I had two openings this year with my A+ Illinois team. In 2.0, I would probably go after one player, get an early lead, probably not get challenged, and then take the $60,000 or so I had left after signings, and go in on a battle that was already existing with about 200 home visits, and hope for the best.

This time, I picked two five star players, and was able to sign both of them. Both players were being recruited by other teams, and on one Kentucky and I were both very high.

But, I like the fact that in 3.0 you don't have to worry that a battle will make you look weak, and cause teams to move in on the other prospect.

It's nice to see most of the elite players have multiple teams competing for them - that part is much more realistic than 2.0

Soooooo, from the A+ elite point of view, you STILL signed two five star players. So what's changed again? I would venture to say that if you were at Illinois in 2.0 and there were any coaches around you with balls of any size, you wouldn't be signing two 5 star players with $60,000. I can tell you for a fact that were I in your conference and anywhere near you, you wouldn't be signing two 5 star players with $60,000. That was a huge part of the problem in 2.0, coaches nuts would shrivel up come recruiting time.

I can tell you this much, when I coached Duke in Tark, had Swiners at UNC, BillyG at Kentucky, then S. Carolina, can't remember who was at Virginia off the top of my head but "back in the olden days", it was a bloodbath in ACC/SEC territory come recruiting time. There wasn't anyone signing two 5 star guys with only two openings and $60,000. In fact, it was very likely that you weren't signing ANY 5 star guys and only maybe a 4 star. All of us were super competitive and we all kept each other in check, so no one team got too overloaded. You know, kinda how it's supposed to be. But that was the good old days...........now GET OFF MY LAWN!!!

He said he would dump the REST of his budget into the final recruit. He didn't say he got two guys with 60K, he said he would get the 2nd guy with 60K.

Posted by gobosox514 on 9/22/2016 8:17:00 AM (view original):
He said he would dump the REST of his budget into the final recruit. He didn't say he got two guys with 60K, he said he would get the 2nd guy with 60K.

Right .. the first guy was usually free (Close to the school, a campus visit to get considered, no one challenges) .. so all the cash can go to the next recruit. Now you can do that, you have to pay fair value for recruits. This is much more realistic.

The best teams will still get most of the best players (they have the best prestige) .. but not every single player and usually not for free (or as close to free as possible).

Right, and he could have lost one of the battles. With A+ prestige, you're still going to be in a good position, as long as you don't pick guys with too many challengers.

Posted by gobosox514 on 9/22/2016 8:17:00 AM (view original):
He said he would dump the REST of his budget into the final recruit. He didn't say he got two guys with 60K, he said he would get the 2nd guy with 60K.

So you were okay with him getting the first 5 star for nothing more than a pittance then?

Posted by emy1013 on 9/22/2016 11:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gobosox514 on 9/22/2016 8:17:00 AM (view original):
He said he would dump the REST of his budget into the final recruit. He didn't say he got two guys with 60K, he said he would get the 2nd guy with 60K.

So you were okay with him getting the first 5 star for nothing more than a pittance then?

That was 2.0, not 3.0. Now he's subject to battles for every top recruit, like "the good old days". He happened to win them both this time, but it's not going to be the case every time.

"That was a huge part of the problem in 2.0, coaches nuts would shrivel up come recruiting time."

Exactly, and there's a reason for that. Losing 51-49 recruiting battles 100% of the time is a system that rewards risk aversion.

hughesjr, pkoopman and chapelhillne, I just want to say thank you for continually bringing maturity and sense to the forums. The incessant hate posts from the haters (everyone knows who they are) gets old after a while, probably even for most forum readers. It cannot be good for the retention of coaches and it cannot make a favorable impression on new players just joining the game. I hope that new users learn quickly to dismiss the haters as background noise, as I do [*crickets*], and focus on the posts that address the game. It is a good game, and the recent changes make it even better than it was. Thanks again.

Posted by CoachSpud on 9/22/2016 11:19:00 AM (view original):
hughesjr, pkoopman and chapelhillne, I just want to say thank you for continually bringing maturity and sense to the forums. The incessant hate posts from the haters (everyone knows who they are) gets old after a while, probably even for most forum readers. It cannot be good for the retention of coaches and it cannot make a favorable impression on new players just joining the game. I hope that new users learn quickly to dismiss the haters as background noise, as I do [*crickets*], and focus on the posts that address the game. It is a good game, and the recent changes make it even better than it was. Thanks again.

Spud talking about bringing maturity to the forums...

I love how Spud also calls people whiners when someone complains about something they don't like. But when Spud complains its for some greater purpose and its totally okay.

Posted by shoe3 on 9/22/2016 11:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 9/22/2016 11:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gobosox514 on 9/22/2016 8:17:00 AM (view original):
He said he would dump the REST of his budget into the final recruit. He didn't say he got two guys with 60K, he said he would get the 2nd guy with 60K.

So you were okay with him getting the first 5 star for nothing more than a pittance then?

That was 2.0, not 3.0. Now he's subject to battles for every top recruit, like "the good old days". He happened to win them both this time, but it's not going to be the case every time.

"That was a huge part of the problem in 2.0, coaches nuts would shrivel up come recruiting time."

Exactly, and there's a reason for that. Losing 51-49 recruiting battles 100% of the time is a system that rewards risk aversion.

could've gotten rid of earned conference recruiting money, could've put caps on scholarship money, could've changed mileage costs for recruiting, could've made prestige more fluid, could've put more weight on early recruiting efforts - all of these could potentially level the field without the complete 180 in recruiting and resulting coach losses in my opinion.

conspiracy theory - seble quit posting and created the spud alias - vast majority of spud's posts are wis apologetics toward the new system, especially with the pleas toward driving out the anti-3.0 posters

Posted by chapelhillne on 9/21/2016 11:47:00 PM (view original):
I had two openings this year with my A+ Illinois team. In 2.0, I would probably go after one player, get an early lead, probably not get challenged, and then take the $60,000 or so I had left after signings, and go in on a battle that was already existing with about 200 home visits, and hope for the best.

This time, I picked two five star players, and was able to sign both of them. Both players were being recruited by other teams, and on one Kentucky and I were both very high.

But, I like the fact that in 3.0 you don't have to worry that a battle will make you look weak, and cause teams to move in on the other prospect.

It's nice to see most of the elite players have multiple teams competing for them - that part is much more realistic than 2.0

Yes, yes and yes. That's a fair reading of the changes to the game. Your A+ prestige still benefited you, as it should. Teams of similar prestige now can battle on pretty even terms. You would crush teams of lower prestige and teams of a lower division wouldn't even be in any battle where you didn't want them. The big advantage still goes to the top dogs, but as you correctly note, it isn't free any more.

Posted by emy1013 on 9/22/2016 11:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gobosox514 on 9/22/2016 8:17:00 AM (view original):
He said he would dump the REST of his budget into the final recruit. He didn't say he got two guys with 60K, he said he would get the 2nd guy with 60K.

So you were okay with him getting the first 5 star for nothing more than a pittance then?

I'm not sure where my post said I was ok with anything. I merely pointed out that he did not claim he got 2 5* recruits with just 60K.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

Posted by emy1013 on 9/22/2016 11:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gobosox514 on 9/22/2016 8:17:00 AM (view original):
He said he would dump the REST of his budget into the final recruit. He didn't say he got two guys with 60K, he said he would get the 2nd guy with 60K.

So you were okay with him getting the first 5 star for nothing more than a pittance then?

No, THAT is what this update addresses. It is the WHOLE point.

So only the C+ teams get top recruits unchallenged?