track of them by a position (ex, my #1 PG target, #2 target, etc.), and if it was something like 1-20 I could make that work as well.
11/8/2010 6:59 PM
_hannibal_
Posts: 455 (0)
Veteran
23
Prospect
Posted by rusticity on 11/6/2010 2:18:00 AM (view original):
Low priority request - but I imagine it would be quick and easy.

On the recruiting summary page can you make more options for sorting recruits under the "Priority" heading.  As it stands there are four, "Not set", "Low", "Medium", "High".  I imagine it would not be too difficult to just drop the L,M,H and just make that list numbered and go 1-20 or whatever and give us more sorting capabilities.  Or am I the only one looking to sort recruits into finer categories (i.e. per position as well as priority for instance)?
Maybe we should start a separate thread for this so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle
11/12/2010 9:24 AM
sidereal33
Posts: 12 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 101 3
Prospect
I like Creilmann's line of thinking with individual reports, I prefer an option where I don't have to purchase FSS on every recruit.  As a DIII coach, I don't really care about the players at DI at all.  How about an option that allows me to purchase FSS specific to the Division level I'm coaching in?  That way, as a DIII coach,  if I want to pull down a DII player into DIII I either have to do a player eval, or additionally purchase the DII FSS reports.
12/10/2010 9:03 AM
43tj
Posts: 46 (0)
Hall of Famer
221 32
Prospect
I am leaning against the free FSS.  It would enable, in my opinion the schools (D111 level) from the powerful conferences which receive more recruiting money to dump more cash at the same prospects that everyone would be targeting.  Thus the rich would get richer.

Currently I use individual scouting reports to determine who I want to recruit.  This method costs more per prospect, but I think it gives me better information.  Plus I know no one else is seeing it unless they are paying for a scouting report as well.  I do like the idea of being able to buy individual FSS reports.  I also like the ranking concept of your prospects.
12/11/2010 12:05 PM
Rails
Posts: 263 (0)
Hall of Famer
21 193 13
Prospect

Without natural power conferences in DIII, I don't think it's an issue.  Also the money at DIII is chump change.  It would actually help those without as much money because they would have access to more players than they would otherwise.  Bottom line, is the HD is at a low point as far as popularity.  FSS is a large part of that.  The correlation is huge between its popularity and the rollout of FSS and the new engine.  My god, there are 70% sims in most every world.

12/15/2010 5:50 PM
acn24
Posts: 1020 (0)
Hall of Famer
260 357 172
Rookie
Posted by sidereal33 on 12/10/2010 9:03:00 AM (view original):
I like Creilmann's line of thinking with individual reports, I prefer an option where I don't have to purchase FSS on every recruit.  As a DIII coach, I don't really care about the players at DI at all.  How about an option that allows me to purchase FSS specific to the Division level I'm coaching in?  That way, as a DIII coach,  if I want to pull down a DII player into DIII I either have to do a player eval, or additionally purchase the DII FSS reports.

But that only makes it more expensive at DII and DIII relative to DI.  Schools at those levels would need to scout their recruits and the level about them.  DI only has to pay for one level of recruits.

I agree with the idea of doing individual FSS reports, although I think creilmann's $10-$50 range is much too low, this is much more valuable than a coach call, I would say it would need to be somewhere in the $100 range. 

12/21/2010 1:47 PM
Rails
Posts: 263 (0)
Hall of Famer
21 193 13
Prospect
Right now the average cost is about $20 per player.  Some cost more, some less.  That's the problem.  Teams just cannot afford to spend $300 to get info on one recruit. 

Based on a state with about 30 players, FSS is about $200.  Someone might have have more exact numbers.  Assuming that those 30 are broken up evenly (rarely the case but let's go with it)  with 10 DI, 10 DII and 10 DIII.  Paying $200 for 10 usable recruits is $20 per.  In reality, however, not all the "usable" recruits are really legit, as many are crap.  So the current cost is probably higher than $20 per.  $100 per player is way, way, way too high.  $20 would be reasonable.  It would not be cost prohibitive to recruit a little further out from your home area.
12/21/2010 11:00 PM
acn24
Posts: 1020 (0)
Hall of Famer
260 357 172
Rookie
But the functional cost is higher than the average cost.  How many of those 10 recruits is a coach actively interested in?  Often they are spending $200 for 2-4 players of interest, raising the price per recruit to $50-$100.

You also need to look at the cost relative to the other costs of recruiting activities.  I think that an FSS report is significantly more valuable than a call to either the player or coach or a letter.  The cost of the recruiting action should correspond with the relative values.  It is not that much different than a scouting trip - you get potential on all skills (rather than only 4 - with no guarantee that you will receive information on something of value), but you don't get  the level of potential.

12/22/2010 2:47 PM
Rails
Posts: 263 (0)
Hall of Famer
21 193 13
Prospect
I alluded to the functional cost being higher and you're right.  It is.  But why not keep as is then?  Because it's too high now.  Who was the candidate from the Rent is too damn high party anyway?  Sticking with your value/cost argument.  I'd argue that the FSS report has ZERO value to the recruit so saying it's not much different than an eval is not the case.  You cannot sign a kid with simply a report.  You can with a call, letters and trips.  From an information standpoint it's valuable, but it has no value to the recruit.  Bottom line is it sucks.  The skill set should be on who to recruit once you have the info, not who to scout.  Having it at $100 per  report wouldn't change anything because there would be a finite # that could be scouted so what would change?   It would cost too damn much rent.  Having 300+ sims while it's bb season in DIII tells you something.  And some of the humans are aliases.  Sad.  Sad.  Sad. Sad. Sad.
1/6/2011 3:35 AM
◂ Prev 12
Recruiting et al. Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.