Posted by cmac4567 on 9/16/2015 12:46:00 PM (view original):
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

I took it as a question, was just trying to give an answer, or at least a partial one. 

It looks to me like money (carryover/conference/whatever) is not going to be a factor in the new recruiting scheme, only in scouting. I do worry that it might be an overcorrection (now a school with six openings can pick a fight from 3000 miles away with a school that has three openings and pretty much win every time), but it is at least a correct to some degree. 

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I'm pretty sure this is an overcorrection and will just make it worse for teams without many schollies to fill. I hope that can be balanced out somehow (maybe make "close to home" preferences actually mean a lot?), because it looks like a problem to me. But it is a step in the right direction regarding situations like Georgia Tech, provided their EE money is not totally eviscerated (which would also be an overcorrection) 

I don't wanna quote all our correspondence and it won't let me do just a little. 

* I got the 4 extra from the last part where you said, "let us have 16 roster spots." 
If I get 13 schollies, I will steal the best player from a good team & he will be my worst player thus making us richer and their team poorer. 
If I get 3 more roster spots with guys that have potential but don't get scholarship offers, I will make some d2 school poorer by stealing some of their potential studs to fill out my roster with players that will never see the floor.

Expanding roster sizes will always make the rich (way more prestige and/ or cash) richer as the poorer will be the ones who would otherwise get the 13th, 14th, 15th, or 16th spot. 

The major goal should be to encourage more battles. The strategy of being "considered" by only 3 guys when you have 5 open scholarships is extremely unrealistic but makes sense where any "wasted" money or sign of being in battles is a problem. Because HD coaches will gravitate toward an optimum strategy of "wasting" as little $$ as possible, adjustments to gameplay need to make it OK for a team to enter a battle it might lose. Probably the best way to do this is to have a cap on effort for each player, after which you're just annoying the guy. This cap should be relatively low. Then it's up to the player to decide. If you leave it up to the "auction," coaches will avoid spending money elsewhere and always avoid battles.

The campus visit concept seems to follow this idea. The "attention points" and home visit ideas do not. Unless you cap the value a bunch of attention points or home visits have, you'll have exactly the same problem with no battles that you have now.

As far as making it easier for smaller schools to compete, the place to start is probably asking why smaller schools are able to compete in real life. Smaller schools are generally not successful in battling blue bloods for top-50 recruits. Rather, they succeed by fitting talents to systems, outcoaching opponents, and development. Some of the coaching skill is stuff that can't really be replicated in this game (short of making it extremely tedious). Enhanced scouting might help some of it, but I also think that making "true talent" more opaque would help too.  If real-life talent was as transparent as the ratings in this game, you'd see blue-blood programs win every single year, because you would be able to tell with mathematical precision how good each player is. If you made the ratings more opaque (both current and potential), you'd get more surprising results. There aren't any true "diamonds in the rough" now, because we can all apply our algorithms to the extremely transparent numbers.

Another thing that would help smaller programs (and would be more realistic) is if there were more transfers. Actual playing time should probably affect a player's development (and transfer prospects) more than they do now.

You should also double check to see if the current number of EEs after freshman year, soph year, etc, matches up with current trends. It seems like we should have more one-and-done players. This should probably be more transparent in recruiting - you should know up front who's a likely NBA lottery pick as a HS senior.

What if in "Recruiting Period 2 ("Second Cycle")", some additional top-ranked recruits became available that weren't showing in the First Cycle.   Or, unsigned players from First Cycle now showing greatly improved talent in the Second Cycle.   Sort of a "Let's Make A Deal" scenario... get the known player, or wait for some curtains to open up in the Second Cycle.     These recruits would be ones that "blew up" in talent, like it happens in real life.

So, is a Big 6 school going all out to grab a great First Cycle recruit (from a non-Big-6), or should he wait because a certain number of players are going to break out by the Second Cycle.   The main point of this is that it could allow some quality recruits to slip through the cracks to lower prestige schools.

Also, maybe reward schools whose players have great college GPA's.   Each of us would have a "Team GPA" based on our history, like a rolling GPA Prestige that can change year to year.   Some recruits just absolutely wouldn't go to a school that had a team GPA under 3.0, or 3.6, or 3.9 even at times.    Think of Adonal Foyle going to Colgate.   

You could also do it in reverse, but to a lesser degree.   Some players want to spend minimal time in Study Hall.    So some would absolutely not go to a school with a Team GPA over 3.0 or so, etc.

To simulate real life, while still keeping the 12 roster spot limit intact, you could have coaches look at the big board and decide how many schlolarships they will fill for the year. Say GT has 2 graduating and 4 EE candidates. Knowing that it's never a sure thing, he can basically tell his AD he needs to recruit for 6 spots this year. But if he asks for 6 scholarships, and only 2 players end up leaving early, he has to rescind scholarships of two returning players.

To Stewdog's other important point, I think the most vital aspect of the new preferences is that playing time and roster construction (how many guys ahead on the depth chart) has to be extremely important for a lot of recruits. IMO, that's the single most important change that will make the game more fair without resorting to "communism".

Posted by stewdog on 9/16/2015 12:49:00 PM (view original):

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. 

I agree then. Ive been firm on id rather see recruit generation tweak before anything else... I feel as if this game generate 10 jahlil okafors a season vs real life when we only get 1 every few seasons... There should only be 5-10 real bonfide studs that come out every season but its more like 10+ at every position and if we tweaked that thenwe would see some battles howeever cash does need to change in the instance where you described where you had so much carry over... No school should be able to easily get any recruit however schools should have advantages on certain recruits. Favorite school should have weight and even something like family school shouls be there. Lots of kids follow dads and familys because of tradition...

Posted by vandydave on 9/16/2015 9:44:00 AM (view original):
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. 

I don't think those perceptions are necessarily assumptions. One of seble's arguments appears to be that the Big 6 schools have garnered too much power in this game and one of the best ways to measure this is by way of actual results. So here are some actual results. In RL (since the NCAA expanded to a 64 team tournament field 31 years ago) no team has made the tournament in every season. The longest active streak is 26 years (Kansas) and Duke is next at 20. Two additional Big 6 schools have streaks of 10+ consecutive seasons and 4 more Big 6 schools have current streaks as long as 5 seasons. In total, 8 Big 6 schools have consecutive tourney steaks of five years or more. In addition Gonzaga has a streak of 10+ years and VCU and San Diego State are both 5+ seasons.

In HD no world has less than 18 Big 6 teams with NT streaks of 5 or more years. One world has 24. No HD world has less than 12 schools with 10+ years. One world has 17. No HD world has less than 6 teams with 20+ year streaks. One world has 11. No world has 0 teams with a current 30+ year streak, only one world has less than 5 teams with streaks this long. One world has 10 teams with a streak of at least 30 seasons.

When the average of Big 6 HD teams per world with 30+ consecutive NT appearances is nearly 50% greater than the actual number of RL teams with streaks of 10 seasons, it strongly suggests something is amiss ... not just with one dominant team but with the Big 6 as a whole. I think that's one thing that has been missing in much of the discussion. This isn't just about the individual dominant team, it's about the collective dominance of the Big 6 schools. I don't read these proposed updates as being a "punishment" of a successful team so much as a recognition that actual game results skew heavily away from normal and the reason is the elite teams are too strong and stockpile too much talent.

I believe that Big 6 schools should have advantages. I don't believe there should be a completely even playing field. But I also don't want to play a game where a handful of schools dominate each world every single season based on advantages that are largely based on geography, longevity, an outdated prestige model, and a flawed reward system that teaches us it's better for an elite ACC team to go after recruits in SEC territory than in ACC territory because the conference will be stronger, rewards will be greater and it will continue to enhance that elite team's dominance. Anyone can talk about how teams within their conference do challenge each other but in practice the "gentleman's agreement" that most abide by is alive and well in today's recruiting environment and that's just not realistic either. I'm not sold on the degree of changes this overhaul is proposing but I want to see it in action before I decide one way or another and seble is in the best position to know what will and won't work with respect to changes. While I still would be interested in knowing why recruit generation seems to be off the table completely, I give the administrators the benefit of the doubt until I see something in practice that convinces me otherwise.

why can't we just keep the same system for recruiting players except make it year round so there is something to do during the season besides game plan and we don't have to spend 5 days glued to the game and neglecting our jobs.

Posted by possumfiend on 9/16/2015 3:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 9/16/2015 9:44:00 AM (view original):
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. 

I don't think those perceptions are necessarily assumptions. One of seble's arguments appears to be that the Big 6 schools have garnered too much power in this game and one of the best ways to measure this is by way of actual results. So here are some actual results. In RL (since the NCAA expanded to a 64 team tournament field 31 years ago) no team has made the tournament in every season. The longest active streak is 26 years (Kansas) and Duke is next at 20. Two additional Big 6 schools have streaks of 10+ consecutive seasons and 4 more Big 6 schools have current streaks as long as 5 seasons. In total, 8 Big 6 schools have consecutive tourney steaks of five years or more. In addition Gonzaga has a streak of 10+ years and VCU and San Diego State are both 5+ seasons.

In HD no world has less than 18 Big 6 teams with NT streaks of 5 or more years. One world has 24. No HD world has less than 12 schools with 10+ years. One world has 17. No HD world has less than 6 teams with 20+ year streaks. One world has 11. No world has 0 teams with a current 30+ year streak, only one world has less than 5 teams with streaks this long. One world has 10 teams with a streak of at least 30 seasons.

When the average of Big 6 HD teams per world with 30+ consecutive NT appearances is nearly 50% greater than the actual number of RL teams with streaks of 10 seasons, it strongly suggests something is amiss ... not just with one dominant team but with the Big 6 as a whole. I think that's one thing that has been missing in much of the discussion. This isn't just about the individual dominant team, it's about the collective dominance of the Big 6 schools. I don't read these proposed updates as being a "punishment" of a successful team so much as a recognition that actual game results skew heavily away from normal and the reason is the elite teams are too strong and stockpile too much talent.

I believe that Big 6 schools should have advantages. I don't believe there should be a completely even playing field. But I also don't want to play a game where a handful of schools dominate each world every single season based on advantages that are largely based on geography, longevity, an outdated prestige model, and a flawed reward system that teaches us it's better for an elite ACC team to go after recruits in SEC territory than in ACC territory because the conference will be stronger, rewards will be greater and it will continue to enhance that elite team's dominance. Anyone can talk about how teams within their conference do challenge each other but in practice the "gentleman's agreement" that most abide by is alive and well in today's recruiting environment and that's just not realistic either. I'm not sold on the degree of changes this overhaul is proposing but I want to see it in action before I decide one way or another and seble is in the best position to know what will and won't work with respect to changes. While I still would be interested in knowing why recruit generation seems to be off the table completely, I give the administrators the benefit of the doubt until I see something in practice that convinces me otherwise.

I genuinely appreciate the data in the post, this post at least begins to take "power conferences are too strong" type statements and apply some sort of litmus test. As much as real life is and should be the template for HD, comparing HD stats to real life stats quickly becomes problematic in a chicken and egg sort of way. Lower prestige conferences have less advantages than higher prestige conferences do therefore people seem to gravitate to higher prestige conferences. And there isn't an influx of coaches filling open spots therefore lower teams get worse and power gets and stays concentrated at the top. Obviously real life has no SIM AI.

Should this situation/cycle change is debatable, but worthy of debate.

The ways and theories on how to change it are numerous. Change school prestige, change money earned, change conference prestige, change recruit generation, change recruit priorities, change hiring and firing, change the rate of prestige change, the list could go on and on.

The proposed changes seem to be focusing in an all-in sort of way of changing the game by the assumptions that a more socialistic approach to recruiting will mirror real life by leveling the playing field. These are big changes and one might event say a huge "risk" hoping to achieve a result that not everyone agrees is needed and may not even be a fully accurate assumption to begin with.

But dialogue is good.

possumfiend.

Great post there.

Posted by MonsterTurtl on 9/16/2015 3:46:00 PM (view original):
why can't we just keep the same system for recruiting players except make it year round so there is something to do during the season besides game plan and we don't have to spend 5 days glued to the game and neglecting our jobs.

Because that doesn't change anything at all. lol

My only comment is that a major overhaul is usually a terrible idea and will likely result in mass exodus of players from the game, as with every other major overhaul in HD and GD.  Some of these ideas might be good, but why not try them out one at a time, and solicit feedback?  You can change money without changing everything else.  You can change scouting without changing everything else.  You can add the second recruiting period without changing everything else.  You need some serious testing here before just upending the entire game.  

Posted by rgerkin on 9/16/2015 6:17:00 PM (view original):
My only comment is that a major overhaul is usually a terrible idea and will likely result in mass exodus of players from the game, as with every other major overhaul in HD and GD.  Some of these ideas might be good, but why not try them out one at a time, and solicit feedback?  You can change money without changing everything else.  You can change scouting without changing everything else.  You can add the second recruiting period without changing everything else.  You need some serious testing here before just upending the entire game.  

According to seble on the first page of the scouting update thread, they will be doing extensive beta testing. I trust it won't be rolled out unless and until it's a better product.

Posted by rgerkin on 9/16/2015 6:17:00 PM (view original):
My only comment is that a major overhaul is usually a terrible idea and will likely result in mass exodus of players from the game, as with every other major overhaul in HD and GD.  Some of these ideas might be good, but why not try them out one at a time, and solicit feedback?  You can change money without changing everything else.  You can change scouting without changing everything else.  You can add the second recruiting period without changing everything else.  You need some serious testing here before just upending the entire game.  

Honestly im glad for attention at all right... The community has been asking for changes for years... Is this everything asked no it isnt but seeing seble back and talking after a year and a half of nothing is cool