Quote: Originally Posted By jskenner on 7/07/2008
I think it means any undecided recruit MIGHT start considering a SIM team, IF he is undecided once signings begin. Currently, SIMs recruit at the very beginning, then some undecided gets signed by SIMs AFTER signings are complete. So whereas before, a human would have no risk of a SIM going after an undecided, now there will be that risk (as soon as signings start). Admin clarifies that recuits considering other schools will not be targets by the SIMs.

Quote: Originally Posted By porkpower on 7/07/2008Sign 2 FR Ineligibles, Sign 6 FR and one SO to RS, Sign a JUCO 2 to RS. Rinse and repeat. I asked that question almost word for word and I really hope it gets answered. Finally put this thing to rest.

Next changes up, limiting the amount of SF's you can have on one team, the ivy league will not have a CT, BYU will no longer play games on sunday, limiting the amount of campus visits a recruit can make, and limiting you from giving 100% distro to one player on your team.

Also, scholarships will not be given at D3 schools to more closely mimic real life

Quote: Originally Posted By jdtapp on 7/07/2008
I unfortunately won't be there for the developer chat.

This part bothers me:
"As the start of the signing period approaches, interest in a school will begin to decrease until the school makes a scholarship offer."

So, will interest still increase after signing period as recruits get desperate and drop down? Or will interest continue to wane until the school offers?

Quote: Originally Posted By cmthieme on 7/07/2008

Quote: Originally Posted By porkpower on 7/07/2008
Do you guys think that the $ for 6 scholly cap should still exist? Since you won't be able to sign a "superclass" I think that cap should disappear to help teams out who lose players unexpectably to the NBA draft and get stuck with 7 openings or help out someone who takes on a project team with 7 or more openings.

Since they can only sign 6 FR, I do not see much of a reason to limit $ like before.

JUCO's are going to be a really hot commodity for the next few seasons. I hope they take that into account when they generate recruits.

I don't see any reason to remove the cap. Doing so would open up the possibility of an unfair recruitign advantage in a given season for a coach willing to bank up scholarships and then sign a "super-class" of FR and JUCO1/transfers.

Quote: Originally Posted By homerjoe1973 on 7/07/2008

Quote: Originally posted by vandydave on 7/07/2008
i like firm release dates

take some viagra then, if you're having that type of problem

Quote: Originally Posted By homerjoe1973 on 7/07/2008

Quote: Originally posted by pink1 on 7/07/2008 AI schools will continue recruiting after signings begin and only go after undecided recruits

it seems changes are being made just to screw with the enjoyablility of the game... One of my favorite things to do was scour the unsigned lists after being beaten on a top recruit of two. Now this will be more difficult to do.. I guess it improves realism, but I really dont lke it. What it means in reality is that drop downs will be harder to get (few chances after signings start) and that coaches who get beaten will no longer have as many fallback optoins.

this will also have a huge domino effect on D2 dropdowns and thus on D3 as well, as more D2 schools will reach down and take more players that would've dropped down

Quote: Originally Posted By trex0424 on 7/07/2008
I think those are some dumb changes. What purpose does limiting the of scholarships serve. i swear some the changes and additions to the game have been horrible and stupid. 1. being the more emphasis on IQ vs. talent and ratings. 2.Prestige.

The change I would like to see is get rid of the coach call in recruiting and already have the type of offense or defense in the players profile. That way ahead of time you will know if they fit your style of play or not.



you may want to see if your employer offers employee assistance programs... you need help.

Quote: Originally posted by cyoung187 on 7/07/2008They need to reduce the probability of losing multiple players early to the NBA. When you consistantly lose multiple players to the NBA, it becomes almost impossible to control class sizes.

Quote: Originally posted by Rails on 7/07/2008This fix *should* reduce the probability. The reason why some teams experienced early entries is because their classes weren't balanced in the first place. Since more experienced players tend to have better ratings/perform better, a good team with 6 juniors and 1 senior has a higher chance of losing a junior than a team with 3 seniors and 3 juniors. That's because the 6 will be counted on to contribute more as juniors than the three juniors would be on the team with 3 seniors.Balanced classes will reduce the probability because (in theory) losing a junior who is a NT team's fourth option (in terms of ratings and/or stats) is less likely to occur than losing a junior who is a NT team's highest rated player.

Quote: Originally Posted By trex0424 on 7/07/2008
I think those are some dumb changes. What purpose does limiting the of scholarships serve. i swear some the changes and additions to the game have been horrible and stupid. 1. being the more emphasis on IQ vs. talent and ratings. 2.Prestige.

The change I would like to see is get rid of the coach call in recruiting and already have the type of offense or defense in the players profile. That way ahead of time you will know if they fit your style of play or not.



I would love to have some of whatever you are smoking

Quote: Originally Posted By Rails on 7/07/2008
This fix *should* reduce the probability. The reason why some teams experienced early entries is because their classes weren't balanced in the first place.

Since more experienced players tend to have better ratings/perform better, a good team with 6 juniors and 1 senior has a higher chance of losing a junior than a team with 3 seniors and 3 juniors. That's because the 6 will be counted on to contribute more as juniors than the three juniors would be on the team with 3 seniors.

Balanced classes will reduce the probability because (in theory) losing a junior who is a NT team's fourth option (in terms of ratings and/or stats) is less likely to occur than losing a junior who is a NT team's highest rated player.

Quote: Originally Posted By cyoung187 on 7/07/2008

Quote: Originally Posted By Rails on 7/07/2008

This fix *should* reduce the probability. The reason why some teams experienced early entries is because their classes weren't balanced in the first place.

Since more experienced players tend to have better ratings/perform better, a good team with 6 juniors and 1 senior has a higher chance of losing a junior than a team with 3 seniors and 3 juniors. That's because the 6 will be counted on to contribute more as juniors than the three juniors would be on the team with 3 seniors.

Balanced classes will reduce the probability because (in theory) losing a junior who is a NT team's fourth option (in terms of ratings and/or stats) is less likely to occur than losing a junior who is a NT team's highest rated player.

I disagree. A large junior class losing a few players balences their rosters, while losing juniors when you already have a balenced class unbalences that class. I tend to lose juniors more when i have balenced classes. Balenced classes tend to require a bigger role for underclassmen, thus increasing their chance to leave early as well.

Say I have 4 seniors, 1 walk-on. If I lose 2 players to the NBA thats one player I lost early that I have no chance of replacing because I can only sign 6 players. I think that is unrealistic/bs to lose a player to the NBA but have no chance of replacing him.