Posted by aaflyman on 10/13/2013 9:41:00 PM (view original):
I think WIS should do away with the bump in recruiting for elites, if you are at a elite you should know how to recruit. Let teams have a budget and hire asst. coaches that recruit during the season and give detailed reports, the more detailed the reports the higher the coaches would have to be paid from the team budget. Let some recruits have preferences such as favorite schools, wanting to stay close to home, which school would he have the best chance to start at immediately...lets put everyone on the same playing field to start....this will give all schools the same chance to be successful.

This would mean there would be no elites, because that is the whole advantage of having an elite. I'm not saying I don't like the concept of rolling prestige/elites (i.e. if you make Northern Illinois a powerhouse, they'll be "elite" for as long as they are good, and if you make Alabama a cellar dweller, they will no longer be elite) but I'm just pointing out the reason people go after the predefined elites are the recruiting advantages.

We really need more scholarship players with these extra roles.

Posted by citizenkane on 10/20/2013 6:37:00 AM (view original):
We really need more scholarship players with these extra roles.

This has been brought up many times and I fail to understand the arguement. More players would make more recruiting time. Also, there is more of a challenge to fitting fewer players into those roles. As the engine stands now, for player ratings - it has yet to be determined how important the different roles will be. According to bhazelwoods Guess numbers - some factors of each position are left out and players will still be relatively generic. Stay at 50 - if you get a beast at one position role - great. But even IRL teams don't 'make' many extra offensive or defensive roles for specific players to fill.

I'm neither here nor there on added scholarships. But as for a revamping of recruiting I vote yes overwhelmingly.

When you get to 1A/1AA and especially at 1A and recruiting becomes about 20CV's per cycle it is all about boring and unrealistic. I'd like to see recruiting be more about selling your program, your scheme. Even about you as a coach and obviously this would carry less weight at D3 when you don't have the resume yet. Also I'd like to see school prestige mean more.

I'm not in favor of removing elite status or even removing some schools from the elite list. I do think that non elite schools should be able to have higher prestige than elites based on success however. If you as a coach win an NC at Clemson or Georgia it should make you more desirable to a recruit than to go to elite Tennessee who went 8-6 and lost in the Independence Bowl.

Posted by jibe on 10/20/2013 12:08:00 PM (view original):
I'm neither here nor there on added scholarships. But as for a revamping of recruiting I vote yes overwhelmingly.

When you get to 1A/1AA and especially at 1A and recruiting becomes about 20CV's per cycle it is all about boring and unrealistic. I'd like to see recruiting be more about selling your program, your scheme. Even about you as a coach and obviously this would carry less weight at D3 when you don't have the resume yet. Also I'd like to see school prestige mean more.

I'm not in favor of removing elite status or even removing some schools from the elite list. I do think that non elite schools should be able to have higher prestige than elites based on success however. If you as a coach win an NC at Clemson or Georgia it should make you more desirable to a recruit than to go to elite Tennessee who went 8-6 and lost in the Independence Bowl.

What if prestige was based on history, leaning more heavily on modern wins and success?

How about if cheating actually worked with recruits... and you have a chance at getting away with it?

Posted by citizenkane on 10/20/2013 1:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jibe on 10/20/2013 12:08:00 PM (view original):
I'm neither here nor there on added scholarships. But as for a revamping of recruiting I vote yes overwhelmingly.

When you get to 1A/1AA and especially at 1A and recruiting becomes about 20CV's per cycle it is all about boring and unrealistic. I'd like to see recruiting be more about selling your program, your scheme. Even about you as a coach and obviously this would carry less weight at D3 when you don't have the resume yet. Also I'd like to see school prestige mean more.

I'm not in favor of removing elite status or even removing some schools from the elite list. I do think that non elite schools should be able to have higher prestige than elites based on success however. If you as a coach win an NC at Clemson or Georgia it should make you more desirable to a recruit than to go to elite Tennessee who went 8-6 and lost in the Independence Bowl.

What if prestige was based on history, leaning more heavily on modern wins and success?

Maybe its because I'm more of a traditionalist but in my mind Alabama and Texas and Oklahoma etc are always the schools that I look to and admire and I'll always see them as elite even when they are in a down period. So I'd prefer these traditional powers have some sort of prestige leg up here too. However as I said if I coach Clemson to an NC I also would like to think that that would put me at an even ground with these powers or even a bit ahead depending on how I maintain this. So this would help with the "modern wins and success". 

 Also I think with a coaching change at a non elite that the prestige would have to back off a bit again.

As a note, presently elites don't have that great of an advantage anyway. Mostly I believe its a mind game.

I would also like to see recruit distribution changed. Every season I see a ton of 1A recruits in places like Massachussetts and up state New York. Sorry but these aren't football hotbeds. If the mass CV thing was changed recruit distribution wouldn't matter so much. As it is now with New York for example feeding Rutgers, Temple, BC, Penn State and UConn along with a few others then yeah it has to be stacked even though in real life these areas provide very few 1A recruits. If recruiting became about selling the school, the program, the coach and the scheme and how much a player will be used, ie a RB will be seeing 300 rushes for me as opposed to 100 for my competition, then the distance won't matter and the more traditional places we see recruits like Florida and Texas could happen. Now where I would like to see distance matter is that some players will want to stay close to home and the close school will have that advantage. We see these in scout reports now but I don't think distance really matters.

This whole thread being said and with an update to the engine taking over 2 years from when it was first told to us, how many years will it take to update recruiting? I've played this for going on 5 years now and recruiting has yet to be touched. I'm guessing it will never be changed from the silly mass CV visits we see now.

Posted by jibe on 10/20/2013 3:00:00 PM (view original):
I would also like to see recruit distribution changed. Every season I see a ton of 1A recruits in places like Massachussetts and up state New York. Sorry but these aren't football hotbeds. If the mass CV thing was changed recruit distribution wouldn't matter so much. As it is now with New York for example feeding Rutgers, Temple, BC, Penn State and UConn along with a few others then yeah it has to be stacked even though in real life these areas provide very few 1A recruits. If recruiting became about selling the school, the program, the coach and the scheme and how much a player will be used, ie a RB will be seeing 300 rushes for me as opposed to 100 for my competition, then the distance won't matter and the more traditional places we see recruits like Florida and Texas could happen. Now where I would like to see distance matter is that some players will want to stay close to home and the close school will have that advantage. We see these in scout reports now but I don't think distance really matters.

This whole thread being said and with an update to the engine taking over 2 years from when it was first told to us, how many years will it take to update recruiting? I've played this for going on 5 years now and recruiting has yet to be touched. I'm guessing it will never be changed from the silly mass CV visits we see now.

Massachusetts seems to be big for every division.

I guess I am in the minority because I think recruiting could use some work.  The fact that there are always questions from new coaches show the responses are not intuitive.   Even experienced players disagree what the responses mean and need a preset list to refer to in order to interpret them.   Many say the only responses that are reliable are acceptance or rejection of the offer.  If that is truly the case, why not make it easier for coaches to understand the process and make the responses more indicative of where the recruit stands?     

Posted by samson75 on 11/2/2013 11:00:00 AM (view original):
I guess I am in the minority because I think recruiting could use some work.  The fact that there are always questions from new coaches show the responses are not intuitive.   Even experienced players disagree what the responses mean and need a preset list to refer to in order to interpret them.   Many say the only responses that are reliable are acceptance or rejection of the offer.  If that is truly the case, why not make it easier for coaches to understand the process and make the responses more indicative of where the recruit stands?     

+1000 I hate getting just say the word and I'm there only to lose a couple cycles later. I also feel there shouldn't be prestige in D1A or at least the un elite have a chance at upper recruits given the same success. However, if you never have a chance at a top 25 recruit that success will never come. The only other thing I saw that I would change with recruiting is new coaches get to keep Bowl/Playoff from previous season.