Throw me in support of longer recruiting cycles. To me, that's one of the biggest appeals of a season long scouting-recruiting process, to make the actual recruiting period less condensed. 

On early entries, my thought is that the majority of the elite recruits should want to wait to see how early entries shake out. I can see early verbals, but it should take an extraordinary amount of all-in type effort to get a 4-5 star recruit to sign early. 

Overall I like the sound of some of these changes and would be interested in trying them in a beta world. 

People are so worried about early entries but honestly I think they should be after post-season after the 1st period. We have the draft big board to show us what might happen, but what about this... Can we increase roster size/Redshirt amount? The current NCAA Average D1 roster size is 16 and Athletic scholarship amount is 13, can we increase redshirt to 2 and get an extra spot? This might alleviate greivances and create more fun. Also can we maybe get a max roster of 16 with only 13 scholarships and sign kids beyond just the available scholarships? Put enough effort that a guy wants to go to your school to earn a scholarship?

Here is my reference http://www.scholarshipstats.com/basketball.htm

Posted by bagger288 on 9/15/2015 11:00:00 PM (view original):
People are so worried about early entries but honestly I think they should be after post-season after the 1st period. We have the draft big board to show us what might happen, but what about this... Can we increase roster size/Redshirt amount? The current NCAA Average D1 roster size is 16 and Athletic scholarship amount is 13, can we increase redshirt to 2 and get an extra spot? This might alleviate greivances and create more fun. Also can we maybe get a max roster of 16 with only 13 scholarships and sign kids beyond just the available scholarships? Put enough effort that a guy wants to go to your school to earn a scholarship?

Here is my reference http://www.scholarshipstats.com/basketball.htm

I just want to add that if we want to make this realistic then in real life kids don't announce until after post-season. Now coaches know players like Jahlil Okafor are 1 and done guys... There is no reason a D1 coach should get blindsided by a top flight freshman and have no backup plan... Use the draft big board, make kids announce after post-season and expand rosters to give coaches options...

Love these ideas. I think this would add a lot of fun to the game. Ready to test it in Beta.

Posted by bagger288 on 9/15/2015 11:00:00 PM (view original):
People are so worried about early entries but honestly I think they should be after post-season after the 1st period. We have the draft big board to show us what might happen, but what about this... Can we increase roster size/Redshirt amount? The current NCAA Average D1 roster size is 16 and Athletic scholarship amount is 13, can we increase redshirt to 2 and get an extra spot? This might alleviate greivances and create more fun. Also can we maybe get a max roster of 16 with only 13 scholarships and sign kids beyond just the available scholarships? Put enough effort that a guy wants to go to your school to earn a scholarship?

Here is my reference http://www.scholarshipstats.com/basketball.htm

This would make the rich even richer. I think that's what we are trying to fight.

Posted by crzyballplay on 9/15/2015 7:08:00 PM (view original):

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.. 

... And if he signs with south Carolina, it would be the first time USC has beat UNC for a recruit in history, right?
That's the point...

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.

I agree with this... But I don't think the fix is in recruiting. With the Memphis example, that involved calapari and vacated championships before he learned to cover his cheating better,,, I digress,,,

I think the issue is actuslly in recruit generation. Wade didn't get big offers. Nor did many of the other guys you are referring to. What they did do is develop well over time. Or get discovered as a hidden gem.

In my opinion, the BEST way to gain equity amongst d1 schools is NOT to switch up D1 recruiting, take money from ACC and give to mid eastern conference an equal amount, etc. that's unrealistic and fixes nothing. You need to rework recruit generation to where there are more high potential diamonds in the rough. There needs to be a few potential beasts that are not ranked in the top 100 that can't afford the camps or didn't do AAU. There needs to be more late bloomers. FIX THE RECRUIT GENERATION SO THERE ARE MORE HIGH POTENTIAL GUYS HIDDEN, I love the scouting changes.., that's legit. Finding kids at camps is legit. Making the freaking mid eastern conference get the same amount of cash as the Big East is RIDICULOUS!!! Having a player "prefer a slowdown team from a bad conference with a coach that will probably leave" is ridiculius!!! You will just create problems.

Change up scouting,
Recruit year round,
Encourage teams further apart to fight for rectuits, especially the highest level ones. (I think you need to give a+ schools incentive to go 1000+ miles away for fights).
But don't do anything stupid like intentionally try to cripple good conferences or have a communist themed league where every team gets the same amount of cash for recruiting! While we are at it, why don't we give participation trophies to the team's that go 0-26.

I'm not on any side for the signing thing yet, just want to put some info out there and how it would compare.  I don't follow CBB signing that much so I don't know much about players and there reasons, just looking from a HD perspective:

Jaylen Brown
Wheeler (Marietta, GA)

5 Star recruit #4 Overall player.  Signed with CAL

• Cal has no realistic chance of getting him in HD no way GT and Georgia let Cal even touch him.

Henry Ellenson
Rice Lake (Rice Lake, WI)

5 Star recruit #9 overall. Signed with Marquette

• Has to be a joke, Wisconsin isn't letting the top Wisky talent go anywhere else

Stephen Zimmerman
Bishop Gorman (Las Vegas, NV)

5 Star #11 overall, signed UNLV

• CA/AZ schools grab him UNLV is delusional to have a chance

Caleb Swanigan
Homestead (Fort Wayne, IN)

5 star #18 overall, signed Purdue

• Purdue is second fiddle to Indiana for top talent

Jawun Evans
Kimball (Dallas, TX)

4 star #27 overall signed Okie State

• One of the top TX schools get him or Oklahoma.

Also really interesting on how nationwide is for recruiting(obviously) as well as the states represented for top players. Here's some quick things:

Duke has 4 Top 50 2015 recruits, 2 from NV and 1 from OH

4 of the top 20 recruits are from NV

3 top 50 NH recruits, signed at Uconn, Louisville, and Arizona

Of the Top 2015 team recruiting classes the standouts were:
#3 LSU(strong in HD, but not better than a B+ in HD if I was to guess converting real life program to HD prestige)
#6 Tamu(can be strong in HD, but B at best in HD
#7 Cal(B/B- in HD I would guess)
#8 FSU B/B- I would guess in HD
#10 UNLV I would guess B- maybe even dropped to a C+ based on last season(also had the #5 class for 2014)

I agree with stewdog on a bunch of things, while changing how recruiting works helps a little it can actually hurt a lot.

I agree changing recruit generation is either #1 or 2 on what needs to be done.

I'd like to see less 90 ath/def guys(personally teams should at most have 2/3 guys that are very good at everything else as well, you could say maybe sometimes Cincy could have a 90/90 starting lineup but weak in other areas)

Decrease the number of "elite" guys, increase the number of tier 2 and 3 prospects and get rid of all completely unrealistic players that are sub 40 ath/def from top rankings.

Keep post-season cash, just lower it and weight it so that the school that is making those deep runs is getting the majority of that money like 45% for the team that earns it and the rest of the 55% is split amoung the other 11 teams so its basically 45% for 1 team and 5% for the conf teams.  That stops teams from "piggybacking" off being in a good conference.  This allows the elites to remain elite, while teams in weaker conferences that are good should be able to start to recruit or even out recruit weak big 6 teams.

Keep the top 100 players unlocked to all schools.

Make kids whose preference is to play far away or nationwide the same recruiting effort for schools, so if a prospect from OH is open to playing anywhere, make it cost the same for Arizona and Duke to recruit him.

Keep baseline prestige, but change how it works, if a big 6 program is not making the NT they should plummet, a PIT bid should bring a team towards a C as well as firing coaches.  Missing a NT should bring you closer to a D/D+ as a Big 6 program.  Make prestige more "elastic"  VCU/Butler or mid-majors shouldn't be capped at reaching a B-/B prestige from multiple NT bids, a S16 after a few NT bid should be enough for a B+.

Posted by stewdog on 9/16/2015 12:06:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bagger288 on 9/15/2015 11:00:00 PM (view original):
People are so worried about early entries but honestly I think they should be after post-season after the 1st period. We have the draft big board to show us what might happen, but what about this... Can we increase roster size/Redshirt amount? The current NCAA Average D1 roster size is 16 and Athletic scholarship amount is 13, can we increase redshirt to 2 and get an extra spot? This might alleviate greivances and create more fun. Also can we maybe get a max roster of 16 with only 13 scholarships and sign kids beyond just the available scholarships? Put enough effort that a guy wants to go to your school to earn a scholarship?

Here is my reference http://www.scholarshipstats.com/basketball.htm

This would make the rich even richer. I think that's what we are trying to fight.

No it wouldn't because he is taking power from D1 big 6 post season cash is going away... read the way that scholarships are working, you get points now and not post season... Your point is invalid... The fight everyone is trying to fight is that they would be so hamstringed from EE's that is what i'm trying to combat is that you won't and the point others are making is the EE's should give more notice and that isn't needed. The draft big board is what the notice is for. Maybe make it more clear but EE's should stay after post-season like it is realistically and another point seble made was that this change is for realism. 12 people on roster is not realistic nor is it a lot...

Posted by bagger288 on 9/16/2015 1:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by stewdog on 9/16/2015 12:06:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bagger288 on 9/15/2015 11:00:00 PM (view original):
People are so worried about early entries but honestly I think they should be after post-season after the 1st period. We have the draft big board to show us what might happen, but what about this... Can we increase roster size/Redshirt amount? The current NCAA Average D1 roster size is 16 and Athletic scholarship amount is 13, can we increase redshirt to 2 and get an extra spot? This might alleviate greivances and create more fun. Also can we maybe get a max roster of 16 with only 13 scholarships and sign kids beyond just the available scholarships? Put enough effort that a guy wants to go to your school to earn a scholarship?

Here is my reference http://www.scholarshipstats.com/basketball.htm

This would make the rich even richer. I think that's what we are trying to fight.

No it wouldn't because he is taking power from D1 big 6 post season cash is going away... read the way that scholarships are working, you get points now and not post season... Your point is invalid... The fight everyone is trying to fight is that they would be so hamstringed from EE's that is what i'm trying to combat is that you won't and the point others are making is the EE's should give more notice and that isn't needed. The draft big board is what the notice is for. Maybe make it more clear but EE's should stay after post-season like it is realistically and another point seble made was that this change is for realism. 12 people on roster is not realistic nor is it a lot...

I think you might want to try playing DI and seeing how the big board and EEs work before you start making pronouncements that the system is fine.  How are you not hamstrung by EEs when you don't know exactly who they will be and you'll be doing early recruiting with 1 opening worth of points and visits when you may very well need to ultimately fill 6 openings?

Why would you need to increase roster size?  Unless you're a press/FB team (and shouldn't those go away as full sets with this update - that's been rumored for like 3 years) most teams never go deeper than 10, which is of course veryy unrealistic in real basketball - Wisconsin only played 7 players in the NT game, and Duke only played 7 for 10+ minutes (and 8 overall).   

In general, I really think a lot of this update is a solution in search of a problem.  DI became as skewed as it is when recruit generation was changed to create better recruits at the high end and more mediocre recruits in the middle.  If you reverse that you solve most of the problems currently around DI - fewer elite recruits will create more demand for them, especially with some of the impact of distance mitigated, and a more robust crop of 2, 3, and 4 stars strengthens mid-majors and weak schools in power conferences. 

Removing potential would also reduce the importance of recruiting, that would allow coaches to mold their teams more to fit their ideal, and would at least increase the importance of practice planning.  

Just to use Allen as an example - before those changes occurred there was a 12 year period (seasons 29-40) when Allen had the best mid-major crop around.  Maine, UNLV, Cleveland State, Boston University, Yale, and Southern all won NTs; UNLV, Utah, and Weber State all played in the NT game and lost; and Montana had a run where they went E8, E8, FF, FF, S16, E8.  Then recruit generation/potential updated and a lot of those coaches saw the writing on the wall and either left or moved up, and Allen became the most top heavy world around (Seasons 41-79, NTs by conference:  ACC 27, Big-12 7, Pac-10 3, Big-10 2).

Also, seble, please remember that if you're going to increase the value of promises, which I do support, you also need to significantly increase the punishment for breaking them.

Why would a recruit care about the "conference strength"? There's no postseason cash so it doesnt matter at all, he gains nothing, and the team gains nothing. I thought so called "super conferences" were going to be phased out...