these are interesting plans - it might help people react to them if one could explain - just a few bullets - what the primary goals of these changes are.  Fixing recognized problems/issues?  Enhancing game play?  other?

Some of them - like the greater texture of preferences - seem to me like improvements that should help long known issues - like the ability of non elites to recruit reasonably good players.

Others seem like nice ideas in search of a problem.

Posted by the0nlyis on 9/15/2015 3:27:00 PM (view original):
Also another quick question since scouting trips now have no recruiting value what are the new "values" of a cv/hv now that they are very limited I assume they just went up in value.  How do those compare to "action points"?  By low level replacement I assume you mean letters/calls.  Can you still be able to sign someone with just "action points"  also please can you not call them action points?  Just call them letters/packages or something real.

The values haven't been worked out yet, but home/campus visits will be pretty important.  You could definitely sign players without offering visits, but if you're in a heated battle, then you'd probably have to offer at least a visit or two to compete.

Posted by fd343ny on 9/15/2015 3:50:00 PM (view original):
these are interesting plans - it might help people react to them if one could explain - just a few bullets - what the primary goals of these changes are.  Fixing recognized problems/issues?  Enhancing game play?  other?

Some of them - like the greater texture of preferences - seem to me like improvements that should help long known issues - like the ability of non elites to recruit reasonably good players.

Others seem like nice ideas in search of a problem.

The overriding reason for this update is to make the game more fun and realistic.  A secondary reason is to level the playing field more at DI, to give lower prestige schools a chance to get some better players.

Posted by stewdog on 9/15/2015 3:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bullman17 on 9/15/2015 2:52:00 PM (view original):
Stupid idea about early entries.  Couldn't their decision be moved up?  I know it's not like reality, but it seems like it would solve some problems.

Are referring to my ideas? 
Sorry they are stupid.

I guess you have the issue a lot as well?
Anyway, Its a VERY real issue for me and a lot of other excellent owners. We need  a solution to a very real issue that will come up with these changes. 
I'm OK with moving the decision up (but know a lot of younger guys move up the board considerably throughout the year and don't really put themselves in a draftable position until the end). I just think it handcuffs good teams and owners SIGNIFICANTLY.

I was not referring to your idea or anyone else's.  I meant it more like this: Here is a stupid idea, could we move the timing of their decision up (make it earlier).  

Does that make sense?  I apologize for the phrasing, looking at what I said I understand where you are coming from, but I did not mean it that way at all.

I don't play D1 and I may be wrong on this but are most EE not top 100 players? I would think that not all but most of the top recruits would be in the camp at not signing until the 2 signing period. Or would the early recruiting consideration be to strong for most teams to overcome that. And if that's the case it makes the second signing period useless to go after recruits that are considering another school doesn't it?

Another question is it sounds like prestige may be a bigger deal in the lower div now. Is there any thought to why a coach jumps from a C prestige job to and A prestige job and gets to keep it the A prestige that he didn't help to build? I mean if coach K or coach Cal leaves while those schools will still recruit good payers but I would expect the best players to move on to their second choice. I just think there should be some not a major but some adjustment toward the mean of the school prestige and the school a coach leaves.

Posted by seble on 9/15/2015 3:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 9/15/2015 2:59:00 PM (view original):
I really like the idea of releasing players from their LOI commitments. But why would the player get the choice of accepting or rejecting? Because the point of that is if I move to another school and a Sim picked up a terrible player, I should be able to get rid of him no matter what. This would alleviate concerns about switching schools and not being able to start their rebuild until year 2. 

It's like if I'm going to break up with my girlfriend, she can't just say "nah, we're still dating" even if I don't want her hanging around anymore.

Now, I do think the player should get the option to either stay committed to program or reopening their recruitment if the coach that recruited them leaves. But if the new coach doesn't want him, no way should a coach be stuck with them.

In real life, the school can always back out of a letter of intent, but I'm pretty sure a signed scholarship offer is a binding contract.  So the player has a right to stay for at least a year regardless of whether the new coach wants to cut him.  Normally when the school releases the player it's because the player wanted to leave, not because the new coach didn't want him.

Whether that makes the most sense for the game is TBD.

Right, I hear ya. I think what actually happens in real life is that the new coach talks to the new recruits and the players and tells them where they stand. The guys that he'd like to get rid of, he probably tells them that there is no way they're ever going to see the court so they should probably look to go elsewhere. This is obviously something we can't really do in HD.

However, regardless of the real life, I think if this makes the game better, it's okay to deviate from RL. But what are you seeing a negatives to allowing this assuming all the other timings and schedules hold up?

out of curiosity, will "considering credit" still be present? Considering credit seems like a nebulous concept in HD. In RL, the lower level schools who *discovered* a player in sophomore year may be able to still hang on and sign a recruit who becomes a big time recruit as a senior, although frequently a KY, Kansas or UCLA can overcome this. Just wondering how this might affect players getting attention early in cycle 1 of recruiting but may hold out to sign until later in cycle 2?

Posted by seble on 9/15/2015 3:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 9/15/2015 3:50:00 PM (view original):
these are interesting plans - it might help people react to them if one could explain - just a few bullets - what the primary goals of these changes are.  Fixing recognized problems/issues?  Enhancing game play?  other?

Some of them - like the greater texture of preferences - seem to me like improvements that should help long known issues - like the ability of non elites to recruit reasonably good players.

Others seem like nice ideas in search of a problem.

The overriding reason for this update is to make the game more fun and realistic.  A secondary reason is to level the playing field more at DI, to give lower prestige schools a chance to get some better players.

seble, your two sentences seem contradictory -- you can either make the game more realistic, or you can give lower prestige schools the chance to get better players, but I don't think you can do both. In real life, South Carolina's not taking a kid from UNC that UNC really wants -- Northwestern's not taking a kid from Kentucky. I am leery of a lot of these changes -- seems to me the issues people complain about can be fixed by adding preferences (which Iooks good to me), tweaking conference cash, tweaking the "jumps" in recruiting, and (in my view, most importantly) fixing recruit generation. I am very concerned about unintended consequences here.

Posted by johnsensing on 9/15/2015 7:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 9/15/2015 3:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 9/15/2015 3:50:00 PM (view original):
these are interesting plans - it might help people react to them if one could explain - just a few bullets - what the primary goals of these changes are.  Fixing recognized problems/issues?  Enhancing game play?  other?

Some of them - like the greater texture of preferences - seem to me like improvements that should help long known issues - like the ability of non elites to recruit reasonably good players.

Others seem like nice ideas in search of a problem.

The overriding reason for this update is to make the game more fun and realistic.  A secondary reason is to level the playing field more at DI, to give lower prestige schools a chance to get some better players.

seble, your two sentences seem contradictory -- you can either make the game more realistic, or you can give lower prestige schools the chance to get better players, but I don't think you can do both. In real life, South Carolina's not taking a kid from UNC that UNC really wants -- Northwestern's not taking a kid from Kentucky. I am leery of a lot of these changes -- seems to me the issues people complain about can be fixed by adding preferences (which Iooks good to me), tweaking conference cash, tweaking the "jumps" in recruiting, and (in my view, most importantly) fixing recruit generation. I am very concerned about unintended consequences here.

i disagree unc is strongly on seventh woods a top 50 recruit,  a south carolina native and hes last i seen like 75% south carolina 25% unc on his crystal ball projections on 247 sports so i think that was a bad example , and unc has been on him for a few years now.. 

I disagree with those who think D1 recruiting is realistic as is.  In HD you virtually never see a draft pick coming from anywhere except a big conference team. In reality almost every year you have picks come from mid majors. Derrick Rose was #1 pick from Memphis- In HD Memphis would have no chance of getting him.  Wichita State, Gonzaga among others have had top 10 picks in RL, but in the game could never recruit such a player. There needs to be a team prestige, and or a coaches prestige to allow some lower D1 teams to be able to recruit with the high D1 teams.

I just hope that in the rush to fix D1 that the lower divisions are not damaged because the D1 recruiting problems of the haves and have nots don't really exist at D2 and D3.

Posted by johnsensing on 9/15/2015 7:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 9/15/2015 3:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 9/15/2015 3:50:00 PM (view original):
these are interesting plans - it might help people react to them if one could explain - just a few bullets - what the primary goals of these changes are.  Fixing recognized problems/issues?  Enhancing game play?  other?

Some of them - like the greater texture of preferences - seem to me like improvements that should help long known issues - like the ability of non elites to recruit reasonably good players.

Others seem like nice ideas in search of a problem.

The overriding reason for this update is to make the game more fun and realistic.  A secondary reason is to level the playing field more at DI, to give lower prestige schools a chance to get some better players.

seble, your two sentences seem contradictory -- you can either make the game more realistic, or you can give lower prestige schools the chance to get better players, but I don't think you can do both. In real life, South Carolina's not taking a kid from UNC that UNC really wants -- Northwestern's not taking a kid from Kentucky. I am leery of a lot of these changes -- seems to me the issues people complain about can be fixed by adding preferences (which Iooks good to me), tweaking conference cash, tweaking the "jumps" in recruiting, and (in my view, most importantly) fixing recruit generation. I am very concerned about unintended consequences here.

It's true that in real life, elite programs are going to usually win recruiting battles, and I think that's how HD should work as well. But right now, elite programs don't just usually win, they always win. That's not realistic, especially when it comes to non-elite recruits - if a 2- or 3-star player is deciding between Duke and a mid-major, he very well may choose the mid-major because he could play right away there, he likes the offense they run, they just seem to want him more, et cetera. HD needs to model that better.

Seble, I like your ideas here, except for the tempo/style of play preferences. I tend to shift my tempo to fit the opponent, and my style of play to fit my roster, and I think most other experienced coaches do the same; I don't like the idea of my gameplanning strategies costing me points with a recruit.

Posted by 43tj on 9/15/2015 7:23:00 PM (view original):
I disagree with those who think D1 recruiting is realistic as is.  In HD you virtually never see a draft pick coming from anywhere except a big conference team. In reality almost every year you have picks come from mid majors. Derrick Rose was #1 pick from Memphis- In HD Memphis would have no chance of getting him.  Wichita State, Gonzaga among others have had top 10 picks in RL, but in the game could never recruit such a player. There needs to be a team prestige, and or a coaches prestige to allow some lower D1 teams to be able to recruit with the high D1 teams.

I just hope that in the rush to fix D1 that the lower divisions are not damaged because the D1 recruiting problems of the haves and have nots don't really exist at D2 and D3.

This is true, but you could argue it is more a recruit generation problem than a signing problem. If there were more recruits with mediocre starting values and greater potential, you might see more Gonzagas and Wichitas with top ten picks

Well it's clear that you've listened to what the community has been asking for seble, so I applaud you for that! I like the idea of preferences playing a backup role to prestige, effort, and playing time promises. Otherwise, recruiting might become too complicated and confusing. I also like the idea of some upset victories in battles because we all know that in RL recruits aren't always the most rational. I also think that requiring teams to indicate interest before sending visits will encourage more battles, which should be fun. 

A couple of questions:

You mention that cycles will be three hours and possibly longer and, rightly or wrongly, I think a lot of users feel like they currently need to be monitoring recruiting around the clock.  Under the new system which now looks like it will be eight days (broken into the two periods) do you believe this will still be necessary?  Or do you anticipate a more relaxed system where a user can actually go to bed and sleep for 8 hours or go to work and be gone for 10 hours without fear of another school completely knocking you off a recruit and then having to scramble?

Is there any consideration being given to updating baseline prestige to more accurately reflect where schools are today? Given the move to a more realistic game it would be nice to see baseline's more reflective of where teams are today rather than where they were ten or fifteen years ago.


 

I really like the way scouting works, I mean the Schedule. I'd open the first cycle at two o'clock, that'd be my only change, so the first cycle is 6 hours.