You can't really use an example of how something is working in the current system to defend how its going to work in the future. Yes, we all find gems for cheap. Just some HV's to knock off a sim. But that's how it works now. With 50+ more coaches in D1, those types of signings will be more infrequent, even for the best of recruiters.

And I'm not sure about your distinction between recruiting and "paying" for players. Players have a value and we use our resources to bid on them. It's very much a free market, and it will become even more so with higher numbers of human coaches. You're 100% correct that there are other examples of strategies in recruiting, but uncapping home visits gives us even more choices and paths (something I remember you championing earlier). I will say that the idea of diminishing returns would make a ton of sense in that regard. Maybe start diminishing returns after 15 HV, much like practice minutes. I think that will really give some dynamism to recruiting choices.

Your problem with #2 would be mostly solved by #3, and I don't think your issue with #3 is valid. RS2 becoming too compressed? The 3rd day of RS2 is mostly wasted at D1 anyways. I can't remember the last time I signed someone on the last day of RS2. Two days should be plenty of time, especially if you have an entire day to prep for it. Just my opinion.

Posted by mlitney on 3/21/2021 6:11:00 PM (view original):
You can't really use an example of how something is working in the current system to defend how its going to work in the future. Yes, we all find gems for cheap. Just some HV's to knock off a sim. But that's how it works now. With 50+ more coaches in D1, those types of signings will be more infrequent, even for the best of recruiters.

And I'm not sure about your distinction between recruiting and "paying" for players. Players have a value and we use our resources to bid on them. It's very much a free market, and it will become even more so with higher numbers of human coaches. You're 100% correct that there are other examples of strategies in recruiting, but uncapping home visits gives us even more choices and paths (something I remember you championing earlier). I will say that the idea of diminishing returns would make a ton of sense in that regard. Maybe start diminishing returns after 15 HV, much like practice minutes. I think that will really give some dynamism to recruiting choices.

Your problem with #2 would be mostly solved by #3, and I don't think your issue with #3 is valid. RS2 becoming too compressed? The 3rd day of RS2 is mostly wasted at D1 anyways. I can't remember the last time I signed someone on the last day of RS2. Two days should be plenty of time, especially if you have an entire day to prep for it. Just my opinion.

You’re saying there’s a “cookie cutter” method of battling for talent. I’m refuting that notion. This is the same protest some people had throughout beta, and some folks carry a torch for it now. Yet lots of us adjust and do things differently. That’s the point. There is no one “cookie cutter” way to do it, just because one group of coaches does it a certain way, and a certain other group of coaches that follow them don’t really have the imagination to deviate. Folks will continue to adjust, regardless of the population. That’s what the system is designed for.

The distinction is that recruiting is not buying, bidding or drafting. It is not the same process. NCAA coaches don’t (aren’t supposed to, anyway) buy players. They must recruit the players. They don’t do that with resources collected and spent, they do that with good scouting and good salespersonship. They might talk about “selling” the player on a brand, but that’s just jargon. They are not literally (legally) offering the player things of monetary value. I think folks get their perceptions and expectations skewed because many of us come from fantasy sports backgrounds where we hold drafts. That’s not what recruiting is about. When you go to a bar, it is not “luck” when you make your pitch to 5 prospects and await their response. They have agency, as do you. We’re all making choices. The “roll” just simulates the part of the choice that we coaches don’t get to make, ie the recruit’s decision on where he’s going to get an education.

As for 2 and 3, I just don’t think any of that is really worth messing with. I really don’t mind the cycle cap at all, I’m just telling you, it will cause problems for the way lots of people do things at high D1. So that change may be more trouble than it’s worth, considering we’ll all be adjusting to higher populations anyway.

I think a big part of the question is *how* the 200 is distributed. The last 2 teams in a power conference are probably the hardest jobs in D1. So I would suspect over time, we’ll still often see a vacancy or two, on average, in those power conferences, though many may fill initially during this rush. I think the big growth potential is in mid majors. Most worlds have one or two good mid major conferences, but there’s no reason there can’t be a half dozen mid major conferences with 8-10 competitive teams every season, so adding in the power conferences, that’s well over 100. Can a world get 80-90 teams from the remaining 15? Small conferences will have a hard time consistently qualifying more than 2 teams for the tournament, so 5-6 teams per conference is expecting a bit much, probably, with the price point where it is. I think many folks will initially try to use those small conference jobs to springboard, but if the competition is too tough, may bounce back down pretty quick. That’s why long term, I don’t really expect 200+ to hold. But I do think from a competitive gameplay perspective, 150 coaches in D1 feels pretty healthy.

has the disclosed qualification for jobs been fixed? not good if folks are still seeing "not qualified" when they actually could get the job if only they kmew there is an under publicized bug

yeah they fixed it.

So its been 8.5 months since the big update to hiring logic. The P6 conferences remain at nearly full capacity and D1 has been much more robust. Despite the P6 population, there seem to be good jobs available almost every season. I think this is mostly due to some of the lower P6 jobs becoming turnstyles as coaches test them out and decide it's not the right fit for them, which is understandable as a P6 rebuild is one of the hardest things to accomplish in HD.

Any thoughts and/or opinions on how things are going? Good experiences? Bad experiences?

I know its much harder to find decent backup recruits now haha.

If you originally liked the change, do you still feel it was the right move? Would you change anything?

If you originally didn't like the change, would you still want to revert it?

I still feel like the optimal update would be somewhere in the middle of the old logic and new logic. Make it easy to get to D1 (or even let coaches start there), but at least have to play 4-5 seasons at a mid-major to get accustomed to D1 recruiting while having a legit chance to win your conference and make the NT. But I've also come around to the idea of letting people do whatever they want. So I'm somewhat on the fence still.

i originally thought the direction of the change was good but the magnitude was a bit much. i still feel that way.

i don't think this is one where i'm really in favor of a second change to nip the magnitude back a bit. i do think objectively, they went a little bit further than makes sense, but i think its reasonable enough, and that the long-term problem of congestion is better addressed other ways.

the issue with recruiting competition being probably too high for moderate players, i think that is a real thing. i think the problem stems largely from a few things. one is d1 recruit generation not taking into account the human population (although it does factor in openings, which makes things partially self-correcting as more users come in and have more openings). it seems to me, a little silly of an idea, that 100 humans and a 170 humans would be fighting over the same recruits. this might be hard to fix though.

also, right now there is an imbalance where basically, bigger schools with openings cant easily beat out much lower schools or even lower division schools for backup option players who would perhaps kill to go there, and that seems like a real issue. i don't think it makes sense for the entire d1 pool to be open to d2 schools early, like it is now - the entire setup around d2/d3 recruiting frankly makes zero sense to me. but i don't play there, and some folks seem to like it. but regardless, the number of players available in RS2 for backup options seems out of whack.

increasing the value of scholarship offers seems like one of the easier ways to address this. i don't like the way scholarships and promises work in today's HD, or the old HD's - neither scholarships nor promises have ever been done well in this game. increasing the value of scholarships to something more in line with reality would help resolve some of the imbalance with higher end schools filling backups. still, the rush to reserve backup options would probably be kind of ridiculous and have significant downsides of its own. i think ultimately it would take a package of a few changes to bring substantially better balance to recruiting. i think something simple like a 5x on the scholarship effort could at least help a little though, maybe even double the prestige scaler on that single piece of effort? (ideally, i'd like to see things like recruits holding out for a better school or better fit, d2/d3 access to the d1 pool limited to something more sensible - perhaps via the hold out mechanism at least in part, and for the d1 recruit pool generation to factor in regional human population instead of just regional openings, not to make more 5*s but to make more decent players. i'd also support a new d1-only world or two)

They already increased the value of scholarships for D1 schools, pretty significantly, in the last 18-24 months or so. We’re already at the point where if a D1 school loses out to a lower division school, they were *very significantly* outspent. So basically, they just didn’t want the player. This is just not a game where there are backup options waiting around for you if your primary options fall through. You have to prioritize backup options, if you want to have them. So the adjustment you want needs to be made individually on the user end, not implemented structurally on the developers end. That’s how the game stays fluid and interesting and unique.

If anything should change in second session recruiting, my suggestion is still: 2 non-signing cycles at the start of RS2; adding a few dozen late bloomers as second session only recruits, mid-level caliber in each pool, with lots of jucos; and allow for the transfer of unhappy players again (other than promises-related).

****************

As for OP and mlitney’s question, yes I’m still a big fan of opening up jobs. I think it’s gone very well, overall. D1 is around the 150-160 level in many worlds, with power conferences mostly full, and some solid mid-majors springing up to challenge them, which is great for competitive gameplay.

good points from shoe, haven't thought about this in a while, some cycles in RS2 that are pre-signings would go a long way IMO, i think that is my preferred change if we were to only get one. i also prefer some new, moderate quality recruits for RS2 over RS1 recruit generation changes. i think its important that the pool of great players is not increased, at least not a lot, because the balance we have in d1 where there aren't 15 ridiculously amazing teams, its really good. many approaches to team building can get you a championship or final four in d1, and that balance is markedly improved from all previous times in HD (in my time). but i do think competition for mediocre recruits is too intense for the general level of intensity of the user base (or the desired level of intensity of the user base).

Posted by gillispie on 12/1/2021 2:59:00 PM (view original):
good points from shoe, haven't thought about this in a while, some cycles in RS2 that are pre-signings would go a long way IMO, i think that is my preferred change if we were to only get one. i also prefer some new, moderate quality recruits for RS2 over RS1 recruit generation changes. i think its important that the pool of great players is not increased, at least not a lot, because the balance we have in d1 where there aren't 15 ridiculously amazing teams, its really good. many approaches to team building can get you a championship or final four in d1, and that balance is markedly improved from all previous times in HD (in my time). but i do think competition for mediocre recruits is too intense for the general level of intensity of the user base (or the desired level of intensity of the user base).

Yeah, I also agree with all of shoe's suggestions for RS2 and overall recruiting balance. I feel like the big problem with those moderate recruits is there was a vast increase in C+ to B+ prestige teams throughout D1. When I have to start looking at backup options, there are almost always a few B-range teams on them. And when you know there's already a battle raging, then there isn't good odds that you can jump in and get a decent roll. Lately I've had to steal a few borderline D1 recruits from D2 and D3 schools just to fill out my roster. Maybe that's a good thing, but it can really sting if you have a few consecutive seasons of bad luck on your main targets.