1. Player Roles Scouting Trip – This would be an additional recruiting function that would adjust the likelihood of your assistant coaches responses according to your own defined player roles.  Assume that you have defined a player role “PG” to be heavily biased towards SPD, DEF, PER, BH & PASS, then you select the “Player Roles Scouting Trip” and the likelihood that your assistant coach responds with potentials in those categories is substantially increased over ATH, REB, SB, LP, STAM.  It would have to be priced at, say, 150 - 200% of a regular scouting trip, have no increased “recruiting effort” credit over a regular trip, and would need to have a maximum likelihood of a particular category response appearing among the 4 and a minimum likelihood (to prevent coaches from putting 100% into one category of the player role to guarantee that response).
2. During the initial, 2 hour, recruiting cycle, home visits (“HV”) and campus visits (“CV”) should be prohibited.
3. W-L records against human coaches, currently available under the “Next Game” tab, should always be available under the “Stats” tab on a world-by-world basis, of course.
4. Players with initial “capped” or “low-low” stamina when recruited, often lose stamina points during the offseason, but are unable to recover to the level at which they were originally recruited.  This should be patched to prevent players that reach their maximum stamina from losing conditioning during the offseason or to make them more likely to recover to their initial rating.
5. The very first “coach call” for any recruit should provide the H.S. or JuCo team’s offense & defense, but without opinion as to the target recruit’s system IQ until the second and subsequent calls.  

Discussion:

1. I anticipate universal acclamation for this addition.  It might require a little work to make a recruiting tool with a dropdown frame that allowed selection of a coaches defined roles, but it would make use of the new “player roles” functionality to provide the targeted scouting report for which most coaches now clamor.  I believe that it would still be necessary that the responses still be random, but that this would allow the coach, for an additional fee, to tip the scales in favor of useful responses.  It would make no sense to have the extra cost increase the "effort" perceived by the recruit over a regular scouting trip.
2. It makes little sense that the short cycle (representing, say, the first week that recruiting contacts are permitted in real life) would have HV or CV as a feasible option.   That would come after initial contact by text, phone, email and/or coach calls in real life (no such requirement is suggested on a recruit by recruit basis).  Further, many coaches likely operate at a disadvantage to others that can jump that first cycle and that may operate as a barrier to game entry for some segment of the interested population.  Also, it is my supposition that D1 battles for high level recruits would be promoted by allowing coaches a first cycle to scout without need to lock down recruits early to scare away competition. 
3. No comment needed.
4. No comment needed.
5. This makes intuitive sense to me; that a H.S. or JuCo coach (if they answered the phone at all) would be only to happy to talk about their program.  So, there is no way that more than one call would be needed to garner the team’s system.  The current responses would remain identical for all subsequent coach calls.