ike, I get what you are saying, but it is not fair to penalize those who had to recruit later. There is no way to ignore that fact. You can state a desire to award teams that get on a recruit early (although still not sure why that should automatically get any reward) but the net result is a penalty on those who recruit later.

The reason why a parallel in this area still doesn't make sense to compare to real life is that RL teams have paid personnel on their staff whose job it is to make early contact with recruits that the school is interested in. We pay to play a game. I don't expect the same kind of effort and attention from people playing a game vs those getting paid to do their jobs.

Posted by dukenilnil on 6/13/2012 9:15:00 PM (view original):
What's the argument in favor of the late jumping on recruits in the grand scheme of the game (not just the benefit to the actor but how it benefits the game in general). It allows the 5 + scholarship guys to sit add wait and take whoever they want cheaply. There is no amount of protecting that can be done if you only have 1 or 2 scholarships. Those with more can always take.
What I am proposing does allow for protecting by rewarding the persistent and active coach who can identify targets early and acts on it.

Most of the time if someone has 6 openings to your 2 and they want your player, they can take it cycle 2 or right before signings. What you are proposing does nothing to address that issue, which is fundamental to the way recruiting is handled in this game. What you'd need is a total overhaul of recruiting to avoid the team with 6 beating the team with 2. What you are proposing is a penalty to those who recruit later, yet still within the time-frame set aside for recruiting.

You're half right, dac.  It's a penalty to those who recruit later with a relatively huge bankroll.  It's just too easy to sit back and then blow someone off his guy.

That sounds dirtier than intended.

This same topic seems to pop up about every six months or so, with the same arguments and counters every time.  Here's the question that hasn't been asked yet, but inevitably will, so I'm gonna get it out of the way early.  What happens to the coach, who for whatever reason, isn't able to start his recruiting until the day of signings?   He's not looking to "poach" recruits, he legitimately couldn't get to his team for the first couple of days.  Why should he end up penalized by having to overcome some outrageous considering credit? 

No problem here with having "some" considering credit, but not enough to make it impossible to take a recruit away from someone, even if they've been on him since the first cycle. 

Posted by llamanunts on 6/14/2012 1:52:00 AM (view original):
You're half right, dac.  It's a penalty to those who recruit later with a relatively huge bankroll.  It's just too easy to sit back and then blow someone off his guy.

That sounds dirtier than intended.

You're half right as well - It's too easy to sit back and then blow someone off his guy if said someone fails to spend enough to protect his recruits.

This thread is dumb. Terrible idea. I don't even wanna imagine the rat race this would be for the first three cycles of recruiting...not to mention everyone would blow their bankroll in the first six cycles. Recruiting is an even playing field currently, no need for change.  

I prefer to recruit early but can't always do so.  To force me to take the leftovers that noone else wants is blatantly unfair.

I didn't propose making it impossible to perfume, I said a significantly stronger credit for being early and often, i.e. decent effort every cycle. Being Tight is meaningless when its 4+ schollies against 2 for instance. Tight is way too easy to overcome.
And to the guy who just can't recruit until later....you have to fight for what's left. You are in a real time game, life gets in the way sometimes.
They've had national tourney games on Christmas and many when I am traveling away from computers. Can't game plan and a season of effort is wasted. That's the breaks though for a Sim you can't pause.

Plus, now the guy who can recruit early but can't late (the reverse if your hypo) is out of luck because his recruits can be battled for and he can't respond. The can't recruit until later argument Carries no water to to quote Marissa tomei

impossible to perfume?

I would like to be able to make sophomore promises, which could have helped me when I had only two slots open and couldn't give any playing time first year ... but a ton of time was going to open up the next year.

Posted by dukenilnil on 6/13/2012 8:38:00 PM (view original):
To limit jumping on recruits at signing, I purpose the following...
Have a fairly significant recruit bonus for recruiting a player early and for giving him attention over a number of periods. I know there is the consideration credit but it is too small. This should go a long ways towards balancing out recruiting as too many coaches wait until signing or just before and snag a player who another coach has been on from the beginning. This strategy may technically be allowed under the current rules, but its certainly not fair play (or fun)

I absolutely think early effort should mean more than late effort.  Why not?  It's realistic.  I constantly see quotes from players that praise a school because they were on them before anyone else was.  Why shouldn't this refelct more in HD? 

Posted by ll316 on 6/14/2012 7:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dukenilnil on 6/13/2012 8:38:00 PM (view original):
To limit jumping on recruits at signing, I purpose the following...
Have a fairly significant recruit bonus for recruiting a player early and for giving him attention over a number of periods. I know there is the consideration credit but it is too small. This should go a long ways towards balancing out recruiting as too many coaches wait until signing or just before and snag a player who another coach has been on from the beginning. This strategy may technically be allowed under the current rules, but its certainly not fair play (or fun)

I absolutely think early effort should mean more than late effort.  Why not?  It's realistic.  I constantly see quotes from players that praise a school because they were on them before anyone else was.  Why shouldn't this refelct more in HD? 

Early effort already means more than late effort.  This proposal, however, would increase that advantage.  With the limited budgets at DIII, that'd make it nearly impossible to recruit any player who's already spoken for.
 

There are also RL players who were considering one school, then a different school starts late and nabs the recruit. I can remember Kentucky taking one from Fordham, one from Washington,  and two more from Memphis.

Posted by uconnut on 6/14/2012 7:45:00 AM (view original):
impossible to perfume?

I would like to be able to make sophomore promises, which could have helped me when I had only two slots open and couldn't give any playing time first year ... but a ton of time was going to open up the next year.

*overcome* typing on a cell phone quickly

Posted by kypride on 6/14/2012 8:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ll316 on 6/14/2012 7:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dukenilnil on 6/13/2012 8:38:00 PM (view original):
To limit jumping on recruits at signing, I purpose the following...
Have a fairly significant recruit bonus for recruiting a player early and for giving him attention over a number of periods. I know there is the consideration credit but it is too small. This should go a long ways towards balancing out recruiting as too many coaches wait until signing or just before and snag a player who another coach has been on from the beginning. This strategy may technically be allowed under the current rules, but its certainly not fair play (or fun)

I absolutely think early effort should mean more than late effort.  Why not?  It's realistic.  I constantly see quotes from players that praise a school because they were on them before anyone else was.  Why shouldn't this refelct more in HD? 

Early effort already means more than late effort.  This proposal, however, would increase that advantage.  With the limited budgets at DIII, that'd make it nearly impossible to recruit any player who's already spoken for.
 

There are also RL players who were considering one school, then a different school starts late and nabs the recruit. I can remember Kentucky taking one from Fordham, one from Washington,  and two more from Memphis.

This would either only be directed at d1 where late charges are more common or scaled appropriately for the divisions respective cash flow

Stop whining about poaching, it's part of the game, and always will be.  The real issue is the ridiculous advantage that teams with 6 schollys over teams with 1 or 2.  I am all for something that purports to address this situation, but anti-poaching measures aren't even remotely the solution.

Posted by abitaamber on 6/14/2012 8:35:00 AM (view original):
Stop whining about poaching, it's part of the game, and always will be.  The real issue is the ridiculous advantage that teams with 6 schollys over teams with 1 or 2.  I am all for something that purports to address this situation, but anti-poaching measures aren't even remotely the solution.

The advantage of having 6 isn't that big.  Yes the 6 guy can beat the 1 or 2 guy, but he has to recruit way more people, and the guy with 1 will not be crippled if he doesn't sign anyone.  The guy with 6 open NEEDS to land 3 players or will have his season ruined.

Dont penalize people that for whatever reason have real life interfere with the game.  Sometimes you cannot recruit that first day.  You want to make that a bigger disadvantage than it already is?