Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2017 5:58:00 PM (view original):
Everyone knows the position you're in when you take a new team. Doesn't make it right, I've been arguing for a different kind of change in another thread but it does make it a known quantity.

But, anyway, think of it as "realism".

Press conference on 4/10:
"Hi, I'm coach Shatz. I know this once proud program has gone 21-61 in the last 3 seasons and is on a 32 game losing streak but I should be getting some quality recruits despite my late start in recruiting. Something has to be wrong with the system when a new coach getting a late recruiting start at a school that hasn't won a game in over a year just can't get some high quality recruits to come on over. The NCAA should look into this."

Mike - It's not about entitlement to sign anyone a new coach wants in session 2 but it's entitlement to be able to compete for players and put in effort. I would be totally fine if I lose out on a player that I offer a scholarship to, visited his house, had him come to campus, heard what I'm offering, etc. who says "thanks but staying with the school who put a lot of effort in on me early and what you're offering doesn't sway enough." But with signings so quickly in the session you don't get to even make a pitch which is the problem. Whether it's a 5 star player or a 490 rated no star player the experience is exactly the same, lack of opportunity. What's the point of having two separate recruiting sessions if most of the work is basically done by the end of the first and the second is so heavily tied to what happened in the first?

The number of wins over the prior few seasons has zero influence on players consideration in this game beyond what it already had done to the teams prestige and whether that deems a team a 'rebuild' or not. I assumed rebuild meant many open scholarships and opportunity to play but based on my situation that is not the case, it's tied to prestige. Penn St won 20 games last season, made the sweet 16 and finished top 30 rpi. Going into this offseason Penn St and Duke are seen on equal footing with recruits as B prestige teams. I actually don't like this, I've argued in the past that prior season, or even in-season success should carry more weight with recruits. But as of now it doesn't.

It should be harder for new coaches changing mid season, I completely agree. But I would argue that missing out on cycle one is a pretty big disadvantage in and of itself. Teams at a higher level should at least be able to compete for mid major caliber players, even if it's only a couple of them.

RE realism, I look at the situation with Washington and Missouri right now. Washington fires Romar with the number 3 recruiting class coming in and the top overall player, Missouri hires the Cal coach and within minutes the top player Porter is headed to Missouri. There is debate whether Porter was leaning toward flipping and that's why Romar was let go. Coaching changes can affect recruits, which in WIS right now it has no bearing, positive or negative.

I do think that this is the biggest problem with the game that needs to be addressed. When I change schools, I just figure that is the way it is going to be, and that it is going to take me a year longer to rebuild a team than it did before. I do think that it would be a good idea to allow a couple of cycles to run before players start signing. This would also help solve the EE issue as well. It has made me less likely to change schools. But,like I said, I just figure if I can nab a good player or two, I have done really well, given the obstacles, but I expect the worst and hope for the best. This may be the only aspect of 3.0 I am not fond of.

I also think that if a coach is really successful at their old school that this should be something that is taken into account by recruits. For example, if Coach K moved to the University of Georgia, I could see recruits lining up to play there because they know it is going to be a very good program soon.

I said nothing about entitlement. I'm saying you took a franchise that's been terrible and you started recruiting late. The pickins' for a bad program and a new coach probably should be thin. Sucks but it is what it is.

I took a D2 in Rupp recently. Well before 2nd session. Because my previous experience in Rupp was in 2006, I didn't get to recruit. Sucks but it also is what it is.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2017 7:59:00 PM (view original):
I took a D2 in Rupp recently. Well before 2nd session. Because my previous experience in Rupp was in 2006, I didn't get to recruit. Sucks but it also is what it is.

Still, it should be different.

Posted by chapelhillne on 3/19/2017 7:52:00 PM (view original):
I do think that this is the biggest problem with the game that needs to be addressed. When I change schools, I just figure that is the way it is going to be, and that it is going to take me a year longer to rebuild a team than it did before. I do think that it would be a good idea to allow a couple of cycles to run before players start signing. This would also help solve the EE issue as well. It has made me less likely to change schools. But,like I said, I just figure if I can nab a good player or two, I have done really well, given the obstacles, but I expect the worst and hope for the best. This may be the only aspect of 3.0 I am not fond of.

I also think that if a coach is really successful at their old school that this should be something that is taken into account by recruits. For example, if Coach K moved to the University of Georgia, I could see recruits lining up to play there because they know it is going to be a very good program soon.

I'm in pretty much total agreement.

I will say one other thing, related to something shatz said in the last post about transfers. I doubt the problem is that there aren't as many. I think there are probably about the same number of transfers as there used to be; I don't know this to be true, but since they I never saw them announce any change to the transfer logic, I don't see any reason to believe the rate of occurrence has changed. I do think they're harder to find, because you have to scout for them. This is actually one area where you have an advantage taking over a new team, because you get this big scouting budget - especially for teams with lots of scholarships to replace - and you use it all on the 2nd session, where transfers are available. Teams scouting in the first session may not leave enough budget to go back and really scout for transfers.

Something interesting happened that I didnt expect. Joseph Walton did not sign with me even though he is VH and I offered him a scholarship. The 5pm cycle I had a processed scholarship but a SIM was on him. I dropped 20 HV on him and thought he would sign with me because I knew I would be VH at 11, but he didnt. Not too worried about it because he isnt any good but I did expect him to sign with me.

He signed at 2am, 3 hours after recruiting ended

Posted by indiansrck27 on 3/20/2017 9:17:00 AM (view original):
He signed at 2am, 3 hours after recruiting ended

Yeah its delayed. Same thing happened to me. Not sure why.

One issue the OP may be having is that the players considering schools at less than High don't show up that way in the filtering. So if the D2 school has put a boatload of effort in and is at moderate, then has a boatload more effort lined up for Cycle 1 of Recruiting cycle 2, he will likely sign.

You can only see that he's considering the d2 school by opening the player profile and looking at his list. Won't show on your main list of players, or if you filter by undecided.