I feel like APs play a part in all of this somehow. I don't know if we need more AP, or if AP should be the same for everyone regardless of open scholarships, or if it should be used to unlock actions only and not act as effort for recruits, but something is wrong with it. Just not sure what.

Being forced to sit with 80 AP on a recruit you've already gone max HV/CV on because you don't want to give up ground in a battle really limits how many guys you can go after and your ability to find backup options.

Posted by Fregoe on 6/8/2022 3:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/8/2022 11:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Fregoe on 6/8/2022 11:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mlitney on 6/8/2022 10:20:00 AM (view original):
Not to toot my own horn, but I definitely saw this coming and argued long and hard about it. I also argued long and hard for the addition of 4-year promises. It feels like there is someone complaining about losing rolls in every conference chat these days. People are starting to quit.

To be honest, a lot of the complaining is due to bad recruiting practices. I notice that a lot of coaches just target a few players at the beginning and throw everything at them, hoping to win a roll. There's no backup plan, no flexibility. If a team with a higher prestige shows up, there's no reevaluating or critical thinking. People don't analyze preferences, open scholarships, distances, etc, to find the best battles with the best odds. It's just a lazy approach followed by whining after the inevitable collapse. That's not everyone, of course, but I see it all the time.

With that said, there are definitely problems that aren't due to user error. Some really good coaches are struggling as well. I think a few more mid-tier recruits would go a long way to helping solve some of the current issues.

I think enforcing 4-year promises makes a ton of sense as it makes promises more scarce, meaningful, and strategic. It also creates more transfers which helps out with the EE dilemma. Although I think there would need to be a slightly larger penalty if you don't meet the promise and the player transfers. Otherwise a coach could gain an advantage by just offering the max promises to every player, even if a few of them end up leaving.

So these types of changes would improve the quality of teams, but 2/3 of D1 coaches would still miss the NT. Does it make sense to add another tournament beyond the NT and PIT? One that doesn't really boost your prestige, but at least you wouldn't be sitting around for 2 weeks fiddling your thumbs. Maybe have some preseason tournaments? Like teams are automatically entered into a 4-team bracket based off of last season's RPI. So teams with RPI 1, 2, 3, 4 would play each other. 5, 6, 7, 8 and so on. These games would replace exhibition matches and the winner gets an additional $1,000 for recruiting that season? Just something to make the game more fun and interactive. Something to take the sting out of missing the NT.

If People quit the issue will be fixed. I just lost a roll and was ****** for about a minute. And than I remembered some rolls I won. This is what make the game better than just firing up a game counsel and running dynasty mode against a computer.

I agree. recruiting actions have consequences. and we have to be willing to live with the results. Its not like we don't know what the possible outcomes are.

I still dont see the need to give A/A+ teams an out when they don't get their way.

Love the idea of replacing Exhibition games.

Are you really taking the stance:

"We just emptied out D2 and D3 to fill D1, which isn't functioning as well as it once was. Because of that people will get frustrated in D1 and quit, and THEN we can fix the issue."

Given this community had been fighting about ~5 years to keep the population up hoping the devs will give us some much-needed updates to 3.0 this seems like a brutal line to take.

My stance is, I don't mind or care how many people are in DI. I play in a 20 team fantasy football league because I like that it is harder and makes me think more and prepare more. I still like 10 and 12 team leagues. But I am also ok and like the idea of a challenge. I see a lot of talk about the % of people making the NT. I get it. Everyone wants to make the NT. But I also think that people who take D+ teams arent expecting to make deep runs in the NT. they know (or should) that its an up hill battle and gonna take time.

I also take the stance that I have 0 sympathy for any complaints from A/A+ prestige teams when it come to EE or roll losses. I currently have no A/A+ prestige teams but I still loss rolls that I am ahead on. Just lost one yesterday at SD St. However I also win some of those. I loved when I had a guy go early at SD St each of the last few season. did I try to slow them down. maybe. I also started preparing for that a season earlier. Unfortunately I havent won a roll at SD st in a few years. Annoyed yes. but love the wrinkle it threw in my plans and looking forward to see what I can do with that team in the future.

Respectfully, keeping solid player populations should be probably the #1 priority of any updates. Driving users away by not offering a well-balanced and enjoyable product is just not an option.

I think that EEs impact B-A prestige teams the most , and it’s the few A++ teams that aren’t really hurt the system. When I consistently had A++\A+++ at Illinois, EEs were a net plus for us versus other title contender teams because they just meant we had a ridiculous amount of resources every season and could easily fill out our roster with 9 elite guys using our very high prestige, which is really all you need.

FWIW you do things differently than most people at your prestige level that i’m complaining about (including me). You’re signing a lot of D2 level players at B+ prestige, and you’re paying for it this year. I think your current SDSU program is a great example of a mid-tier program that can’t stay competitive consistently under the current system of EEs and rolls you’re getting hurt on. You have a great mindset about it though, so I wish you the best luck to bounce back.

I'm not saying that your strategy (reaching very low and filling your rosters) is completely inferior to reaching higher and taking more walkons. But I think it is much harder to achieve the success that way, and at this point, you're definitely in the minority. At least you're thinking out of the box, but I am not confident it will work.

I’m guessing eventually you will decide you need to aim higher on recruits and you’ll have to take some more walk-ons to do that though. You can join the rest of us with our slowdown and loads of walkonss. ;)

EEs need to be overhauled though.

Posted by Fregoe on 6/8/2022 3:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/8/2022 11:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mlitney on 6/8/2022 10:20:00 AM (view original):
Not to toot my own horn, but I definitely saw this coming and argued long and hard about it. I also argued long and hard for the addition of 4-year promises. It feels like there is someone complaining about losing rolls in every conference chat these days. People are starting to quit.

To be honest, a lot of the complaining is due to bad recruiting practices. I notice that a lot of coaches just target a few players at the beginning and throw everything at them, hoping to win a roll. There's no backup plan, no flexibility. If a team with a higher prestige shows up, there's no reevaluating or critical thinking. People don't analyze preferences, open scholarships, distances, etc, to find the best battles with the best odds. It's just a lazy approach followed by whining after the inevitable collapse. That's not everyone, of course, but I see it all the time.

With that said, there are definitely problems that aren't due to user error. Some really good coaches are struggling as well. I think a few more mid-tier recruits would go a long way to helping solve some of the current issues.

I think enforcing 4-year promises makes a ton of sense as it makes promises more scarce, meaningful, and strategic. It also creates more transfers which helps out with the EE dilemma. Although I think there would need to be a slightly larger penalty if you don't meet the promise and the player transfers. Otherwise a coach could gain an advantage by just offering the max promises to every player, even if a few of them end up leaving.

So these types of changes would improve the quality of teams, but 2/3 of D1 coaches would still miss the NT. Does it make sense to add another tournament beyond the NT and PIT? One that doesn't really boost your prestige, but at least you wouldn't be sitting around for 2 weeks fiddling your thumbs. Maybe have some preseason tournaments? Like teams are automatically entered into a 4-team bracket based off of last season's RPI. So teams with RPI 1, 2, 3, 4 would play each other. 5, 6, 7, 8 and so on. These games would replace exhibition matches and the winner gets an additional $1,000 for recruiting that season? Just something to make the game more fun and interactive. Something to take the sting out of missing the NT.

"I notice that a lot of coaches just target a few players at the beginning and throw everything at them, hoping to win a roll. There's no backup plan, no flexibility. If a team with a higher prestige shows up, there's no reevaluating or critical thinking. People don't analyze preferences, open scholarships, distances, etc, to find the best battles with the best odds. It's just a lazy approach followed by whining after the inevitable collapse. That's not everyone, of course, but I see it all the time."

This is true. On the flip, I build 70 player lists and move onto guys with the best battles only to lose two more rolls to lower prestige teams for bigs with A prestige Louisville to two teams who are of course CARRYING THREE WALKONS since I wrote this post. I mean, I don't know how to compete with this (other than to start targeting D2 JUCOs...hmmmm). The guys I lost are of course the only decent signing either of these teams has so far, although one of the teams actually signed a big with yellow 55 ATH to complement the 5-star they beat me for. No wonder they were able to get in a VH-VH with me, given they take 3 walk-ons and only target 1 decent player per cycle. The other big was a 2-star I was naturally completely sniped on after committing to them with 30 AP from the first cycle and being the only team with an offer until the 2nd signing cycle.

The benefit of losing rolls for so many players is that I can finally join the dark side next year and go slow down with 9 players + 3 walkons at Louisville.

And to be clear, I don't mean to critique the recruiting strategy of two teams above that beat me for the bigs. I recruit the exact same way at B-/B+ prestige... I got in 3 rolls for Top 100 elite players with B- K State, lost all of them, and happily took three walk-ons myself. It's just the most effective way to recruit... far better than trying to fill a roster with third-tier recruits you'll probably have to roll with a C for anyways.

"I notice that a lot of coaches just target a few players at the beginning and throw everything at them, hoping to win a roll. There's no backup plan, no flexibility. If a team with a higher prestige shows up, there's no reevaluating or critical thinking. People don't analyze preferences, open scholarships, distances, etc, to find the best battles with the best odds. It's just a lazy approach followed by whining after the inevitable collapse. That's not everyone, of course, but I see it all the time."

how would anyone know this is true? this at best is a guess. unless I am missing the forum thread where people are posting their recruiting history and AP spend history. serious questions I see a lot of comments like this and have no idea how they can be made.

It's not a guess man. I routinely go through all of the recruits on my list, scanning for weaknesses and opportunities. I have a really good idea of what most coaches are doing throughout RS1 and RS2. Trust me, I see a ton of B- and C+ coaches get on a recruit early and stay on them even after the A+ shows up and pushes them down to moderate. Then you see that same coach complain about how the game isn't fair for mid-majors. It typically goes something like: "I'm done with this game. I was on a recruit from the 1st cycle with 80 AP and maxed visits, and then so-and-so team just shows up at the end and steals him. How am I supposed to compete?"

All the while, I'm seeing 2-3 decent recruits that are going to D2 teams. It's seriously a scouting/recruiting strategy issue.

Posted by shoe3 on 6/8/2022 3:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/8/2022 11:56:00 AM (view original):
For what it is worth, even if people are disagreeing with my fundemendantal analysis of "too much competition, too many rolls, too many walk-ons, too much slowdown, too much hardship caused by EEs, too much promise manipulation, too much EE player growth manipulation" I can't imagine anyone disagrees with my common-sense fixes of (a) penalizing the third walk-on (b) overhaul EEs and (c) cut out promise manipulation.

But I think these three fixes only go halfway and would make the game more enjoyable to play at a higher population. What we really need is to cut the population so people don't get frustrated missing the NT and quit.

I’m just really confused by the conclusion that they need to cut population to keep folks from quitting. Like… what? You know how I feel about slowdown and walkons, but the game incentivizes those things - so the logical move is just, you know, remove those incentives. Lose the slowdown crutch, balance the tempo options, and as with real world economics, when you remove the subsidization of a bad practice, the practice will become less common.

I can think of some ways to make EEs more intelligent, but there should still be an important element of player development choice for coaches to make regarding how fast to develop those recruits, and in what areas. The best new way to address it is through preferences. Programs that produce a lot of early entries, and the ones that emphasize fast development (for lower levels) should have a preference boost area in recruiting. But apart from that, and maybe just having the fake NBA draft slightly more on potential rather than actual attributes, I wouldn’t change much, because that’s an important coaching choice area, it’s a risk/reward with big implications.

Big no on 4 year promises. Terrible idea. It will benefit the top programs the most. My UConn and MSU programs will benefit much more from 4 year promises than UMass or lower level programs. Chilling promises, and ensuring that every program has fewer to use, means less upward mobility, by like a *lot*. That is a very clear advantage for A+ programs, especially the ones who are just offering the promises and churning out the EEs anyway.

Players used to actually leave as upperclassmen when their playing time decreased, regardless of promises. I don’t know why that was axed, but that could certainly come back as far as I’m concerned. That doesn’t chill promises the way making them 4-years, hard and fast would.

I disagree on the 4-year promise thing. I think that it will help the mid-tier prestige teams reach up to the point where I wouldn't support 4-year promises until we fix EEs to help the A-/A teams.

This is because if an A team recruits 8 5-stars per 4 years, they can only offer starts to 5 of them. But if a B team recruits 4 5-stars, they can offer starts to all 4 and still have a spare.

Posted by mlitney on 6/8/2022 4:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Fregoe on 6/8/2022 3:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/8/2022 11:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mlitney on 6/8/2022 10:20:00 AM (view original):
Not to toot my own horn, but I definitely saw this coming and argued long and hard about it. I also argued long and hard for the addition of 4-year promises. It feels like there is someone complaining about losing rolls in every conference chat these days. People are starting to quit.

To be honest, a lot of the complaining is due to bad recruiting practices. I notice that a lot of coaches just target a few players at the beginning and throw everything at them, hoping to win a roll. There's no backup plan, no flexibility. If a team with a higher prestige shows up, there's no reevaluating or critical thinking. People don't analyze preferences, open scholarships, distances, etc, to find the best battles with the best odds. It's just a lazy approach followed by whining after the inevitable collapse. That's not everyone, of course, but I see it all the time.

With that said, there are definitely problems that aren't due to user error. Some really good coaches are struggling as well. I think a few more mid-tier recruits would go a long way to helping solve some of the current issues.

I think enforcing 4-year promises makes a ton of sense as it makes promises more scarce, meaningful, and strategic. It also creates more transfers which helps out with the EE dilemma. Although I think there would need to be a slightly larger penalty if you don't meet the promise and the player transfers. Otherwise a coach could gain an advantage by just offering the max promises to every player, even if a few of them end up leaving.

So these types of changes would improve the quality of teams, but 2/3 of D1 coaches would still miss the NT. Does it make sense to add another tournament beyond the NT and PIT? One that doesn't really boost your prestige, but at least you wouldn't be sitting around for 2 weeks fiddling your thumbs. Maybe have some preseason tournaments? Like teams are automatically entered into a 4-team bracket based off of last season's RPI. So teams with RPI 1, 2, 3, 4 would play each other. 5, 6, 7, 8 and so on. These games would replace exhibition matches and the winner gets an additional $1,000 for recruiting that season? Just something to make the game more fun and interactive. Something to take the sting out of missing the NT.

"I notice that a lot of coaches just target a few players at the beginning and throw everything at them, hoping to win a roll. There's no backup plan, no flexibility. If a team with a higher prestige shows up, there's no reevaluating or critical thinking. People don't analyze preferences, open scholarships, distances, etc, to find the best battles with the best odds. It's just a lazy approach followed by whining after the inevitable collapse. That's not everyone, of course, but I see it all the time."

This is true. On the flip, I build 70 player lists and move onto guys with the best battles only to lose two more rolls to lower prestige teams for bigs with A prestige Louisville to two teams who are of course CARRYING THREE WALKONS since I wrote this post. I mean, I don't know how to compete with this (other than to start targeting D2 JUCOs...hmmmm). The guys I lost are of course the only decent signing either of these teams has so far, although one of the teams actually signed a big with yellow 55 ATH to complement the 5-star they beat me for. No wonder they were able to get in a VH-VH with me, given they take 3 walk-ons and only target 1 decent player per cycle. The other big was a 2-star I was naturally completely sniped on after committing to them with 30 AP from the first cycle and being the only team with an offer until the 2nd signing cycle.

The benefit of losing rolls for so many players is that I can finally join the dark side next year and go slow down with 9 players + 3 walkons at Louisville.

And to be clear, I don't mean to critique the recruiting strategy of two teams above that beat me for the bigs. I recruit the exact same way at B-/B+ prestige... I got in 3 rolls for Top 100 elite players with B- K State, lost all of them, and happily took three walk-ons myself. It's just the most effective way to recruit... far better than trying to fill a roster with third-tier recruits you'll probably have to roll with a C for anyways.

"I notice that a lot of coaches just target a few players at the beginning and throw everything at them, hoping to win a roll. There's no backup plan, no flexibility. If a team with a higher prestige shows up, there's no reevaluating or critical thinking. People don't analyze preferences, open scholarships, distances, etc, to find the best battles with the best odds. It's just a lazy approach followed by whining after the inevitable collapse. That's not everyone, of course, but I see it all the time."

how would anyone know this is true? this at best is a guess. unless I am missing the forum thread where people are posting their recruiting history and AP spend history. serious questions I see a lot of comments like this and have no idea how they can be made.

It's not a guess man. I routinely go through all of the recruits on my list, scanning for weaknesses and opportunities. I have a really good idea of what most coaches are doing throughout RS1 and RS2. Trust me, I see a ton of B- and C+ coaches get on a recruit early and stay on them even after the A+ shows up and pushes them down to moderate. Then you see that same coach complain about how the game isn't fair for mid-majors. It typically goes something like: "I'm done with this game. I was on a recruit from the 1st cycle with 80 AP and maxed visits, and then so-and-so team just shows up at the end and steals him. How am I supposed to compete?"

All the while, I'm seeing 2-3 decent recruits that are going to D2 teams. It's seriously a scouting/recruiting strategy issue.

Yeah, Fregoe, you can tell what other teams are doing by monitoring the considering lists.

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/8/2022 4:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mlitney on 6/8/2022 4:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Fregoe on 6/8/2022 3:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/8/2022 11:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mlitney on 6/8/2022 10:20:00 AM (view original):
Not to toot my own horn, but I definitely saw this coming and argued long and hard about it. I also argued long and hard for the addition of 4-year promises. It feels like there is someone complaining about losing rolls in every conference chat these days. People are starting to quit.

To be honest, a lot of the complaining is due to bad recruiting practices. I notice that a lot of coaches just target a few players at the beginning and throw everything at them, hoping to win a roll. There's no backup plan, no flexibility. If a team with a higher prestige shows up, there's no reevaluating or critical thinking. People don't analyze preferences, open scholarships, distances, etc, to find the best battles with the best odds. It's just a lazy approach followed by whining after the inevitable collapse. That's not everyone, of course, but I see it all the time.

With that said, there are definitely problems that aren't due to user error. Some really good coaches are struggling as well. I think a few more mid-tier recruits would go a long way to helping solve some of the current issues.

I think enforcing 4-year promises makes a ton of sense as it makes promises more scarce, meaningful, and strategic. It also creates more transfers which helps out with the EE dilemma. Although I think there would need to be a slightly larger penalty if you don't meet the promise and the player transfers. Otherwise a coach could gain an advantage by just offering the max promises to every player, even if a few of them end up leaving.

So these types of changes would improve the quality of teams, but 2/3 of D1 coaches would still miss the NT. Does it make sense to add another tournament beyond the NT and PIT? One that doesn't really boost your prestige, but at least you wouldn't be sitting around for 2 weeks fiddling your thumbs. Maybe have some preseason tournaments? Like teams are automatically entered into a 4-team bracket based off of last season's RPI. So teams with RPI 1, 2, 3, 4 would play each other. 5, 6, 7, 8 and so on. These games would replace exhibition matches and the winner gets an additional $1,000 for recruiting that season? Just something to make the game more fun and interactive. Something to take the sting out of missing the NT.

"I notice that a lot of coaches just target a few players at the beginning and throw everything at them, hoping to win a roll. There's no backup plan, no flexibility. If a team with a higher prestige shows up, there's no reevaluating or critical thinking. People don't analyze preferences, open scholarships, distances, etc, to find the best battles with the best odds. It's just a lazy approach followed by whining after the inevitable collapse. That's not everyone, of course, but I see it all the time."

This is true. On the flip, I build 70 player lists and move onto guys with the best battles only to lose two more rolls to lower prestige teams for bigs with A prestige Louisville to two teams who are of course CARRYING THREE WALKONS since I wrote this post. I mean, I don't know how to compete with this (other than to start targeting D2 JUCOs...hmmmm). The guys I lost are of course the only decent signing either of these teams has so far, although one of the teams actually signed a big with yellow 55 ATH to complement the 5-star they beat me for. No wonder they were able to get in a VH-VH with me, given they take 3 walk-ons and only target 1 decent player per cycle. The other big was a 2-star I was naturally completely sniped on after committing to them with 30 AP from the first cycle and being the only team with an offer until the 2nd signing cycle.

The benefit of losing rolls for so many players is that I can finally join the dark side next year and go slow down with 9 players + 3 walkons at Louisville.

And to be clear, I don't mean to critique the recruiting strategy of two teams above that beat me for the bigs. I recruit the exact same way at B-/B+ prestige... I got in 3 rolls for Top 100 elite players with B- K State, lost all of them, and happily took three walk-ons myself. It's just the most effective way to recruit... far better than trying to fill a roster with third-tier recruits you'll probably have to roll with a C for anyways.

"I notice that a lot of coaches just target a few players at the beginning and throw everything at them, hoping to win a roll. There's no backup plan, no flexibility. If a team with a higher prestige shows up, there's no reevaluating or critical thinking. People don't analyze preferences, open scholarships, distances, etc, to find the best battles with the best odds. It's just a lazy approach followed by whining after the inevitable collapse. That's not everyone, of course, but I see it all the time."

how would anyone know this is true? this at best is a guess. unless I am missing the forum thread where people are posting their recruiting history and AP spend history. serious questions I see a lot of comments like this and have no idea how they can be made.

It's not a guess man. I routinely go through all of the recruits on my list, scanning for weaknesses and opportunities. I have a really good idea of what most coaches are doing throughout RS1 and RS2. Trust me, I see a ton of B- and C+ coaches get on a recruit early and stay on them even after the A+ shows up and pushes them down to moderate. Then you see that same coach complain about how the game isn't fair for mid-majors. It typically goes something like: "I'm done with this game. I was on a recruit from the 1st cycle with 80 AP and maxed visits, and then so-and-so team just shows up at the end and steals him. How am I supposed to compete?"

All the while, I'm seeing 2-3 decent recruits that are going to D2 teams. It's seriously a scouting/recruiting strategy issue.

Yeah, Fregoe, you can tell what other teams are doing by monitoring the considering lists.

I agree you can get an idea. But say "a alot" and "throwing everything at them" and "not having back up plans" are assumptions.

"People don't analyze" maybe they do, maybe they dont, maybe they do and dont care, maybe they are and are just making mistakes.

however, lets say "a lot" of coaches are doing this. than the DI overpopulation shouldn't be an issue because those coaches should be easy to out recruit.

Posted by Fregoe on 6/8/2022 4:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/8/2022 4:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mlitney on 6/8/2022 4:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Fregoe on 6/8/2022 3:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/8/2022 11:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mlitney on 6/8/2022 10:20:00 AM (view original):
Not to toot my own horn, but I definitely saw this coming and argued long and hard about it. I also argued long and hard for the addition of 4-year promises. It feels like there is someone complaining about losing rolls in every conference chat these days. People are starting to quit.

To be honest, a lot of the complaining is due to bad recruiting practices. I notice that a lot of coaches just target a few players at the beginning and throw everything at them, hoping to win a roll. There's no backup plan, no flexibility. If a team with a higher prestige shows up, there's no reevaluating or critical thinking. People don't analyze preferences, open scholarships, distances, etc, to find the best battles with the best odds. It's just a lazy approach followed by whining after the inevitable collapse. That's not everyone, of course, but I see it all the time.

With that said, there are definitely problems that aren't due to user error. Some really good coaches are struggling as well. I think a few more mid-tier recruits would go a long way to helping solve some of the current issues.

I think enforcing 4-year promises makes a ton of sense as it makes promises more scarce, meaningful, and strategic. It also creates more transfers which helps out with the EE dilemma. Although I think there would need to be a slightly larger penalty if you don't meet the promise and the player transfers. Otherwise a coach could gain an advantage by just offering the max promises to every player, even if a few of them end up leaving.

So these types of changes would improve the quality of teams, but 2/3 of D1 coaches would still miss the NT. Does it make sense to add another tournament beyond the NT and PIT? One that doesn't really boost your prestige, but at least you wouldn't be sitting around for 2 weeks fiddling your thumbs. Maybe have some preseason tournaments? Like teams are automatically entered into a 4-team bracket based off of last season's RPI. So teams with RPI 1, 2, 3, 4 would play each other. 5, 6, 7, 8 and so on. These games would replace exhibition matches and the winner gets an additional $1,000 for recruiting that season? Just something to make the game more fun and interactive. Something to take the sting out of missing the NT.

"I notice that a lot of coaches just target a few players at the beginning and throw everything at them, hoping to win a roll. There's no backup plan, no flexibility. If a team with a higher prestige shows up, there's no reevaluating or critical thinking. People don't analyze preferences, open scholarships, distances, etc, to find the best battles with the best odds. It's just a lazy approach followed by whining after the inevitable collapse. That's not everyone, of course, but I see it all the time."

This is true. On the flip, I build 70 player lists and move onto guys with the best battles only to lose two more rolls to lower prestige teams for bigs with A prestige Louisville to two teams who are of course CARRYING THREE WALKONS since I wrote this post. I mean, I don't know how to compete with this (other than to start targeting D2 JUCOs...hmmmm). The guys I lost are of course the only decent signing either of these teams has so far, although one of the teams actually signed a big with yellow 55 ATH to complement the 5-star they beat me for. No wonder they were able to get in a VH-VH with me, given they take 3 walk-ons and only target 1 decent player per cycle. The other big was a 2-star I was naturally completely sniped on after committing to them with 30 AP from the first cycle and being the only team with an offer until the 2nd signing cycle.

The benefit of losing rolls for so many players is that I can finally join the dark side next year and go slow down with 9 players + 3 walkons at Louisville.

And to be clear, I don't mean to critique the recruiting strategy of two teams above that beat me for the bigs. I recruit the exact same way at B-/B+ prestige... I got in 3 rolls for Top 100 elite players with B- K State, lost all of them, and happily took three walk-ons myself. It's just the most effective way to recruit... far better than trying to fill a roster with third-tier recruits you'll probably have to roll with a C for anyways.

"I notice that a lot of coaches just target a few players at the beginning and throw everything at them, hoping to win a roll. There's no backup plan, no flexibility. If a team with a higher prestige shows up, there's no reevaluating or critical thinking. People don't analyze preferences, open scholarships, distances, etc, to find the best battles with the best odds. It's just a lazy approach followed by whining after the inevitable collapse. That's not everyone, of course, but I see it all the time."

how would anyone know this is true? this at best is a guess. unless I am missing the forum thread where people are posting their recruiting history and AP spend history. serious questions I see a lot of comments like this and have no idea how they can be made.

It's not a guess man. I routinely go through all of the recruits on my list, scanning for weaknesses and opportunities. I have a really good idea of what most coaches are doing throughout RS1 and RS2. Trust me, I see a ton of B- and C+ coaches get on a recruit early and stay on them even after the A+ shows up and pushes them down to moderate. Then you see that same coach complain about how the game isn't fair for mid-majors. It typically goes something like: "I'm done with this game. I was on a recruit from the 1st cycle with 80 AP and maxed visits, and then so-and-so team just shows up at the end and steals him. How am I supposed to compete?"

All the while, I'm seeing 2-3 decent recruits that are going to D2 teams. It's seriously a scouting/recruiting strategy issue.

Yeah, Fregoe, you can tell what other teams are doing by monitoring the considering lists.

I agree you can get an idea. But say "a alot" and "throwing everything at them" and "not having back up plans" are assumptions.

"People don't analyze" maybe they do, maybe they dont, maybe they do and dont care, maybe they are and are just making mistakes.

however, lets say "a lot" of coaches are doing this. than the DI overpopulation shouldn't be an issue because those coaches should be easy to out recruit.

Exactly the opposite, dude. They're really, really hard to out recruit since you have to spend and roll against them, especially when it's so many.

And since I have to make this distinction on all of these posts, I'd like to make it clear I am often one of these coaches. I stick to home-state recruits, but I'll make your life hell if you try to come into my B- fiefdom of Utah in Wooden even if I end up losing the recruit. It's how the majority of mid-tier prestige coaches play.

Im confused, the coaches who do the least amount of work (perceived or real) are the ones that are the hardest to out maneuver?

And as I read back i can see how these are coming of as argumentative comments. but I am enjoying the conversation and learning what others think.

Posted by Fregoe on 6/8/2022 5:17:00 PM (view original):
Im confused, the coaches who do the least amount of work (perceived or real) are the ones that are the hardest to out maneuver?

And as I read back i can see how these are coming of as argumentative comments. but I am enjoying the conversation and learning what others think.

Good question, I’ll go with either depending on circumstance?

The reality is the hardest coach to outmaneuver is the ones who compete for recruits with you. The thought process that goes into the competition is irrelevant

To start, I almost always have a 10-12 man roster, I cant even remember the last time I had less than 10 on my squad. In my high prestige programs I have a good mix of higher development "project" guys along with 4/5 star studs. In my rebuilds I usually have mid-level guys but again, always work to have at least 10 on my roster. Part of the fun of the game for me is taking an imperfect roster and making it work, so I really dont mind having a "project" type player instead of a walk on because in my system walk-ons contribute nothing where as a project player will contribute something someday.

With all of that said, my biggest gripe is going for backup options once you lose a dice roll. I mean, I am really good at chipping away at backup options in case of a dice roll loss, but as has been talked about, it takes a lot of work to constantly be on the lookout for realistic backup options that you can land, and checking every single cycle on this and shifting APs around. With the D1 populations as packed as they are now, finding these backup options is becoming really tedious, like not even fun anymore tedious. And to add on to that fact, you have D2 schools parked on these backup options so it takes resources just to hopefully knock them off the recruit, which after having to battle for everyone these are resources you sometimes seldom have.

I love the idea of a heavier walk on penalty, like really like it...but the more I think about it, this may exacerbate my backup option issue mentioned above, as I imagine most coaches will be a little more conservative in who they go after initially thus sucking down most of the mid-level recruits that are typically your backup options.

I really think increasing the amount of generated mid-level type recruits is the way to go.

A will say one thing about the type of coach who is impossible it out-maneuver, it’s the guy who rolls for all of this players (only elite players) and takes heavy walk-ons.

For example, I referred to an instance of getting sniped by another coach above (perfectly valid strategy to be clear, especially since Im a higher prestige team so I can’t complain about a lower prestige team thinking outside of the box). Immediately, I searched through every recruit in the country, finding someone else they were targeting to launch a counterattack. But the issue is I couldn’t find anyone because they have only offered 3 players and they are all rolls (2 against me!). Now I have to wait until next year to get revenge!

Yeah, I often avoid those types of coaches unless I know I'm going to be 75% odds or better. You can be 100% certain that you'll need to tie up major resources to get good odds. Usually I can find something better elsewhere.

At the same time, it usually doesn't work out for those coaches because their success is based on rolls every season which leads to inconsistent postseason appearances, which leads to lower prestige, which leads to lower odds on rolls. It might have worked when there were 80 D1 coaches, but it's unsustainable with current D1 populations.

“This is because if an A team recruits 8 5-stars per 4 years, they can only offer starts to 5 of them. But if a B team recruits 4 5-stars, they can offer starts to all 4 and still have a spare.”

I can continue to recruit and offer plenty of promises at UConn. I’ll probably offer more and worry less about EEs than I currently do (at my non FB/P schools), if I knew mid majors were more limited. Anyway the point remains, the limit applies to everyone, and it will clearly hit lower prestige teams harder. UConn will be fine recruiting those other 7 roster spots without a starting slot to hand out, especially if I’m looking at EE possibilities.. How do you propose Sacred Heart is supposed to compete with them if their 5 starting slots are tied up?

I’m not sure why you’re fixated on 5-stars. Good coaches at all levels can and do (and should!) offer promises to many types of recruits, including guys who may not get other types of resources thrown their way.

The top-tier schools will save their promises for top-tier recruits. This means that mid-majors will have an advantage on mid-tier recruits as they'll have an additional resource that the A+ schools can't match.

I feel like it's a huge advantage to top teams when they're allowed to offer a start/25 on every recruit and then sit them after 22 games with no consequences. There's no way a C+ team can beat them. But is UNC going to offer promises to the #90 PG when they'd need to start him for 4 seasons? Probably not. Thats clearly good news for rebuilding Memphis.

I honestly can't fathom how 4-year promises are bad for lower teams.

does anyone from whatif read these boards or even care? if so When is the new world opening?