I am going into it with an open mind and am quite excited about the changes. I will definitely volunteer to be a BETA tester, so that if there are some changes that do not seem beneficial or that are going to be bad for the game, I can voice my opinion. But, I think this could possibly bring a lot of people back out of retirement to try the new version. One thing that I like about it is that we will all start at the same time, and those who just started playing the game will be on an equal playing field with those of us that have been playing for years. I like the idea of increased competition and shaking things up. I also think this will take care of the poaching issue. I like new challenges, so that's why I am excited about it. Enough of the game is staying the same to make me feel confident I will still love it.

I'm not in favor of the major recruiting overhaul at this point, but although I'm willing to give it a chance, my opinion doesn't matter, because there will be many customers that will leave dissatisfied. WIS/Fox/seble needs to fix the small issues, keep the customers satisfied before anything else. Next, you market the hell out of the product and then maybe down the road you can test out the new recruiting idea that seble is proposing.

The fact that luck could play a part in who winds up with a recruit is a bad idea. I can see the customer service response now " you beat out the other coach, but despite your best efforts, we rolled 2 six sided dice and they came out sixes". I can understand luck being involved in game play, but leave it out of recruiting, it doesn't need to be there.

Keep the postseason money, keep everything else the same, just change the numeric values of the recruits. I don't want to see a team of 90/90 athletic man to man defenders. If at least 80% of the WIS population is recruiting the same way, through athleticism and defense, then there is clearly something wrong with the game. IRL, coaches recruit offensive basketball players a good majority of the time, so why should this be any different? I'm not saying that the elite teams shouldn't have an advantage, because they should, but there are other ways to level the playing field, if they're trying to bridge the gap between the elite teams, mid majors and the low tier D-1 teams.

Posted by chapelhillne on 3/6/2016 10:09:00 PM (view original):
I am going into it with an open mind and am quite excited about the changes. I will definitely volunteer to be a BETA tester, so that if there are some changes that do not seem beneficial or that are going to be bad for the game, I can voice my opinion. But, I think this could possibly bring a lot of people back out of retirement to try the new version. One thing that I like about it is that we will all start at the same time, and those who just started playing the game will be on an equal playing field with those of us that have been playing for years. I like the idea of increased competition and shaking things up. I also think this will take care of the poaching issue. I like new challenges, so that's why I am excited about it. Enough of the game is staying the same to make me feel confident I will still love it.

+100

Posted by taniajane on 3/6/2016 3:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 3/6/2016 3:42:00 PM (view original):
There are plenty of users who want recruiting totally redone. I certainly do.

I agree...though as I assume everyone, I am wondering if for the best...it was broken at Div 1

I've seen a few of you voice this opinion, but I've never seen anyone say WHY they want recruiting totally redone...except in some cases to list a few things that could be fixed easier with much smaller tweaks.

I've not encountered a single reason why a complete re-do or overhaul is necessary in any way.

Posted by bistiza on 3/7/2016 10:30:00 AM (view original):

Posted by taniajane on 3/6/2016 3:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 3/6/2016 3:42:00 PM (view original):
There are plenty of users who want recruiting totally redone. I certainly do.

I agree...though as I assume everyone, I am wondering if for the best...it was broken at Div 1

I've seen a few of you voice this opinion, but I've never seen anyone say WHY they want recruiting totally redone...except in some cases to list a few things that could be fixed easier with much smaller tweaks.

I've not encountered a single reason why a complete re-do or overhaul is necessary in any way.

From my experience in Div 1 there were several factors I believe.
1) A extreme value for Big 6's prestige compared to other factors that should be nearly as equal to recruits (as they are in real life: Immediate playing time, close to home, family connections to school, (extreme rare today sure but a few) educational opportunities, style of play, recent success to name a few off top of head.
2) Tied in somewhat with #|. Job firing process. Would a recruit really want to got to a Big 6 that is a perennial loser and cant even start there early?
3)) Too many 90-90-90 5 star and they are almost exclusively the property of the Big 6's.
4) Problem not associated with the current system is the fact that these advantages lead to well populated Big 6 conferences (or sims that cant be replaced for what ever reasons) and others (unless coaches organize mid majors for players) are left with empty conferences which again affects RPI's and thus tourney monies.

If we're a month away from testing, does anyone have an idea when the final changes will be implemented? I have a rebuild going on in Knight and want to know whether I should renew or just let this current season be my last? I had been thinking about giving the new recruiting a chance as we've all had ample time to digest them, but the fact that Seble has been so unresponsive to his customers in fixing what needs fixed that I'm leaving mostly because of him. Any help on a timeline would be appreciated.

Posted by taniajane on 3/7/2016 11:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bistiza on 3/7/2016 10:30:00 AM (view original):

Posted by taniajane on 3/6/2016 3:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 3/6/2016 3:42:00 PM (view original):
There are plenty of users who want recruiting totally redone. I certainly do.

I agree...though as I assume everyone, I am wondering if for the best...it was broken at Div 1

I've seen a few of you voice this opinion, but I've never seen anyone say WHY they want recruiting totally redone...except in some cases to list a few things that could be fixed easier with much smaller tweaks.

I've not encountered a single reason why a complete re-do or overhaul is necessary in any way.

From my experience in Div 1 there were several factors I believe.
1) A extreme value for Big 6's prestige compared to other factors that should be nearly as equal to recruits (as they are in real life: Immediate playing time, close to home, family connections to school, (extreme rare today sure but a few) educational opportunities, style of play, recent success to name a few off top of head.
2) Tied in somewhat with #|. Job firing process. Would a recruit really want to got to a Big 6 that is a perennial loser and cant even start there early?
3)) Too many 90-90-90 5 star and they are almost exclusively the property of the Big 6's.
4) Problem not associated with the current system is the fact that these advantages lead to well populated Big 6 conferences (or sims that cant be replaced for what ever reasons) and others (unless coaches organize mid majors for players) are left with empty conferences which again affects RPI's and thus tourney monies.

None of those issues required a "complete re-do or overhaul" of recruiting.

1. I would agree these tweaks could (and probably should) be made, at a minimum of violence to the current system.
2. Not sure what this has to do with recruiting, but agree that the jobs firing process needs a tweak, esp. at A+ prestige schools.
3. I think you have this backwards -- the problem is that there aren't enough 90/90/90 guys, so the few that exist are snapped up by the elite programs. If there were more created in recruit gen (or more guys that start marginal, but end up at 90/90/90), there would be a larger pool of elite players, which would trickle down to the have-nots. There should be many more low-ranked players that make large -- like 200+ points -- gains over four years. My feeling for years has been that if you fix recruit gen, you fix lots of other recruiting problems.

These changes could be made without throwing out the old system -- which, while not perfect, is pretty good.

Posted by taniajane on 3/7/2016 11:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bistiza on 3/7/2016 10:30:00 AM (view original):

Posted by taniajane on 3/6/2016 3:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 3/6/2016 3:42:00 PM (view original):
There are plenty of users who want recruiting totally redone. I certainly do.

I agree...though as I assume everyone, I am wondering if for the best...it was broken at Div 1

I've seen a few of you voice this opinion, but I've never seen anyone say WHY they want recruiting totally redone...except in some cases to list a few things that could be fixed easier with much smaller tweaks.

I've not encountered a single reason why a complete re-do or overhaul is necessary in any way.

From my experience in Div 1 there were several factors I believe.
1) A extreme value for Big 6's prestige compared to other factors that should be nearly as equal to recruits (as they are in real life: Immediate playing time, close to home, family connections to school, (extreme rare today sure but a few) educational opportunities, style of play, recent success to name a few off top of head.
2) Tied in somewhat with #|. Job firing process. Would a recruit really want to got to a Big 6 that is a perennial loser and cant even start there early?
3)) Too many 90-90-90 5 star and they are almost exclusively the property of the Big 6's.
4) Problem not associated with the current system is the fact that these advantages lead to well populated Big 6 conferences (or sims that cant be replaced for what ever reasons) and others (unless coaches organize mid majors for players) are left with empty conferences which again affects RPI's and thus tourney monies.

Division 1 problems and issues need to be resolved at Division 1 and not visited upon the rest of the game.

Posted by johnsensing on 3/7/2016 11:30:00 AM (view original):

Posted by taniajane on 3/7/2016 11:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bistiza on 3/7/2016 10:30:00 AM (view original):

Posted by taniajane on 3/6/2016 3:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 3/6/2016 3:42:00 PM (view original):
There are plenty of users who want recruiting totally redone. I certainly do.

I agree...though as I assume everyone, I am wondering if for the best...it was broken at Div 1

I've seen a few of you voice this opinion, but I've never seen anyone say WHY they want recruiting totally redone...except in some cases to list a few things that could be fixed easier with much smaller tweaks.

I've not encountered a single reason why a complete re-do or overhaul is necessary in any way.

From my experience in Div 1 there were several factors I believe.
1) A extreme value for Big 6's prestige compared to other factors that should be nearly as equal to recruits (as they are in real life: Immediate playing time, close to home, family connections to school, (extreme rare today sure but a few) educational opportunities, style of play, recent success to name a few off top of head.
2) Tied in somewhat with #|. Job firing process. Would a recruit really want to got to a Big 6 that is a perennial loser and cant even start there early?
3)) Too many 90-90-90 5 star and they are almost exclusively the property of the Big 6's.
4) Problem not associated with the current system is the fact that these advantages lead to well populated Big 6 conferences (or sims that cant be replaced for what ever reasons) and others (unless coaches organize mid majors for players) are left with empty conferences which again affects RPI's and thus tourney monies.

None of those issues required a "complete re-do or overhaul" of recruiting.

1. I would agree these tweaks could (and probably should) be made, at a minimum of violence to the current system.
2. Not sure what this has to do with recruiting, but agree that the jobs firing process needs a tweak, esp. at A+ prestige schools.
3. I think you have this backwards -- the problem is that there aren't enough 90/90/90 guys, so the few that exist are snapped up by the elite programs. If there were more created in recruit gen (or more guys that start marginal, but end up at 90/90/90), there would be a larger pool of elite players, which would trickle down to the have-nots. There should be many more low-ranked players that make large -- like 200+ points -- gains over four years. My feeling for years has been that if you fix recruit gen, you fix lots of other recruiting problems.

These changes could be made without throwing out the old system -- which, while not perfect, is pretty good.

I agree while the current system is not perfect, it's pretty good - and certainly good enough we don't need to "reinvent the wheel" here.

There are clearly a number of coaches who are at a minimum considering leaving the game when (if?) these changes occur, and I'm among them.

This is clearly a case of trying to fix something that isn't broken, and the numbers of coaches which are already fairly thin are going to drop off. This planned massive overhaul needs to be scrapped.

Posted by bistiza on 3/7/2016 12:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by taniajane on 3/7/2016 11:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bistiza on 3/7/2016 10:30:00 AM (view original):

Posted by taniajane on 3/6/2016 3:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 3/6/2016 3:42:00 PM (view original):
There are plenty of users who want recruiting totally redone. I certainly do.

I agree...though as I assume everyone, I am wondering if for the best...it was broken at Div 1

I've seen a few of you voice this opinion, but I've never seen anyone say WHY they want recruiting totally redone...except in some cases to list a few things that could be fixed easier with much smaller tweaks.

I've not encountered a single reason why a complete re-do or overhaul is necessary in any way.

From my experience in Div 1 there were several factors I believe.
1) A extreme value for Big 6's prestige compared to other factors that should be nearly as equal to recruits (as they are in real life: Immediate playing time, close to home, family connections to school, (extreme rare today sure but a few) educational opportunities, style of play, recent success to name a few off top of head.
2) Tied in somewhat with #|. Job firing process. Would a recruit really want to got to a Big 6 that is a perennial loser and cant even start there early?
3)) Too many 90-90-90 5 star and they are almost exclusively the property of the Big 6's.
4) Problem not associated with the current system is the fact that these advantages lead to well populated Big 6 conferences (or sims that cant be replaced for what ever reasons) and others (unless coaches organize mid majors for players) are left with empty conferences which again affects RPI's and thus tourney monies.

Division 1 problems and issues need to be resolved at Division 1 and not visited upon the rest of the game.

What a concept. Couldn't agree more.

I agree it is a Div 1 prblm....I ask..if you have two different sets of recruiting for 1 and 2-3.....how would that work? People would have no clue when moved up to div 1. Plus how would current drop and pull downs work..it wouldnt

I believe the official seble answer as to the need for a total overhaul is that the existing programming is a hodge podge of legacy software that is too klugey to edit effectively to make small changes. I think his view - his story - is that the choice is no change or total overhaul.

I confess, I would have thought that some improvements could be made outside the core, klugey legacy systems. But heck if I know

Posted by taniajane on 3/7/2016 4:30:00 PM (view original):
I agree it is a Div 1 prblm....I ask..if you have two different sets of recruiting for 1 and 2-3.....how would that work? People would have no clue when moved up to div 1. Plus how would current drop and pull downs work..it wouldnt

Good point. Changing it ONLY for Div. 1, as some have advocated, would make the game worse, not better.

Posted by metsmax on 3/7/2016 4:33:00 PM (view original):
I believe the official seble answer as to the need for a total overhaul is that the existing programming is a hodge podge of legacy software that is too klugey to edit effectively to make small changes. I think his view - his story - is that the choice is no change or total overhaul.

I confess, I would have thought that some improvements could be made outside the core, klugey legacy systems. But heck if I know

I also think this is the official line, and I think that if a kludgy system gives them an excuse to try to make the game better (even if it's not one of the worst features of the current game), then I'm okay with that (pending testing of actual changes).

That said, given that there's near unanimity saying that most of what appear to be recruiting problems are actually driven by recruit generation, it seems like it would've made a lot more sense to address that first.

Not many have mentioned this, but an issue that Seble's proposal may solve is that in all divisions, but especially Div-3, teams with 5 or 6 roster openings have a lopsided unfair recruiting advantage.

In Div-3 I'm in Connecticut. If I have 6 openings ($18k) and my local human rival has only 2 openings ($6k), and if our prestige is relatively similar, then I will have my pick of the best Connecticut talent over him, and I can basically win any battle against him. I never thought this was fair, and I think Seble's proposal solves this problem. Under the new plan, I'll be able to offer a great recruit 1 campus visit, and my rival will too. It will be based less on openings in this case, right?

When I was at Div-2 Merrimack, one year I had 3 openings and there were no humans near me, and I was B-minus... I had identified a half dozen talented local guys that I could reasonably expect to land. In the offseason, a great coach showed up at Lowell, which had 7 openings and was C+. So when recruiting started, I knew I was at a disadvantage of $35k to $15k right off the bat. And sure enough, he grabbed my top 3 targets.