Hardwood - Suggestions: Recruiting point recoupment

Forum >> Suggestions >> Recruiting point recoupment

Post ID	Date & Time	Game Date

#8667	12/19/2019 10:17:53 am	Jan 2nd, 2010
El jefe Joined: 07/06/2018 Posts: 704 Temple Owls I.1	I've been thinking about this a bit lately given how long it takes some recruits to commit, and the potential detrimental impacts to a program if they commit a number of recruiting points and lose out on a recruit. 1. For any recruit that has High interest or above in your team, if your team loses out on that recruit then you receive a recruiting point recoupment of 25% of points spent on that recruit (up to 20 points). This will help a team "recover" by having enough points to invest in another recruit. Also confines the scenarios that this would apply to only those where a recruit has High interest (and presumably one or more other teams would have had High interest as well). 2. In the absence of #1 (or in tandem), actually have interested schools ranked by priority on a recruits home page. So for example if Temple, Villanova, Butler, Misericordia, and Seton Hall all have High interest, the recruits home page would rank them #1 - #5. Or maybe something where the recruit ranks his top 2 schools. Basically something to give visibility and make more comparable to what we see from top recruits now.

#8671	12/19/2019 11:20:18 am	Jan 2nd, 2010
pschwartz Joined: 05/07/2019 Posts: 857 Inactive	For #1 that was already suggested here (and pretty much shot down)- http://onlinecollegebasketball.org/forum/-/5/892 For #2 - most top recruits list out their top schools and will make a decision off of that. They usually sit at a table with the college hats in a row, get ESPN to televise it, and then pick a hat. Recruiting analysts might have a favorite of who they will pick, but usually the teams don't know who the favorite is. I think this lines up with how HW does it with all of the 'High' teams being in that final list. I don't think listing the schools by their true interest level is that realistic. Plus it adds some uncertainty to the game which I think is a good thing (but is just my opinion) Updated Thursday, December 19 2019 @ 12:23:10 pm PST

#8680	12/20/2019 5:43:50 pm	Jan 7th, 2010
El jefe Joined: 07/06/2018 Posts: 704 Temple Owls I.1	In the other post, I don't agree with the time and resources argument. Schools don't have "2 recruiting contacts per day"; they can send out their team to meet with as many people as they want as frequently as they want. So that's already a deviation from "real life" in this game. If they lose out on someone, they step up their efforts with other candidates which this game does not provide a mechanism to emulate. Earning back some of those lost points would make it a little more realistic to how a team would respond in "real life".

#8681	12/21/2019 4:50:20 am	Jan 7th, 2010
pschwartz Joined: 05/07/2019 Posts: 857 Inactive	Schools don't have "2 recruiting contacts per day"; they can send out their team to meet with as many people as they want as frequently as they want. I am not sure what this means. You mean the coaching staff? There is actually a limit to the number of times a coach can contact a recruit. This doesn't apply to high school or AAU coaches, but a head coach can't just talk to a HS player every day for months (I believe the limit is 7 contacts per player). Even if we relax that NCAA rule the school still only has a head coach and 3-4 assistants. I don't view contact points as a simple text message or phone call because it usually takes 3-4 to get someone interested. That would never happen in real life. To me a contact would be like traveling to see the player or a visit from the player to campus. The time and resources to do that are not unlimited. If a player commits somewhere else you don't get that time or resources back. Yes, you are correct that they would start working on another player. But the time and resources to do that could be coming from the 2 contact points per day. And in real life if you fill out your scholarships it's not like teams stop recruiting - it just means you start going after underclassmen (similar to what people do in HW).

#8682	12/21/2019 9:38:19 am	Jan 7th, 2010
El jefe Joined: 07/06/2018 Posts: 704 Temple Owls I.1	If I use Syracuse as an example, Mike Hopkins was historically the go-to guy to get the top recruits. If Hopkins failed, you had 3 other guys who were already in contact with the next tier of recruits. So if Hopkins goes all-in and one of these top guys commits elsewhere, you have already positioned yourself reasonably well for the next tier and then Hopkins focuses his time there going forward. So there should be some mechanism to emulate that.....whether it is recoupment of recruiting points, or perhaps a limit on the number of points you can spend each day on one recruit. The latter to both facilitate real life strategy and these NCAA contact rules you reference

#8683	12/21/2019 9:45:18 am	Jan 7th, 2010
El jefe Joined: 07/06/2018 Posts: 704 Temple Owls I.1	Or if everyone wants to follow real-life NCAA, then put a total cap on number of times you can contact someone....period. I personally don't like that since this game should be an improvement over the dumb crap the NCAA enforces

#8684	12/21/2019 9:59:27 am	Jan 9th, 2010
pschwartz Joined: 05/07/2019 Posts: 857 Inactive	If Hopkins gets his top recruits does he just take off the rest of the year? No, he then targets other players. Either players in that same class that were a lower priority if the class isn't full or spending time on next year's recruiting class. Whether a top recruit signs or not only impacts where Hopkins goes next - it doesn't impact how much time he spends or his recruiting budget. If people want to recoup points if they lose a recruit then that is fine. I disagree but that is just a matter of opinion. However, I really don't think adding something like this would make it more realistic to college basketball.

#8686	12/21/2019 10:50:45 am	Jan 9th, 2010
El jefe Joined: 07/06/2018 Posts: 704 Temple Owls I.1	That's the point I'm making. Hopkins isnt the only recruiter, so if he spends all his resources on one or two guys; the rest of the recruiting team still has other recruits covered. So, thus the alternate recommendation to potentially cap recruiting visits for a single player to better emulate that concept.

#8691	12/21/2019 5:36:03 pm	Jan 9th, 2010
pschwartz Joined: 05/07/2019 Posts: 857 Inactive	So are you saying capping the number of total contacts for a player (i.e. can't spend more than 150 cp on a player) or capping the number of contacts per day for a player (i.e. can't spend more than 5 contact points on a player per recruiting update)? I don't think anyone has discussed #2 above, but there was some discussion on #1 when figuring out how to fix recruiting when teams were tanking to get the best players. If you are really bored you can read the discussion here - http://onlinecollegebasketball.org/forum/-/5/832. I think the reason everyone was against capping the number of total contacts was because it would be too advantageous for the best teams.

#8692	12/21/2019 7:20:30 pm	Jan 9th, 2010
El jefe Joined: 07/06/2018 Posts: 704 Temple Owls I.1	Maybe #2 is something to play around with. Trying to innovate various options. Perhaps cap at something like 50% of points you currently have available, per day. With #1, you would have to remove the bias recruits have for higher conference schools.

#8694	12/21/2019 10:42:39 pm	Jan 9th, 2010
admin Joined: 01/24/2017 Posts: 2513 Hardwood Administrator	At this point, contacts/recruiting points are mostly an abstract increment/measurement of recruiting juice. There have been some suggestions to flesh out these points to things like recruiting visits, on-site visits etc. I'm not sure if that's really a improvement - still considering it. As for recoupment, I have considered this before....but we always tried to encourage people not to put all their eggs in one basket...and recoupment seems counter to this and it allows you to bet big and then have some out if you loss out. Steve

#8695	12/22/2019 5:12:08 am	Jan 9th, 2010
El jefe Joined: 07/06/2018 Posts: 704 Temple Owls I.1	I think some of the challenge is that you can easily not put all of your eggs in one basket and still be spending a hugely significant number of points. I have a lot of red shirts, but from my experience I have seen a lot of guys get to Medium for example and then the next year they drop to Low (either due to red shirting, division drops, more minutes to younger guys, recruits from the year before coming in, etc). Let's say it took me 30 points plus a scholarship to get to Medium - if I suffer a drop in interest, it could be another 15 points to get that interest back up. That's a substantial investment to just get to medium so even with me not putting all my eggs in one basket, I can probably only spread my limited points around to a few guys to get them to medium. Given there will more than likely be several teams at high interest, I have no choice but to go in more heavily on some of those mediums. That's under the old system too - under the new one, I'm finding it takes longer to go through Low, Low+, Low++ to even get to Medium in the first place. Maybe the daily cap (emulating restrictions on recruiting visits), or establishing no incremental benefit once you get to High or Very High (i.e., you've done what you can at that point) would help. Alternatively, maybe some visibility into what it would take for the next level (not exact, but a range - 20-35 points to High)

#8701	12/22/2019 11:29:09 am	Jan 14th, 2010
pschwartz Joined: 05/07/2019 Posts: 857 Inactive	Maybe the daily cap (emulating restrictions on recruiting visits), I am not personally opposed to limiting the number of contacts you can put into a player in a given recruiting update. However, it will create a problem at the beginning of the season when everyone gets a large number of points and has to sit on them over a few days. It also forces players to check-in everyday to spend their points - something they may not be able to do. It just makes the game have more of a commitment from its users which might turn people off. or establishing no incremental benefit once you get to High or Very High (i.e., you've done what you can at that point) would help. This was discussed a bit in the thread I linked and there was a lot of negativity towards this idea. The reason is recruiting would then become very random - especially for the top players. For instance - this guy (http://onlinecollegebasketball.org/player/62634) has 12 teams on High interest. I don't know how many on 'Very High' but it is probably a lot. Implementing this would make it so this player signs with a random team which could be very frustrating for a lot of users. Alternatively, maybe some visibility into what it would take for the next level (not exact, but a range - 20-35 points to High) Don't we already have this with the Low, Low+, and Low++? For me the gap between low and medium is just 3x the gap between Low and Low+ (maybe +/- a few points). So if it took me 4 points to get to low, and then 3 points to get to Low+, it would take an additional 5-7 points to get to medium. Now, maybe this should go in another thread. But this idea of having backup options is not working at all in HW. I have 4 scholarships open and going into this season I had 9 offers out. All 4 of my top players I had on Very High, with no one else on High, and 3 of them only with other schools on low. I pulled the other 5 scholarships because I felt like I was far ahead on my top guys and didn't want to risk a worse player taking up a scholarship. What has happened? One of my top recruits signed with me. Another has 2 other schools on high - that's fine. The other two top recruits still only have low interest from other schools and 'very high' for me but they are still not committing. What about my 'backups'? 4 of them have signed already and some of them never had interest above low from anyone. If I hadn't pulled those scholarships my team would have been filled with mediocre players while my top guys are sitting there twiddling their thumbs. It makes no sense. Why would I want to have backup options and potentially lose out on 50+ contacts because some guy on low interest decides to commit to me?

#8704	12/22/2019 8:22:18 pm	Jan 14th, 2010
El jefe Joined: 07/06/2018 Posts: 704 Temple Owls I.1	Agree with everything you said in the last paragraph.

#8705	12/22/2019 10:09:40 pm	Jan 14th, 2010
admin Joined: 01/24/2017 Posts: 2513 Hardwood Administrator	What would a daily limit on contacts be? One problem is that some people log in every day and can spend their two points daily, while others login every week and are spending 10-20 points at a time. Steve

#8706	12/23/2019 9:48:43 am	Jan 14th, 2010
El jefe Joined: 07/06/2018 Posts: 704 Temple Owls I.1	50% of your available points

#8707	12/23/2019 10:20:17 am	Jan 16th, 2010
Philliesworld Joined: 02/04/2018 Posts: 222 Inactive	I'm not really in favour of teams getting any points back, while I'm open to persuasion I just do not like the roads it could lead to... And I should know I have lost hundreds of points already to star prospects I've chased. Calculated risks and I always had a backup plan. Updated Monday, December 23 2019 @ 10:20:53 am PST

#8710	12/23/2019 11:33:24 am	Jan 16th, 2010
pschwartz Joined: 05/07/2019 Posts: 857 Inactive	I just opened a new thread about the timing of recruit commitments that I don't think really fits here - http://onlinecollegebasketball.org/forum/0/5/985 What would a daily limit on contacts be? That's the problem. If you make it too large (i.e. 15 contacts per day) then what is the point? If you make it too small (i.e. 5 contacts per day) then you risk messing up the users who log in once per week during the season. 50% of your available points If someone is stockpiling points waiting patiently to see what happens then they are at a disadvantage getting rid of them. Plus people might lose out at the end of the season where points over 10 are halved for the next season. Plus - if people are logging in once a week then they can't spend all of their recruiting points this way.

#8711	12/23/2019 12:12:18 pm	Jan 16th, 2010
El jefe Joined: 07/06/2018 Posts: 704 Temple Owls I.1	If I log in every day, 50% of my 2 points can be used on 1 guy. If I log in once a week, 7 of my 14 points can be used on one guy. So it should put you in the same place and accommodate those who log in less frequently.

#8715	12/24/2019 10:53:51 am	Jan 21st, 2010
pschwartz Joined: 05/07/2019 Posts: 857 Inactive	Right, you have 7 left. Then when you log in a week later you have 21, can spend 11, 10 left over. Week after that you have 24, spend 12, have 12 left over - it just keeps going up. If you are going after multiple people then it is fine. But some might only have one scholarship for next season and want to go all-in on a recruit.

#8724	12/25/2019 9:20:59 am	Jan 21st, 2010
El jefe Joined: 07/06/2018 Posts: 704 Temple Owls I.1	They can spend those on recruits for subsequent years.