Posted by kevodaphenom on 9/16/2015 8:33:00 AM (view original):
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...

I've actually removed that from my list since posting it.  I agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense.

I think that one factor for the big boy schools is how many other recruits have committed or signed should impact the next recruit considering signing at the same school. 

For instance, Xavier (in real life) recently got a verbal from Quentin Goodin out of KY.  He is a 4 star guard.  As a result, Xavier Simpson (another guard) and Kobi Simmons (combo guard) both moved on from considering Xavier - even though up to that point Xavier U seemed to have a realistic shot at either of them.  Kobi Simmons was a 5 star and was probably always leaning away fro Xavier, but at when Goodin committed either Xavier coaches or Kobi backed off (not sure which - Xavier may have promised Goodin they'd back off Kobi - who knows?).  Xavier U still wanted Xavier Simpson apparently, but he backed off as well and recently committed to Michigan.  Point is - when spots fill, it can really impact player decisions.

Anyhow, it's not unheard of this to happen - player A commits, so player B moves on because he plays the same position and wants to be 'the man' at whatever school signs him. 

I think this should be a factor in the decision process for the recruits.

Last comment I have for now - I don't want SIMS to get too good.  I realize they are really bad now, but honestly humans play to win....  NO ONE will enjoy it if we are getting beat by SIMs or if SIMs starting winning the NT every now and then.  Besides a minor help to new coaches or coaches taking over SIM teams, I don't see the point in making SIM that much better.  Sure, they can be a little better, but let's not over adjust in their favor.

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...

Don't take what I'm about to say the wrong way, please... I have no idea how often you get EE's or if you're one of the "rich"
But you are 100% wrong. 

My Georgia Tech team in Iba is what most would consider "rich." We have been to 7 of the last 11 national championship games and have won 4 in a row. I only say this to give you perspective. We are the super team this update is aimed at dethroning because it makes it hard for everyone else to compete. I get it. For the last 4-5 seasons, we have hand picked the players we have wanted and gotten all of them. (5 person classes usually). For the past five-Six seasons, we have lost 26 to the NBA draft. We currently have 10 underclassmen on the team and 8 are on the "projected" list. 
* I have averaged over $100,000 LEFTOVER each of the last five years at the end of recruiting. The amount I had LEFT at the end of recruiting is more than most people's dream budget. 
* Because I have so much leftover and such a high prestige (4 straight national championships), it is not in the best interest of anyone to really challenge me for a player. 
* The last couple recruiting seasons, I have had my class lined up with 4 great players who will play immediately (which is realistic) and one developmental guy. And I have CHOSEN to be nice and not dump my developmental guy and take a top recruit from other teams because I see the frustration. And I could typically steal a 5 star recruit from an A+ school with the cash and prestige I have had. 
* If you give me 4 more scholarships, Georgia (B?), Alabama (B+?), Mississippi (Bish), etc. would get destroyed because I would take their top players as my bench guys to develop for a few minutes their senior year. The rich would get richer. The other ACC teams would destroy the entire SEC in our world as well as all the smaller conferences around us. 

I understand you are saying after these changes it wouldn't work this way any more. You are right to a degree. But if you don't think high prestige schools will still beat lower prestige schools, and that AL, Auburn, Miss (all good schools just a step below) would hate teams like me having spots to "stow away" extra players for a rainy day, you are wrong. In another league where I am an A- team, I would HATE it as MD, UNC, and others would kill me. 

As to EE's. I'm assuming you don't really have much experience here? 
The draft big board tells you who is likely to go but is probably only right 65% of the time. I've had top 5 projected guys stay the same year a #85 guy went. Its not a science. But that doesn't even matter. If I have a go actually go but I have no scouting money or recruiting money to replace him- that's a big deal! If I have 3-4 go with zero scouting money or scholarship money given to replace him, that's a bigger deal!!! In real life, Coach Cal knows he's losing 5 underclassmen and he has the resources (and booster money and backpayments to uncles)  in place all season long to replace them. The proposed system (as seble sees, which is all that matters here) does not give us the opportunity to replace players until the good recruits are gone. 

A few things that I think are more realistic to help prevent superteams like mine from making the game not as fun for everyone else: 

1- the reason I am so successful at GT is simple. LOCATION. You get a good coach in a prime location and he is set. 
* Iba SEC is down a bit (sorry guys). I go north or west up to 360 , to TN, GA, AL, and MS and the other ACC coaches can't reach as far which leaves me cash to battle them for good players nearby & I have ridiculous carryover plus prestige. 
* Kansas, Texas A & M, etc. can't quite reach me to battle for most MS or TN guys. 
* Other ACC teams like Duke, UNC, Wake, NC St, etc. are battling each other for guys in their 360. 

The solution is not to take money from the ACC, Big East, and Big 12 & give it to the little sisters of the poor conference. That punishes success which will cause GREAT PLAYERS TO LEAVE! Communism never works in real life in the long term! It sounds great on paper to some, but it is not how college basketball or competition games work well. Yes, it will weaken the ACC, BE, B12, SEC, etc... but it will cause great coaches to leave the ACC/ BE to go to said crappy conference where they play sims and don't talk on the message board and the gameplay throughout the season will be boring and people will leave. Further, it is no where NEAR reality and I thought this was supposed to be a sim. Where coaches build a dynasty. So we want to blow up dynasties? Because its not fair? We want to punish good coaches that play good competition and encourage them to play more sims? weird. 

The solution is to get good schools to go long ways to compete for good players... and more hidden gem higher potential guys. 
In real life college basketball, the rich schools will stay sorta rich if they have the right coaches. That's OK... but in real life, underdogs sneak in EVERY YEAR. Stud emerge on average teams EVERY YEAR. ACC and BE get more tourney money and prestige EVERY YEAR. Coach Cal cheats EVERY YEAR (sorry). 
But another thing that happens is this. Kentucky battles Duke battles UCLA battles Kansas for a top 20 recruit (missing from this game). Which allows lesser schools to discover and get hidden gems (missing from this game). And mid majors have seniors that gel and make deep runs pretty regularly (missing from this game). 

* Love the scouting changes. In real life teams have to really search for sub top 100 players. In real life, late bloomers make differences for lower level programs. In real life, local schools know the local players who were injured their junior year that the scouting services missed. In real life, players that didn't play for big travel teams emerge and make a difference. International players are discovered with major potential. Love this. 
* Love the fact that I can know the O/D of certain players before I start recruiting them. 
* Love the fact that players have quirky preferences (but don't overcompensate here too much)

But recruiting isn't fully broken. Don't trash a good product. Tweak it. 
Recruit GENERATION needs more tweaking than recruiting money. You're on the right track with scouting and hidden guys. But generate more high potential guys! 

The MAIN THING BROKEN IS THAT LOCATION IS EVERYTHING in this game! 
* Fix that by having certain players who will cost the same whether you are 10 miles away or 1000000 (that'd be a feat). 
* Extend the mileage on recruiting cost breakdowns. (maybe its the same in d3? Extended in d2 and really extended in d1?) (Maybe its only a few players who wanna play far from home?) (Maybe there's an across the board change in milage cost breakdowns where instead of 0-199; 200-360; 360+ it is 0-360; 361-1000; 1001-2500).
Maybe you give a sliding scale of milage costs based on your total prestige (d3 low prestige has major costs to go far away like in real life; higher d3 schools cost a bit less to extend the range; low prestige d2's cost a little less; high prestige d2 cost less; low prestige d1's cost less to extend the range and D1 A prestige schools have a huge milage discount... based on a sliding prestige scale. From low d3 to high d1. That is realistic. Kansas can recruit more national players than Ok St than d2 USI than d3 UT-Tyler. And that would encourage local recruits who are average to stay closer to home (pretty normal unless they are discovered) and encourage great D1 athletes to go cross country. And instead of me getting anyone I want from MS, AL, GA, and TN- I will fight Virginia, Kansas, UConn, and Texas for key players... which would keep me from being awesome primarily because of location... without totally hamstringing me for being good. 

I'm just going to come out and say it, I feel like these proposed changes seem to all be based upon assumptions about how one person perceives what is more realistic or how that one person perceives what the HD community wants. Granted, that person is uniquely positioned in their ability to both receive feedback and make decisions impacting everyone. But these seem like very BIG changes for a game that hasn't changed much in a long time and those changes are based upon impressions and assumptions. I'm not against change at all, but I do want change to genuinely reflect the perceptions and desires of the HD community as a whole. Sure we're just consumers, but it sure seems like there is a strong loyal base who has been playing and funding HD for a long time. Do we really know what those people want? I am thankful dialogue is being asked for in the forums, but are the forums an accurate reflection of the overall community or a vocal minority? Opinion shouldn't dictate the future of this game, but if you thoroughly surveyed the HD community would their opinions back up the assumptions behind these changes? I'm not the kind of person who thinks the sky is falling, but recruiting is half of this game, and if these recruiting changes aren't made extremely well the future of HD could be seriously impacted. 

Posted by stewdog on 9/16/2015 9:43:00 AM (view original):

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...

Don't take what I'm about to say the wrong way, please... I have no idea how often you get EE's or if you're one of the "rich"
But you are 100% wrong. 

My Georgia Tech team in Iba is what most would consider "rich." We have been to 7 of the last 11 national championship games and have won 4 in a row. I only say this to give you perspective. We are the super team this update is aimed at dethroning because it makes it hard for everyone else to compete. I get it. For the last 4-5 seasons, we have hand picked the players we have wanted and gotten all of them. (5 person classes usually). For the past five-Six seasons, we have lost 26 to the NBA draft. We currently have 10 underclassmen on the team and 8 are on the "projected" list. 
* I have averaged over $100,000 LEFTOVER each of the last five years at the end of recruiting. The amount I had LEFT at the end of recruiting is more than most people's dream budget. 
* Because I have so much leftover and such a high prestige (4 straight national championships), it is not in the best interest of anyone to really challenge me for a player. 
* The last couple recruiting seasons, I have had my class lined up with 4 great players who will play immediately (which is realistic) and one developmental guy. And I have CHOSEN to be nice and not dump my developmental guy and take a top recruit from other teams because I see the frustration. And I could typically steal a 5 star recruit from an A+ school with the cash and prestige I have had. 
* If you give me 4 more scholarships, Georgia (B?), Alabama (B+?), Mississippi (Bish), etc. would get destroyed because I would take their top players as my bench guys to develop for a few minutes their senior year. The rich would get richer. The other ACC teams would destroy the entire SEC in our world as well as all the smaller conferences around us. 

I understand you are saying after these changes it wouldn't work this way any more. You are right to a degree. But if you don't think high prestige schools will still beat lower prestige schools, and that AL, Auburn, Miss (all good schools just a step below) would hate teams like me having spots to "stow away" extra players for a rainy day, you are wrong. In another league where I am an A- team, I would HATE it as MD, UNC, and others would kill me. 

As to EE's. I'm assuming you don't really have much experience here? 
The draft big board tells you who is likely to go but is probably only right 65% of the time. I've had top 5 projected guys stay the same year a #85 guy went. Its not a science. But that doesn't even matter. If I have a go actually go but I have no scouting money or recruiting money to replace him- that's a big deal! If I have 3-4 go with zero scouting money or scholarship money given to replace him, that's a bigger deal!!! In real life, Coach Cal knows he's losing 5 underclassmen and he has the resources (and booster money and backpayments to uncles)  in place all season long to replace them. The proposed system (as seble sees, which is all that matters here) does not give us the opportunity to replace players until the good recruits are gone. 

A few things that I think are more realistic to help prevent superteams like mine from making the game not as fun for everyone else: 

1- the reason I am so successful at GT is simple. LOCATION. You get a good coach in a prime location and he is set. 
* Iba SEC is down a bit (sorry guys). I go north or west up to 360 , to TN, GA, AL, and MS and the other ACC coaches can't reach as far which leaves me cash to battle them for good players nearby & I have ridiculous carryover plus prestige. 
* Kansas, Texas A & M, etc. can't quite reach me to battle for most MS or TN guys. 
* Other ACC teams like Duke, UNC, Wake, NC St, etc. are battling each other for guys in their 360. 

The solution is not to take money from the ACC, Big East, and Big 12 & give it to the little sisters of the poor conference. That punishes success which will cause GREAT PLAYERS TO LEAVE! Communism never works in real life in the long term! It sounds great on paper to some, but it is not how college basketball or competition games work well. Yes, it will weaken the ACC, BE, B12, SEC, etc... but it will cause great coaches to leave the ACC/ BE to go to said crappy conference where they play sims and don't talk on the message board and the gameplay throughout the season will be boring and people will leave. Further, it is no where NEAR reality and I thought this was supposed to be a sim. Where coaches build a dynasty. So we want to blow up dynasties? Because its not fair? We want to punish good coaches that play good competition and encourage them to play more sims? weird. 

The solution is to get good schools to go long ways to compete for good players... and more hidden gem higher potential guys. 
In real life college basketball, the rich schools will stay sorta rich if they have the right coaches. That's OK... but in real life, underdogs sneak in EVERY YEAR. Stud emerge on average teams EVERY YEAR. ACC and BE get more tourney money and prestige EVERY YEAR. Coach Cal cheats EVERY YEAR (sorry). 
But another thing that happens is this. Kentucky battles Duke battles UCLA battles Kansas for a top 20 recruit (missing from this game). Which allows lesser schools to discover and get hidden gems (missing from this game). And mid majors have seniors that gel and make deep runs pretty regularly (missing from this game). 

* Love the scouting changes. In real life teams have to really search for sub top 100 players. In real life, late bloomers make differences for lower level programs. In real life, local schools know the local players who were injured their junior year that the scouting services missed. In real life, players that didn't play for big travel teams emerge and make a difference. International players are discovered with major potential. Love this. 
* Love the fact that I can know the O/D of certain players before I start recruiting them. 
* Love the fact that players have quirky preferences (but don't overcompensate here too much)

But recruiting isn't fully broken. Don't trash a good product. Tweak it. 
Recruit GENERATION needs more tweaking than recruiting money. You're on the right track with scouting and hidden guys. But generate more high potential guys! 

The MAIN THING BROKEN IS THAT LOCATION IS EVERYTHING in this game! 
* Fix that by having certain players who will cost the same whether you are 10 miles away or 1000000 (that'd be a feat). 
* Extend the mileage on recruiting cost breakdowns. (maybe its the same in d3? Extended in d2 and really extended in d1?) (Maybe its only a few players who wanna play far from home?) (Maybe there's an across the board change in milage cost breakdowns where instead of 0-199; 200-360; 360+ it is 0-360; 361-1000; 1001-2500).
Maybe you give a sliding scale of milage costs based on your total prestige (d3 low prestige has major costs to go far away like in real life; higher d3 schools cost a bit less to extend the range; low prestige d2's cost a little less; high prestige d2 cost less; low prestige d1's cost less to extend the range and D1 A prestige schools have a huge milage discount... based on a sliding prestige scale. From low d3 to high d1. That is realistic. Kansas can recruit more national players than Ok St than d2 USI than d3 UT-Tyler. And that would encourage local recruits who are average to stay closer to home (pretty normal unless they are discovered) and encourage great D1 athletes to go cross country. And instead of me getting anyone I want from MS, AL, GA, and TN- I will fight Virginia, Kansas, UConn, and Texas for key players... which would keep me from being awesome primarily because of location... without totally hamstringing me for being good. 

Well said stewdog. 

Posted by seble on 9/16/2015 8:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kevodaphenom on 9/16/2015 8:33:00 AM (view original):
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...

I've actually removed that from my list since posting it.  I agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Wait, how does that not make sense? IRL I'm more of a football fan than a hoops one, but you don't think selling kids on playing in the SEC makes a difference? 

Yeah, great stuff from stewdog! 

Posted by tarvolon on 9/16/2015 10:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by seble on 9/16/2015 8:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kevodaphenom on 9/16/2015 8:33:00 AM (view original):
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...

I've actually removed that from my list since posting it.  I agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Wait, how does that not make sense? IRL I'm more of a football fan than a hoops one, but you don't think selling kids on playing in the SEC makes a difference? 

I was being sarcastic in how stupid it is that postseason cash is being taken away, but there was still an option about "conference strength" mattered to recruits because it seemed to be just window dressing. I fully agree with you, but the way HD is going to be now all conferences are going to be at a level playing field. So there truly is no benefit of playing at one school over another because conferences have to same amount of money. 

Posted by tarvolon on 9/16/2015 10:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by seble on 9/16/2015 8:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kevodaphenom on 9/16/2015 8:33:00 AM (view original):
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...

I've actually removed that from my list since posting it.  I agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Wait, how does that not make sense? IRL I'm more of a football fan than a hoops one, but you don't think selling kids on playing in the SEC makes a difference? 

Was about to say that. Kids want to play in conferences with the most exposure and competition. It matters a lot

All due respect stewdog and since I don't play Div 1 which seems to be where the biggest issues are. What you say makes sense except the part you say don't do anything to bonus money but yet you say you have so much nobody can really battle you. That seems like a problem to me. I understand you have won 4 in a row but in real life even if that did happen I doubt you could recruit every kid you wanted without losing one to another big school. But like I said I don't play D1 and don't even pretend to know the in's and outs of D1. I may be off base.

And I just selfishly want a response so you can call coach Cal a cheater again. Lol

Posted by tarvolon on 9/16/2015 10:18:00 AM (view original):
Yeah, great stuff from stewdog! 

+1

Posted by jjwarden on 9/16/2015 10:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by stewdog on 9/16/2015 9:43:00 AM (view original):

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...

Don't take what I'm about to say the wrong way, please... I have no idea how often you get EE's or if you're one of the "rich"
But you are 100% wrong. 

My Georgia Tech team in Iba is what most would consider "rich." We have been to 7 of the last 11 national championship games and have won 4 in a row. I only say this to give you perspective. We are the super team this update is aimed at dethroning because it makes it hard for everyone else to compete. I get it. For the last 4-5 seasons, we have hand picked the players we have wanted and gotten all of them. (5 person classes usually). For the past five-Six seasons, we have lost 26 to the NBA draft. We currently have 10 underclassmen on the team and 8 are on the "projected" list. 
* I have averaged over $100,000 LEFTOVER each of the last five years at the end of recruiting. The amount I had LEFT at the end of recruiting is more than most people's dream budget. 
* Because I have so much leftover and such a high prestige (4 straight national championships), it is not in the best interest of anyone to really challenge me for a player. 
* The last couple recruiting seasons, I have had my class lined up with 4 great players who will play immediately (which is realistic) and one developmental guy. And I have CHOSEN to be nice and not dump my developmental guy and take a top recruit from other teams because I see the frustration. And I could typically steal a 5 star recruit from an A+ school with the cash and prestige I have had. 
* If you give me 4 more scholarships, Georgia (B?), Alabama (B+?), Mississippi (Bish), etc. would get destroyed because I would take their top players as my bench guys to develop for a few minutes their senior year. The rich would get richer. The other ACC teams would destroy the entire SEC in our world as well as all the smaller conferences around us. 

I understand you are saying after these changes it wouldn't work this way any more. You are right to a degree. But if you don't think high prestige schools will still beat lower prestige schools, and that AL, Auburn, Miss (all good schools just a step below) would hate teams like me having spots to "stow away" extra players for a rainy day, you are wrong. In another league where I am an A- team, I would HATE it as MD, UNC, and others would kill me. 

As to EE's. I'm assuming you don't really have much experience here? 
The draft big board tells you who is likely to go but is probably only right 65% of the time. I've had top 5 projected guys stay the same year a #85 guy went. Its not a science. But that doesn't even matter. If I have a go actually go but I have no scouting money or recruiting money to replace him- that's a big deal! If I have 3-4 go with zero scouting money or scholarship money given to replace him, that's a bigger deal!!! In real life, Coach Cal knows he's losing 5 underclassmen and he has the resources (and booster money and backpayments to uncles)  in place all season long to replace them. The proposed system (as seble sees, which is all that matters here) does not give us the opportunity to replace players until the good recruits are gone. 

A few things that I think are more realistic to help prevent superteams like mine from making the game not as fun for everyone else: 

1- the reason I am so successful at GT is simple. LOCATION. You get a good coach in a prime location and he is set. 
* Iba SEC is down a bit (sorry guys). I go north or west up to 360 , to TN, GA, AL, and MS and the other ACC coaches can't reach as far which leaves me cash to battle them for good players nearby & I have ridiculous carryover plus prestige. 
* Kansas, Texas A & M, etc. can't quite reach me to battle for most MS or TN guys. 
* Other ACC teams like Duke, UNC, Wake, NC St, etc. are battling each other for guys in their 360. 

The solution is not to take money from the ACC, Big East, and Big 12 & give it to the little sisters of the poor conference. That punishes success which will cause GREAT PLAYERS TO LEAVE! Communism never works in real life in the long term! It sounds great on paper to some, but it is not how college basketball or competition games work well. Yes, it will weaken the ACC, BE, B12, SEC, etc... but it will cause great coaches to leave the ACC/ BE to go to said crappy conference where they play sims and don't talk on the message board and the gameplay throughout the season will be boring and people will leave. Further, it is no where NEAR reality and I thought this was supposed to be a sim. Where coaches build a dynasty. So we want to blow up dynasties? Because its not fair? We want to punish good coaches that play good competition and encourage them to play more sims? weird. 

The solution is to get good schools to go long ways to compete for good players... and more hidden gem higher potential guys. 
In real life college basketball, the rich schools will stay sorta rich if they have the right coaches. That's OK... but in real life, underdogs sneak in EVERY YEAR. Stud emerge on average teams EVERY YEAR. ACC and BE get more tourney money and prestige EVERY YEAR. Coach Cal cheats EVERY YEAR (sorry). 
But another thing that happens is this. Kentucky battles Duke battles UCLA battles Kansas for a top 20 recruit (missing from this game). Which allows lesser schools to discover and get hidden gems (missing from this game). And mid majors have seniors that gel and make deep runs pretty regularly (missing from this game). 

* Love the scouting changes. In real life teams have to really search for sub top 100 players. In real life, late bloomers make differences for lower level programs. In real life, local schools know the local players who were injured their junior year that the scouting services missed. In real life, players that didn't play for big travel teams emerge and make a difference. International players are discovered with major potential. Love this. 
* Love the fact that I can know the O/D of certain players before I start recruiting them. 
* Love the fact that players have quirky preferences (but don't overcompensate here too much)

But recruiting isn't fully broken. Don't trash a good product. Tweak it. 
Recruit GENERATION needs more tweaking than recruiting money. You're on the right track with scouting and hidden guys. But generate more high potential guys! 

The MAIN THING BROKEN IS THAT LOCATION IS EVERYTHING in this game! 
* Fix that by having certain players who will cost the same whether you are 10 miles away or 1000000 (that'd be a feat). 
* Extend the mileage on recruiting cost breakdowns. (maybe its the same in d3? Extended in d2 and really extended in d1?) (Maybe its only a few players who wanna play far from home?) (Maybe there's an across the board change in milage cost breakdowns where instead of 0-199; 200-360; 360+ it is 0-360; 361-1000; 1001-2500).
Maybe you give a sliding scale of milage costs based on your total prestige (d3 low prestige has major costs to go far away like in real life; higher d3 schools cost a bit less to extend the range; low prestige d2's cost a little less; high prestige d2 cost less; low prestige d1's cost less to extend the range and D1 A prestige schools have a huge milage discount... based on a sliding prestige scale. From low d3 to high d1. That is realistic. Kansas can recruit more national players than Ok St than d2 USI than d3 UT-Tyler. And that would encourage local recruits who are average to stay closer to home (pretty normal unless they are discovered) and encourage great D1 athletes to go cross country. And instead of me getting anyone I want from MS, AL, GA, and TN- I will fight Virginia, Kansas, UConn, and Texas for key players... which would keep me from being awesome primarily because of location... without totally hamstringing me for being good. 

Well said stewdog. 

Where did you get 4 extra schollies from ? I only talked about adding 1... I think everyone is taking what I'm talking about wrong... Seble has constantly said this update is to add realism and everyone wanted EE's to give notice before post season and that simply is not realistic.... However my suggestion is realistic... Also with the new system that seble has been talking about it doesn't seem you'd be able to grab any player you want... Am I the only one reading what he wants to change? Consistently he is talking about removing big 6 power... So you don't like my idea of adding a roster spot and a redshirt spot but I'd like to see someone else throw out an idea that actually makes sense for the game and doing what seble wants and adding realism... Don't come down on me when the real life scenario isn't convenient... I have played d1 and yes I don't have a ton of EE direct experience but I do watch the board and see where players go so I can get a sense of what it looks like when I get there so I'm not completely clueless... EE's suck for you guys but yea they also suck in real life so personally I say get over it because real life good coaches find ways to keep winning and don't ask the NCAA to change the rules on it... Sorry if this seems bitchy but I feel everyone's response to me was unwarranted as I was trying to help... Anyways I hope things get fixed and ultimately i prefer hiring firing to be fixed first and recruiting generation tweak before an overhaul...good luck sorry again if this was edgy ....

bagger, he's not asking for a rule change, he's asking us to not change the rules in such a way that puts him at a huge competitive disadvantage. which seems pretty reasonable to me to be honest. 

also, cmac, he did propose a way to make him less dominant but still competitive: nationalize recruiting (which I think this proposal might've done--your number of home/campus visits aren't limited by location, are they?)

Tarvolon I wasn't trying to criticize I know nothing of D1. I guess I should have put it more of a question form. The changes I read was to make the cost of this or the cost of that different. If he has that much more money if carryover how does this change the dominance of recruiting. He'll just be able to take the best players from anywhere. Again I don't play D1 and apparently it's way different. I'm asking to try to understand not to be critical or even give my 2 cents since I don't play it. It's more to understand it.

And I believe I read you get a set amount of CV and HV per scholly opening

Posted by cmac4567 on 9/16/2015 11:28:00 AM (view original):
All due respect stewdog and since I don't play Div 1 which seems to be where the biggest issues are. What you say makes sense except the part you say don't do anything to bonus money but yet you say you have so much nobody can really battle you. That seems like a problem to me. I understand you have won 4 in a row but in real life even if that did happen I doubt you could recruit every kid you wanted without losing one to another big school. But like I said I don't play D1 and don't even pretend to know the in's and outs of D1. I may be off base.

And I just selfishly want a response so you can call coach Cal a cheater again. Lol

I think what I mean is...
* In real life, the big schools DO have more money and DO have ways of consistently having advantages. That's OK. BUT... they mainly battle EACH OTHER and spend the money killing EACH OTHER. In this game, the big schools don't ever battle each other and that is one of the biggest problems. 
* When A+ schools are encouraged to battle each other, their riches compete with each other more, thus allowing smaller schools to pluck and develop good players that can eventually become NBA players and teams that can eventually make deep NT runs. 

If we tweak recruit generation & scouting to allow for more hidden guys with huge potential, while encouraging Kentucky to battle Kansas and UCLA for the same recruit because he's a beast, we will allow the lesser schools to take the high potential 3-stars from Kansas & UCLA. Right now there's no incentive for me to go outside 360 miles and because of my location, no one battles me for great players and I keep getting richer. 
If Texas, Kansas, and Kentucky paid the same for a 5-star battle as I did, they would come after me. But they're smart and stay within 360. I'm smart and stay within 360 and things stay the same, which I currently really like. 

In real life, Kansas, UConn, and UCLA battle it out for a 5 star recruit for months before Coach Cal's boosters pay the AAU team to push the stud recruit away from them all (& that takes a week and a lot of cash)... but at least there was a real life battle despite the distance in schools. Everyone knows Kansas, KY, UCLA, and big boys have  more cash. No one cares.. because other teams can develop players well, which Coach Cal doesn't do , and other teams  compete. Not as often, but they do compete. My Ga Tech team will not have all the carryover any more if A+ schools battle me. That's the point. Make them want to. Make me want to battle them. Change the recruiting mileage cost numbers, at least for higher prestige schools like in real life... and give us incentive to USE the cash! Then make better middle of the road players who will blossom late and we have the fix without imposing communism.