They are not working on it. I had the same thing happened to me and I got really ******.

I'm submitting my second ticket regarding this now. I've had it happen to me three or four times. I worry about it every season now.

I am sending one too

"I am not a programmer, so this is an honest question. I just lost a whenever recruit on the first cycle. Was solidly in the lead at Very high with everyone else at very low. First cycle comes up and Bam - he signs with Tulsa, who I could not even see on the considering list because they start with a T and were more than 10 down on the list."

What would you have done differently if you had seen Tulsa on the list?

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/RecruitProfile/ConsideringList.aspx?rid=4119798

Interesting that he came from VL to knock you all the way down to Moderate in one cycle.

If Tulsa could do it, I'd have to assume any of the other VL schools could theoretically have done the same thing... but knowing one of them was human could have made a big difference.

Posted by l80r20 on 8/16/2017 10:39:00 PM (view original):
"I am not a programmer, so this is an honest question. I just lost a whenever recruit on the first cycle. Was solidly in the lead at Very high with everyone else at very low. First cycle comes up and Bam - he signs with Tulsa, who I could not even see on the considering list because they start with a T and were more than 10 down on the list."

What would you have done differently if you had seen Tulsa on the list?

I would have put enough effort into him to be sure I was able to win the recruit.

Posted by kcsundevil on 8/16/2017 10:59:00 PM (view original):
https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/RecruitProfile/ConsideringList.aspx?rid=4119798

Interesting that he came from VL to knock you all the way down to Moderate in one cycle.

If Tulsa could do it, I'd have to assume any of the other VL schools could theoretically have done the same thing... but knowing one of them was human could have made a big difference.

I remembered him being on the list in the first cycle, but over time he dropped off and was at very low. I didn't have all that much in the recruit because my other assumption was that since it was a whenever recruit, the chances of him going on the very first cycle were very slim, so I felt like if someone did put effort in, I could recover. So, I was also very unlucky in this case.

But the whole point is, there should not be an advantage for any school based on where they fall alphabetically. They should either make the whole list available to everyone, or do away with the considering list. Or make it to where people can only see high through moderate teams. What't the point of having a partial list? I would just like to see it be an even playing field.

Since Tulsa was able to knock you down to moderate in one cycle you had not put much effort in, lots of people have submitted tickets about this, WIS is clearly not working on anything in this game after the WE situation, so don't count on this getting changed.

Ridiculous oversight that should have been corrected as soon as it was first identified

Posted by bakerbarnett on 8/16/2017 11:26:00 PM (view original):
Since Tulsa was able to knock you down to moderate in one cycle you had not put much effort in, lots of people have submitted tickets about this, WIS is clearly not working on anything in this game after the WE situation, so don't count on this getting changed.

Yeah, this sounds more like the weaksauce "right to counter" argument than a solid example of the "10 teams" problem.

If you want a good player, assume there will be competition.

Posted by bathtubhippo on 8/16/2017 11:29:00 PM (view original):
Ridiculous oversight that should have been corrected as soon as it was first identified

This was a deliberate design feature, not an oversight. They knew there would be plenty of players who would have more than 10 teams ante up.

No reason to taunt or troll, but this is one issue that seems to draw a great deal if user angst, but is planned design and not an oversight.

The entire redesign had a core principle to compel battles and obfuscate the resources of your known and unknown opponents. So, there is a weird "signing preference" to muck which cycle a recruit might sign. A player could be putting a large amount of AP into a recruit, but have offered nothing, then drop all on the signing cycle. You are intended to NOT be able to adjust your actions to avoid battles.

The only change to this that would be appropriate would be to make the list random within each level. That way a "Tulsa" would not enjoy an advantage over "Belmont".

Now, in season recruiting was a terrible idea, the patch "second period" simply does not function, my complaint from the beginning, that new users or users that change jobs would lose interest when unable to recruit prior to their first season, and ignoring the entire userbase's preference to revamp the job application process have all been ignored and have seriously damaged an otherwise good product. However, most longtime users warned that no one should expect continued attention after rollout to address issues.

Sure enough, WIS is not allocating programming time to clean up this mess. I mean the damn national champions list hasn't updated since rollout. Ridiculous!

Yes - I would even be OK with the list being random, although if it is designed to muddy the waters, why not just get rid of the considering list altogether. Maybe send an occasional email saying, Coach, I hear Tulsa may be in the running for Smithers, so if I were you I'd probably try to let him know he's still a priority for us. I wish that they would sell this off to a company that made the game a priority. It's a fun game, and most of the improvements made it better in my opinion, but things like this and the others that you mention cause players to lose interest.

"I wish that they would sell this off to a company that made the game a priority"

I think everyone here feels this way. It's a bummer. Best we can hope for with HD is that it just remains stagnant and that's pretty sad.