Anyway, I'll say this again.

If there's a player who will turn his back on a low level school if a big boy school says "Hey" in passing, don't let said player accept resources from the low level school. Losing players isn't just a problem via EE, I'm not sure people understand that, because a low level school is trying to get better too. If they put 400 AP, 10 HV and a CV on a guy, they don't get those resources back because KY drops in.

Posted by thewizard17 on 11/27/2016 12:57:00 PM (view original):
*Limit to 1 early entry per team per season or have NBA draft before the start of period one, assuming there are no obstacles and doesn't interfere with the game in any other manner.
*Open scouting for all undecided players to Level 4 of last 1 or 2 cycles of period 2
*Keep D-1, D-2, D-3 recruiting separate. Generate some better recruits in each division as needed.
*Eliminate the randomness that goes with winning a recruit. If someone gets to 51% recruiting effort the recruit is theirs.

I figured this would eliminate a lot of the frustrations that coaches have. I'm not sure if it's possible to have the NBA draft before the start of period 1 without any direct or indirect impact on the game. By opening scouting to level 4 on the last two cycles, you're allowing teams that lost battles during recruiting to potentially find that "diamond in the rough". Also, I think the divisions should be kept separate when recruiting, just seems another added frustration for coaches. D-1 can't recruit D-2 players and vice versa. Generate more and better players at D-2 and D-3 to keep them happy and diminish the frustration of D-1 coaches losing battles to D-2 teams.

Lastly, I think the randomness that comes with recruiting absolutely needs to go. Feel free to add your thoughts.

I actually don't like any of these suggestions.

The simple answer is to give everyone base amount of recruiting points(say 50, plus bonus for open scholarships) to make it more even, then make the # of recruits available in part 1 much much smaller.

That's it, that's all. Very simple fixes.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/2/2016 5:16:00 PM (view original):
Anyway, I'll say this again.

If there's a player who will turn his back on a low level school if a big boy school says "Hey" in passing, don't let said player accept resources from the low level school. Losing players isn't just a problem via EE, I'm not sure people understand that, because a low level school is trying to get better too. If they put 400 AP, 10 HV and a CV on a guy, they don't get those resources back because KY drops in.

And that's what they used to do. A D1 player wouldn't accept HVs from a D3 team (typically). So you wouldn't waste your money. It was good protection.

But this is 3.0. You gotta learn what the chances of you winning are. If you're dropping 90% of your budget on a 5 star guy while you're at a D prestige school, you shouldn't be mad if UK, Duke or MSU come in and take him. Sorry if I don't feel bad. It's happened to me already and I knew the risk I was taking but I took a shot and missed.

They've already taken away the huge budget advantage. What more do you need?

Posted by grantduck on 12/2/2016 5:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 11/27/2016 12:57:00 PM (view original):
*Limit to 1 early entry per team per season or have NBA draft before the start of period one, assuming there are no obstacles and doesn't interfere with the game in any other manner.
*Open scouting for all undecided players to Level 4 of last 1 or 2 cycles of period 2
*Keep D-1, D-2, D-3 recruiting separate. Generate some better recruits in each division as needed.
*Eliminate the randomness that goes with winning a recruit. If someone gets to 51% recruiting effort the recruit is theirs.

I figured this would eliminate a lot of the frustrations that coaches have. I'm not sure if it's possible to have the NBA draft before the start of period 1 without any direct or indirect impact on the game. By opening scouting to level 4 on the last two cycles, you're allowing teams that lost battles during recruiting to potentially find that "diamond in the rough". Also, I think the divisions should be kept separate when recruiting, just seems another added frustration for coaches. D-1 can't recruit D-2 players and vice versa. Generate more and better players at D-2 and D-3 to keep them happy and diminish the frustration of D-1 coaches losing battles to D-2 teams.

Lastly, I think the randomness that comes with recruiting absolutely needs to go. Feel free to add your thoughts.

I actually don't like any of these suggestions.

The simple answer is to give everyone base amount of recruiting points(say 50, plus bonus for open scholarships) to make it more even, then make the # of recruits available in part 1 much much smaller.

That's it, that's all. Very simple fixes.

They shouldn't make the # of recruits smaller in cycle 1. Instead, there should be a few more recruits who prefer to wait until the end of cycle 2 to sign. Any previous recruiting points/visits/etc that are used on a recruit who isn't signed in cycle 1 -- and is carried over to cycle 2 -- downgrades.

Example:

Northern Illinois spends 400 recruiting points, 16 HVs, 1 CV and a 20 minute playing time promise on a PG in cycle 1. PG doesn't sign in cycle 1. When cycle 2 begins, the computer knocks off 50% of the value of that recruiting effort, so it is the equivalent of 200 points, 8 HVs, .5 CV and 10 minutes promised. The intervening period lessens the value of that earlier recruiting effort...the recruit isn't thinking about the school, forgets some of what happened on the visits, etc.

Under this scenario, another school -- say Illinois -- coming in at the beginning of cycle 2 can still make a play for the PG. Northern Illinois's advantage is not overwhelming and they are going to have to invest heavily in order to maintain that advantage. A school that just lost its PG as an EE might like this player and go hard after him.

Under this system, going after a player who has a preference for signing in cycle 2 has a risk/reward component. If you think you can come with enough overwhelming force to get them to sign in cycle 1, you might be able to steal them. But if they last until cycle 2, you have a much higher risk of someone spending enough to beat you out. So do you pre-emptively go after your plan B PG who isn't as good, but wants to sign as early as possible? Or do you stick with this guy because you think he is worth spending big to win him?

A way to retain users is what WifS needs. I'm at D3 and recruiting doesn't bother me. But I guarantee the user at Elon dropping big resources on a fellow who'll be SG3 at KY isn't very happy when KY shows and says "Hi, I'm Kentucky. We lost out on options 1-8. You're 9th on our list" isn't exactly enamored with the game.

I decided to push the limits in season 1 of recruiting in 3.0. Lost out to UCLA for 2 recruits I maxed out. Did I complain? Nope they were better. I learned something and moved on. I spent the 2nd period bringing in average players for SDSU with AP only. This go around I played more conservative and brought in a couple four stars who I could offer Playing time to because the class above them sucked. Wrapped up this 2nd class in the first period. I turned a disadvantage (poor first class) into a positive (more playing time for the 2nd class).

The key was to find the positive and use it to my advantage.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/2/2016 5:33:00 PM (view original):
A way to retain users is what WifS needs. I'm at D3 and recruiting doesn't bother me. But I guarantee the user at Elon dropping big resources on a fellow who'll be SG3 at KY isn't very happy when KY shows and says "Hi, I'm Kentucky. We lost out on options 1-8. You're 9th on our list" isn't exactly enamored with the game.

Which is why they should have capped the divisions. But a couple people said that was just D1 teams crying about losing their candy... well one person really.

Those specific words, maybe. But I've seen a lot more say they're crying because they lost their advantages. BTW, Elon is in D1. Capped divisions doesn't really apply. And that's sort of my gripe.

Funny though, some of the people saying "You know the risk of recruiting the top players at a lower prestige school" are also griping about EEs. Seems that's also a risk of recruiting top players. They might just leave early. Hmmmmmmm........

I'll try again. D prestige Elon, at D1, drops 600 AP, 20 HV, a CV, promised minutes/starts. A+ prestige Kentucky loses a battle with 3 cycles remaining. They dump 100 AP, 4 HV and a CV on the same kid. KY wins.

D Elon, the fake school, will recover. Joecoach219 might not. He might say "Yeah, stupid. Bye." He may not even make 12 "Farewell" posts. He just disappears.

"Any previous recruiting points/visits/etc that are used on a recruit who isn't signed in cycle 1 -- and is carried over to cycle 2 -- downgrades."

I suspect that idea isn't going to get a lot of traction. Punishing a coach who did nothing wrong won't fly on a forum where guys are already imagining "punishment" where none exists.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/2/2016 6:01:00 PM (view original):
Those specific words, maybe. But I've seen a lot more say they're crying because they lost their advantages. BTW, Elon is in D1. Capped divisions doesn't really apply. And that's sort of my gripe.

Funny though, some of the people saying "You know the risk of recruiting the top players at a lower prestige school" are also griping about EEs. Seems that's also a risk of recruiting top players. They might just leave early. Hmmmmmmm........

Ah my bad, I misunderstood. Thought you were talking about your D3 team when I mentioned capped divisions.

But on to Elon. Thems the breaks I say. That's the whole point of moving up!! Why else would you want to get to UK or MSU or Duke. You get the prestige benefit. That's the motivation to work your way up. That's the reward for putting in the time and effort for the rebuild.

This is basically what snafu is saying. Put in your dues. Actually EARN the right to move into a highly competitive upper echelon portion of D1 (because ya know, Duke needs to battle UNC and UK for recruits too).

Elon CAN win against UK. It's not impossible. Yes, they have an advantage but it's not insurmountable. You need to be more selective and strategic with your decisions to battle at low D1.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/2/2016 6:08:00 PM (view original):
I'll try again. D prestige Elon, at D1, drops 600 AP, 20 HV, a CV, promised minutes/starts. A+ prestige Kentucky loses a battle with 3 cycles remaining. They dump 100 AP, 4 HV and a CV on the same kid. KY wins.

D Elon, the fake school, will recover. Joecoach219 might not. He might say "Yeah, stupid. Bye." He may not even make 12 "Farewell" posts. He just disappears.

I think 3.0 gets the balance just about exactly right, as is. My only suggestion is to code more recruits toprefer the late signing period, who would be open to effort from teams with early entries. I'm not complaining at all about not getting to roll as a D+ on recruits that higher prestige *actually prioritize*. That's the key difference. In 2.0, CSUN may not have been able to talk to that recruit, even if he wasn't getting attention from Cal and Zona. Even worse, I could have invested all those resources, and ended up losing to a team at the signing cycle that already signed 4 or 5 elite recruits *with no challenge* and so had the resources to cherry-pick whatever they wanted. That set up is what prevented people from battling each other unless they pretty much knew they could win.

Now in this situation, I still didn't end up having a shot because of how higher prestige teams have prioritized. But they had to work for it. I'm totally ok with losing a battle, as long as the winner had to actually invest, and give up opportunities elsewhere.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/2/2016 5:33:00 PM (view original):
A way to retain users is what WifS needs. I'm at D3 and recruiting doesn't bother me. But I guarantee the user at Elon dropping big resources on a fellow who'll be SG3 at KY isn't very happy when KY shows and says "Hi, I'm Kentucky. We lost out on options 1-8. You're 9th on our list" isn't exactly enamored with the game.

What will happen is the coach at Elon will learn the type of player that he can reasonably expect to recruit and still win. Or he will learn a better strategy for getting a higher ranked player. He will learn a lesson from a recruiting loss and move on.

Every coach at a power conference team has successfully navigated through the lower rungs of D1, figuring out how to recruit and win. It's not impossible and we don't need to have everything be equal across the board.

Posted by shoe3 on 12/2/2016 3:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 12/2/2016 3:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/2/2016 11:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 12/1/2016 9:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by texrangers18 on 12/1/2016 7:14:00 PM (view original):
D1 is still an elitist division in HD. Prestige means everything in recruiting.

This is a completely false statement.

It means a lot. Not everything, but a lot.

In Smith, Frank Myers just signed with A+ Arizona. He's a very good juco pg with 2 yrs left. As D+ Cal St Northridge, I went after him hard early. After 5 cycles, I had gone "all-in" and was briefly the only "very high" on his considering list. After 10 cycles, B+ Cal came knocking (I don't know how hard), and I was knocked down to moderate. Then after a few more cycles, Arizona came in and knocked Cal out of signing range, down to moderate. When he signed, CSUN was listed back at very low. Granted, I moved on after being knocked down to moderate, so he didn't get any attention from me after the 11th cycle. But up to that point, I had devoted 50 per cycle. We had a neutral to slightly positive preference profile - 1 VG, 1 G, 1 N, 1 VB (long time coach).

Attention points are weighted. I don't know exactly how, but they are not equivalent, and they do pretty heavily factor prestige.

The fact that an A+ could only knock you down to moderate is problematic to me. A D+ school should get easily kicked to the curb by a A+ school in my opinion. Do we want the game to be realistic or not?

I got knocked to moderate by a B+, who in turn got knocked to moderate by an A+ (Remember, I was very low at the end - after going all in). That's entirely realistic, and exactly how it should work, IMO.

Agree -- looks like I misread your original post.