the recruiting page needs someplace that says what recruiting "cycle" time period we are in, or has been completed, unless its there and I'm missing it.

1) the guys we have sent attention to should automatically move to the top of our targets list. I have all my guys I have given attention to in Level 1 but I think they should move to the top based on the interest level you are at with them. Right now they are just randomly spread out within the Level 1 targets I have.

2) Either that, or allow us to drag and drop recruits on the target page so we can have them in the exact order we want them in.

3) Any update on if you are going to add to a recruits profile a tracker for the number of campus visits the recruit has taken to date (so we know if they are done with their 5 visits).

Thanks

One thing to consider when talking about prestige and how it relates to all 3 divisions and the ability to sign/recruit "anyone". I think we should make it where those team in DII & DIII that are A+ prestige schools carry more weigh in recruiting those players projected to be lower DI talent against DI schools with a prestige of a C- or lower. The same thought process would be in place for higher prestige teams in DIII looking at the lower level of DII recruits. This to me is a fair trade off on multiple levels. Who wouldn't want to be a top player for title contender year in and year out at a lower level instead of riding the bench and maybe getting some playing time on a struggling team at the higher level. I think this would add another layer of strategy for those at the lower level and with more limited funds if it was worth it and if they had enough of a prestige advantage to sign the recruit. Just something to keep in mind when making these changes to prestige that are being talked about.

Posted by vandydave on 6/7/2016 7:52:00 PM (view original):
the recruiting page needs someplace that says what recruiting "cycle" time period we are in, or has been completed, unless its there and I'm missing it.

Was just about to post about this myself. Under the old system, you'd know for sure when a cycle was complete because you'd have a bunch of messages. Could use something like HBD has where it says "PM2 Part 2 Cycle Complete" or whatever either on the main office page or in the Recruiting section.

Posted by jaymc2007 on 6/7/2016 3:28:00 PM (view original):
When filtering out players in recruiting pool, the options are "undecided", "unsigned", "any", or "signed".... I think you should add one that has "no high interest" on there.

Love this.

Posted by dw172300 on 6/8/2016 11:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jaymc2007 on 6/7/2016 3:28:00 PM (view original):
When filtering out players in recruiting pool, the options are "undecided", "unsigned", "any", or "signed".... I think you should add one that has "no high interest" on there.

Love this.

But the system doesn't work this way. The leader always shows as "Very High," right?

Start a thread that lists any changes that have been made. There are tons of suggestions being made but its hard to find out when something has actually been fixed/added. This would be helpful so we aren't repeating ourselves or each other.

Is there anyway we can at least see how many openings a team we are battling for a recruit has to fill please? I get we don't want to show who is considering that school because they might have discovered a player we have not seen. But I feel we need some way to figure out whether or not battling a school(s) for a recruit is a winning proposition given the resources at hand. If we know at the very least how many opening schools have, we can calculate how much cash they are work with to fight us. Right now we are just going into fights blind which is going to have negative outcomes even for higher prestige teams.

Posted by poke_man on 6/7/2016 12:21:00 PM (view original):
Attention points need to be reworked. A team with six openings has no more time or hours in the day than a team with one opening. In reality, the team with six openings is at a disadvantage but not in this game. They are in a advantageous position. I can understand giving a set amount of attention points per opening to make the whole system work, but there should be a maximum amount that can be allocated to one player. Like 15 or 20 per player. The teams with one opening should not be at a severe disadvantage.

Here's the logic test:

Real life Kentucky has 1 opening

Real life St. John's has 5 openings

There is an EXTREMELY low chance, St. John's is getting the #1 recruit over Kentucky. The way HD is setup, it's actually very feasible. If Kentucky wants that dude, they would be all over him and maybe 2 other guys as a just in case. Meanwhile, St John's is balancing probably 12-13 possible recruits ranging from 5 star superstars to 2 star locals.

Posted by z0601 on 6/8/2016 11:56:00 AM (view original):
Is there anyway we can at least see how many openings a team we are battling for a recruit has to fill please? I get we don't want to show who is considering that school because they might have discovered a player we have not seen. But I feel we need some way to figure out whether or not battling a school(s) for a recruit is a winning proposition given the resources at hand. If we know at the very least how many opening schools have, we can calculate how much cash they are work with to fight us. Right now we are just going into fights blind which is going to have negative outcomes even for higher prestige teams.

I'll take this a step further. Is there a way to determine how many recruits are currently "considering" one team. In the current system a major strategy is to find teams that are over-extended (8 guys considering with only 2 scholarships to fill). If it's not possible to see who's considering a school because they may have discovered recruits that we can't see, that's fine, but it feels important to know how many guys are considering them, or at the very least how many guys that I have discovered are considering them (which might be the more fair way to do it, and would be another reason to use your scouting budget wisely).

Posted by poke_man on 6/7/2016 12:21:00 PM (view original):
Attention points need to be reworked. A team with six openings has no more time or hours in the day than a team with one opening. In reality, the team with six openings is at a disadvantage but not in this game. They are in a advantageous position. I can understand giving a set amount of attention points per opening to make the whole system work, but there should be a maximum amount that can be allocated to one player. Like 15 or 20 per player. The teams with one opening should not be at a severe disadvantage.

I like this idea, but I would Still give some advantage to a team that has more openings. I would also give attention points to teams that have zero openings, if they are expected to lose a player to EE. I think a fairer system would be something like this:
1 opening - 50 Attention Points
Then add 10 more for each opening.

So, a team with 3 openings would have 70 to spread around, but a team with one opening would still have 50. Then they could actually compete for at least getting the attention of recruits. But instead of being outgunned by 60 to 20, it would be 70 to 50.

In this case a team with 3 openings would have 80, and a team with 5 openings would have 100, so it would be pretty close. Love to see that with recruiting dollars as well.

This would also increase the competition for recruits in my opinion.

Posted by chapelhillne on 6/8/2016 2:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by poke_man on 6/7/2016 12:21:00 PM (view original):
Attention points need to be reworked. A team with six openings has no more time or hours in the day than a team with one opening. In reality, the team with six openings is at a disadvantage but not in this game. They are in a advantageous position. I can understand giving a set amount of attention points per opening to make the whole system work, but there should be a maximum amount that can be allocated to one player. Like 15 or 20 per player. The teams with one opening should not be at a severe disadvantage.

I like this idea, but I would Still give some advantage to a team that has more openings. I would also give attention points to teams that have zero openings, if they are expected to lose a player to EE. I think a fairer system would be something like this:
1 opening - 50 Attention Points
Then add 10 more for each opening.

So, a team with 3 openings would have 70 to spread around, but a team with one opening would still have 50. Then they could actually compete for at least getting the attention of recruits. But instead of being outgunned by 60 to 20, it would be 70 to 50.

In this case a team with 3 openings would have 80, and a team with 5 openings would have 100, so it would be pretty close. Love to see that with recruiting dollars as well.

This would also increase the competition for recruits in my opinion.

You contradict yourself a bit in this. You say that you would still give attention points to teams that have zero openings (I agree) but then suggest a system that gives 50 points to teams with 1 opening, but ostensibly none to teams with no openings.

Additional you talk about giving an advantage to teams with more openings, but if I do the math in your suggested system the team with one opening (50 points per opening) will be much better off than the team with 3 openings (23 points per opening) or 5 openings (20 points per opening). Obviously the more openings - the more raw number of points, but unless you're planning to get bottom of the barrel guys who were ignored through the first period at least (and that's a strategy, certainly) I wouldn't really say that the team with more openings has any "advantage" in what you propose.

Posted by chapelhillne on 6/8/2016 2:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by poke_man on 6/7/2016 12:21:00 PM (view original):
Attention points need to be reworked. A team with six openings has no more time or hours in the day than a team with one opening. In reality, the team with six openings is at a disadvantage but not in this game. They are in a advantageous position. I can understand giving a set amount of attention points per opening to make the whole system work, but there should be a maximum amount that can be allocated to one player. Like 15 or 20 per player. The teams with one opening should not be at a severe disadvantage.

I like this idea, but I would Still give some advantage to a team that has more openings. I would also give attention points to teams that have zero openings, if they are expected to lose a player to EE. I think a fairer system would be something like this:
1 opening - 50 Attention Points
Then add 10 more for each opening.

So, a team with 3 openings would have 70 to spread around, but a team with one opening would still have 50. Then they could actually compete for at least getting the attention of recruits. But instead of being outgunned by 60 to 20, it would be 70 to 50.

In this case a team with 3 openings would have 80, and a team with 5 openings would have 100, so it would be pretty close. Love to see that with recruiting dollars as well.

This would also increase the competition for recruits in my opinion.

I posted a thought somewhat along these lines in the EE thread. I like the idea, and I would like to see something like this for attention points and recruiting dollars, but I think the baseline amount of attention points (that everyone gets, regardless of openings) should be relatively much higher than the baseline amount of recruiting cash

Posted by dw172300 on 6/8/2016 2:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by chapelhillne on 6/8/2016 2:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by poke_man on 6/7/2016 12:21:00 PM (view original):
Attention points need to be reworked. A team with six openings has no more time or hours in the day than a team with one opening. In reality, the team with six openings is at a disadvantage but not in this game. They are in a advantageous position. I can understand giving a set amount of attention points per opening to make the whole system work, but there should be a maximum amount that can be allocated to one player. Like 15 or 20 per player. The teams with one opening should not be at a severe disadvantage.

I like this idea, but I would Still give some advantage to a team that has more openings. I would also give attention points to teams that have zero openings, if they are expected to lose a player to EE. I think a fairer system would be something like this:
1 opening - 50 Attention Points
Then add 10 more for each opening.

So, a team with 3 openings would have 70 to spread around, but a team with one opening would still have 50. Then they could actually compete for at least getting the attention of recruits. But instead of being outgunned by 60 to 20, it would be 70 to 50.

In this case a team with 3 openings would have 80, and a team with 5 openings would have 100, so it would be pretty close. Love to see that with recruiting dollars as well.

This would also increase the competition for recruits in my opinion.

You contradict yourself a bit in this. You say that you would still give attention points to teams that have zero openings (I agree) but then suggest a system that gives 50 points to teams with 1 opening, but ostensibly none to teams with no openings.

Additional you talk about giving an advantage to teams with more openings, but if I do the math in your suggested system the team with one opening (50 points per opening) will be much better off than the team with 3 openings (23 points per opening) or 5 openings (20 points per opening). Obviously the more openings - the more raw number of points, but unless you're planning to get bottom of the barrel guys who were ignored through the first period at least (and that's a strategy, certainly) I wouldn't really say that the team with more openings has any "advantage" in what you propose.

In the current system, everybody has the same amount of dollars per opening, but you'll be hard pressed to find somebody who doesn't think that having more openings is an advantage

It's a HUGE advantage in current recruiting. I can't think of a single reason why it wouldn't be. Unless you are personally very busy and don't have time to recruit that players and it's more challenging to do so on your own person limited time. But that's a silly reason obviously.