I still don't know what to think of it, I never put more than 80 on a player. But what about strategy? Is AP something that can make a difference between vh, h and even moderate. If so, on all preferences and prestige being similar, I dislike the decision. It goes towards rolling dices. I would like the explanation from the devs.

Cmon guys this is a very smart change. It also makes is harder for DII teams with 6 ships fight a Dzi team for a recruit.

I am not sure if I like the change or not. Kind of neutral to it. I see arguments for both sides.

I like the fact that a team with 3 openings is now on equal footing with a team with 6 openings in terms of AP. Why should a team with more scholarships have an advantage in how much they can recruit. They still have some advantage in that they are a little more able to promise starts and playing time.

From my personal strategy perspective, I have often used the max AP on a player that I think I will have competition for, and I have used them to try to build up a ton of credit on a player I want to make a late play for. But 80 AP is still a lot of points. I guess if I gad 6 openings, and wanted to use this strategy, I'd put 80 on one guy, and 60 on my second choice

I think it will further increase battles a bit, and it may force coaches to have more backup options, which is not a bad thing. But, I don't see this as a huge change that will really have much of an impact.

I do appreciate the fact that the developers are still working on the game.

Posted by chapelhillne on 10/29/2016 9:56:00 AM (view original):
I am not sure if I like the change or not. Kind of neutral to it. I see arguments for both sides.

I like the fact that a team with 3 openings is now on equal footing with a team with 6 openings in terms of AP. Why should a team with more scholarships have an advantage in how much they can recruit. They still have some advantage in that they are a little more able to promise starts and playing time.

From my personal strategy perspective, I have often used the max AP on a player that I think I will have competition for, and I have used them to try to build up a ton of credit on a player I want to make a late play for. But 80 AP is still a lot of points. I guess if I gad 6 openings, and wanted to use this strategy, I'd put 80 on one guy, and 60 on my second choice

I think it will further increase battles a bit, and it may force coaches to have more backup options, which is not a bad thing. But, I don't see this as a huge change that will really have much of an impact.

I do appreciate the fact that the developers are still working on the game.

Totally agree with this post .. I have used more than 80, and would if it available.

But, I can live with the change. Not a huge deal to me.

And I am also very happy HD is still getting attention from the Developers,

might just be easiest to have a sign-up sheet for each recruit and interested schools put their name down, then at a given cycle the dice roll happens and wis announces the winners.

Posted by vandydave on 10/29/2016 10:21:00 AM (view original):
might just be easiest to have a sign-up sheet for each recruit and interested schools put their name down, then at a given cycle the dice roll happens and wis announces the winners.

you can play that way .. I still feel in firm control of who I sign.

But hughes, does this decision change our control over who we sign?

I wonder if the 80 AP should just be for the first session of recruiting, and it should be unlimited for the second session. This would help people who take over teams or suffer EEs, or royally screw up session 1 and are basically starting from scratch. In the second session, it is short and you have to move quickly.

At D1, this is going to make it tougher for the mid majors to compete with the higher prestige schools.

Posted by hughesjr on 10/29/2016 10:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 10/29/2016 10:21:00 AM (view original):
might just be easiest to have a sign-up sheet for each recruit and interested schools put their name down, then at a given cycle the dice roll happens and wis announces the winners.

you can play that way .. I still feel in firm control of who I sign.

"whatifsports - it's about feelings"

I'm getting the feeling that most teams will start to move towards the super class or only sign 10 model. With how strong att pts are I know that's what I'll be moving too these strategies with my 2 teams. I recruited VaTech with 2 openings (then 3 EE) and signed a terrible class, then had 6 openings with my Ole Miss and signed the best class I've ever signed in HD. I think with out viable players for the EE spot I will let them go walk on and take the schollie next yr. I think that may be the only option

Posted by all2matt on 10/29/2016 11:55:00 AM (view original):
I'm getting the feeling that most teams will start to move towards the super class or only sign 10 model. With how strong att pts are I know that's what I'll be moving too these strategies with my 2 teams. I recruited VaTech with 2 openings (then 3 EE) and signed a terrible class, then had 6 openings with my Ole Miss and signed the best class I've ever signed in HD. I think with out viable players for the EE spot I will let them go walk on and take the schollie next yr. I think that may be the only option

Remember that you can only have 3 walkon spots max .. the SIM will sign scholarship players with more than 3 openings unfilled.

This argument appears to have 2 major focal points or perspectives which are diametrically-opposed:
1) Reducing the advantage for programs/coaches with large recruiting class sizes;
and
2) Maintaining the options/weapons available for a coach (enhancing strategy).

While I acknowledge and accept the inherent issues with "super classes", I prefer the latter point and would opt not to dictate (or further limit) how coaches utilize their resources.

I am definetly going the 10 deep rout in d1 with walkons...

Posted by mullycj on 10/28/2016 6:17:00 PM (view original):
Pretty sure its per cycle. Don't really have a problem with that. keeps teams from getting burned (again) with all eggs in one basket.

Mully -- Forgive me if I am mis-understanding your post...

I don't really think we should make it an objective of the game to protect humans from the consequences of their own strategic actions. If a coach (who paid $ to play the game) wants to risk putting "all eggs in one basket", why shouldn't he/she be allowed to do so?

Bases loaded, 1 Out...some of us will play for a sacrifice fly/bunt while other will definitely prefer to "swing away for the fences"! People have different mindsets...and I think that should be welcomed and encouraged.