No one's arguing the advantage that multiple openings has in the current system.

50 + 10 feels like much too much of a swing in the other direction however. Teams will end up with one good and one developmental player. I would have suggested something that feels like a much smaller stairstep down. If the current system is based on 20 points per opening maybe numbers like a 20 point baseline and then 15 for each opening is a compromise.

Posted by dw172300 on 6/8/2016 6:28:00 PM (view original):
No one's arguing the advantage that multiple openings has in the current system.

50 + 10 feels like much too much of a swing in the other direction however. Teams will end up with one good and one developmental player. I would have suggested something that feels like a much smaller stairstep down. If the current system is based on 20 points per opening maybe numbers like a 20 point baseline and then 15 for each opening is a compromise.

Keep in mind that that's just for attention points, not for money. for money, my inclination would be to go the other way on the balance--give the teams 1k base + 1k per opening (using D3 as an example), or something like that

May have already been suggested, but I am too lazy to read the last three pages of ideas that have appeared since yesterday.

Recruiting once this goes live REALLY needs to be earlier in the season. I LOVE in season recruiting, but if I was trying to get my team in a tournament, or get Wins for RPI/SOS, it is not going to happen.

There is a real good reason that in Real life recruiting is limited to September to I believe December 1, and the second recruiting window from Mid April to July. That reason is the Coach CANNOT seriously recruit and gameplan for "March Madness", and putting scouting and recruiting directly in front of the Conference Tourney is doing exactly that. This year, I do not give a flying fig about won/loss....especially after the rapid run that took out most gameplanning. But if this was real, it might keep me away from planning when planning is needed the most!

Posted by chapelhillne on 6/7/2016 7:10:00 AM (view original):
For teams that are expecting EEs, right now they are at a disadvantage because they do not get attention points for the players they are likely to use. One possible solution would be to give every team a certain amount of attention points for players on the draft big board (not counting ones that are graduating, since they are already getting attention points). This would make it to where people who are expecting EEs get some attention points to start recruiting so that they will not be at as much of a disadvantage when the players end up leaving early.

Perhaps something like this:
Likely going 20
On the Fence 15
Likely staying 10

+1
Says the man who has never had a EE, but still a real nice idea!

Posted by dw172300 on 6/8/2016 6:28:00 PM (view original):
No one's arguing the advantage that multiple openings has in the current system.

50 + 10 feels like much too much of a swing in the other direction however. Teams will end up with one good and one developmental player. I would have suggested something that feels like a much smaller stairstep down. If the current system is based on 20 points per opening maybe numbers like a 20 point baseline and then 15 for each opening is a compromise.

I like this too! I am curious if selbe is looking at any of these fifteen pages for beta year 2 changes? Some really good idea's!

Please do not change attention points. One or six, it all averages out to 20 per opening.

I think I have seen this mentioned somewhere, but I think it would be a nice addition to be able to get an idea of when a recruit might sign, ie early or late. A couple of ideas for this - Around the 2, 5 or 8 PM cycle on the first signing day, send an identical message to the top 5-10 schools on the recruits list indicating a desire to either wrap things up "Coaches, I'm getting tired of this recruiting circus, I'm thinking about making my decision on ESPN Ocho as soon as I can get a time slot" or delaying things "Coaches, thanks for the interest. I'm just not ready to make up my mind yet. I'm playing in the MacDonald's All American game in a few weeks and I'll be announcing my decision at half time of that game."

Another idea: once you get to a scouting level 2 or 3 on a recruit, there could be some indication of a recruit's desire (on the preferences page for each recruit) to make an "early decision" or a "late decision" so that schools who are pursuing the recruit have an idea of whether they should move on to someone else or hang in there because there is more time.

I'd like to see drop downs / pull downs still be available for d2 and d3. I think that adds interest and excitement to the game. Granted, if a d2 or d1 school makes a late run - I think the odds of landing the recruit should diminish greatly (just like the current system - although less so for d2 vs. d3).

The feedback letter would be helpful here so that coaches know how is a "back-up" in case things don't work out for said recruit.

While the calls/letters became redundant, the initial feedback is very helpful and I would welcome it back so that coaches know a pull down is possible.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 6/9/2016 10:43:00 AM (view original):
Please do not change attention points. One or six, it all averages out to 20 per opening.

if you don't change the attention points, consider making it a little easier to open up recruit actions.

Posted by brianxavier on 6/9/2016 11:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 6/9/2016 10:43:00 AM (view original):
Please do not change attention points. One or six, it all averages out to 20 per opening.

if you don't change the attention points, consider making it a little easier to open up recruit actions.

No argument there.

Posted by brianxavier on 6/9/2016 11:31:00 AM (view original):
I'd like to see drop downs / pull downs still be available for d2 and d3. I think that adds interest and excitement to the game. Granted, if a d2 or d1 school makes a late run - I think the odds of landing the recruit should diminish greatly (just like the current system - although less so for d2 vs. d3).

The feedback letter would be helpful here so that coaches know how is a "back-up" in case things don't work out for said recruit.

While the calls/letters became redundant, the initial feedback is very helpful and I would welcome it back so that coaches know a pull down is possible.

Why would you rather wait for them to drop down than just recruit them immediately.

Would never have guessed in a million years that off. schol. meant that a scholarship was on the table.....

Maybe change that to Offered (Y/N)? I thought they went to offensive school when I saw off. schol.

Posted by skinzfan36 on 6/6/2016 10:52:00 PM (view original):
Yeah if you couldn't click on him that would work...good solution. I do like being able to see who schools are considering, I just thought it could be a problem with this new process.

Not to reignite our debate our anything Skinzfan, but I should have shared this earlier. You already CAN view other peoples recruits if they link to them. Obviously you need them to do it but this is what happens when you see a recruit that you haven't discovered.

http://test.whatifsports.net/whatifsports/hd/RecruitProfile/Ratings.aspx?rid=51318

So we could have this listed out but you click on him and it says "this recruit has not been discovered yet"

hey seble - i think this is really important. let me present my example story first. so, im on this 5 star big man from the beginning, so are a few other schools, notably, florida (who had prestige advantage and dist disadvantage - potential for very close battle). i dont really do much in terms of anything but AP until signings. on this guy, i think i had given him a CV already, but nothing more.

7:30 before signings - florida is very high, i think, and i think i was moderate or high or something.
7:31 - i am very high, florida is low (i put stuff in)
7:55 - florida puts effort in, is high, i am very high
7:56 - florida is low, i am very high
player signs with me.

ebay style sniping cannot replace poaching, it will make people insane. in the current paradigm, for strategy reasons, i'm going to have to wait till 7:59 to put my effort in for many players. folks who are not incessantly reloading will not notice that they went from very high to my low, to me being very high and them low, or whatever. you've got to add some logic.

one other thing - i notice multiple players are signing who are very high on multiple targets. i agree we don't want all the guys just considering 1 person or only moderate or higher on 1 person, or whatever, ALL signing right at signings. so its smart you built in a time for each recruit. however, i strongly suggest you allow a close battle to push that *back*. at least, at high probability, or something.

you know - its not exactly the battle that makes this push back critical. however, if the battle situation changed that cycle - like, if one guy was very high, and another moderate, and it flips because of effort 5 minutes before signings, or before any post-signings cycle - that recruit should wait, probably a minimum of 2 cycles (to go with your theme of not having to incessantly check). even 2 cycles is pushing it - thats 1:59am sniping sign at 5am. maybe 4 cycles is the way to go? i think its critical for this system to work.

P.S. i was pretty skeptical going into this whole thing, and i am in no where near close to a final opinion, but i am definitely intrigued by the new system, and have enjoyed it so far. it seems there is some balancing necessary but the overall construct is pretty interesting!

+1 to gillespie's suggestion

I love having the recruit have preferences on when to sign. the combination of that with the attention point system really makes poaching a thing of the past, which is awesome.

But if the battle has been swinging within the last three hours, having the recruit delay their decision by a cycle would be good. Not necessarily for realism's sake, but so that people don't need to be checking WIS at 7:59 to make sure they're still in good position