• Announcements

    • Soluna

      General News   07/27/2017

      CFBHC and NFLHC are both delayed 2-3 days to make up the 2 week gap at the beginning of August a bit. Recruiting this week will still be done Saturday night.
Soluna

Improvement Thursday #2

49 posts in this topic

If you could improve CFBHC Recruiting even further, what would you change about the current system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Darman said:

I'd suggest, if possible,  to make it so that the in state bonus doesn't come into play until points of some sort get put on the player.  So teams like minnesots dont get a point advantage on players they don't bid on.

I'd second that, and also suggest that a scholarship be worth at least enough to cancel out the in-state bonus so that in-state schools have to do at least the bare minimum to defend their state's recruits. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Darman said:

I'd suggest, if possible,  to make it so that the in state bonus doesn't come into play until points of some sort get put on the player.  So teams like minnesots dont get a point advantage on players they don't bid on.

 

This isn't going to happen because the initial points represent the interest of state players wanting to stay in their home state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Darman said:

I'd suggest, if possible,  to make it so that the in state bonus doesn't come into play until points of some sort get put on the player.  So teams like minnesots dont get a point advantage on players they don't bid on.

I disagree. Think about it, growing up, kids are exposed to their state schools. I saw alot of Florida, and Florida State games growing up. I really wanted to go to UF, and still intend to get a degree from UF later on. My Fiancee was exposed to FSU alot as a child and thats the school she wanted to and does go to. so they are gonna have already an increased interest in those schools.

Would adding player promises be possible? say your current starter is a 2/2.5 and you're going after a kid who is maybe 2/4. We could make it like a coach/player visit and have a set number. So we could only offer up five promises. And depending on the promise depends on that bonus. but if we don't get the promise they have an increase chance of transfer?

noodlz2 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like the new recruiting system.  I wasn't around for much of the old system, but this seems like a big improvement.  Here are a few further improvement suggestions though:

 

  • Show if an opposing team has used school and/or coach visits on recruits as well as scholarships.  That would be information you would know in real life.
  • Denote ties.  Right now it is listed in reverse alphabetical order so I can't tell if I am leading or tied on guys I only put a scholarship on.
  • Differentiate between lead sizes (i.e. if someone is within 15 of you highlight their icon, if they are within 30 they are on the board but not highlighter, outside of 30 they aren't there at all)
FlutieFlakes, Quasar, Jumbo and 3 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, HAFFnHAFF said:

I really like the new recruiting system.  I wasn't around for much of the old system, but this seems like a big improvement.  Here are a few further improvement suggestions though:

 

  • Show if an opposing team has used school and/or coach visits on recruits as well as scholarships.  That would be information you would know in real life.
  • Denote ties.  Right now it is listed in reverse alphabetical order so I can't tell if I am leading or tied on guys I only put a scholarship on.
  • Differentiate between lead sizes (i.e. if someone is within 15 of you highlight their icon, if they are within 30 they are on the board but not highlighter, outside of 30 they aren't there at all)

 

I like your first point, but disagree with the last two.

 

I think telling you exactly how big your lead/deficit is a little too much. Teams don't always know how far ahead or behind they are in the player's rankings. I think that would lead to "gaming" the system in a way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, npklemm said:

 

I like your first point, but disagree with the last two.

 

I think telling you exactly how big your lead/deficit is a little too much. Teams don't always know how far ahead or behind they are in the player's rankings. I think that would lead to "gaming" the system in a way.

my issue with ties being shown is it is a slight advantage to whoever is first cuz they're the only one that knows if they're ahead or tied depending on how much they put on/if they put on at all. I'd say denote ties but not show how far apart they are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, npklemm said:

 

I like your first point, but disagree with the last two.

 

I think telling you exactly how big your lead/deficit is a little too much. Teams don't always know how far ahead or behind they are in the player's rankings. I think that would lead to "gaming" the system in a way.

I think it's beneficial to know to some degree what the lead is, IRL it'd be easy to tell whether a recruit was barely leaning a certain way or almost ready to commit to a school

TheTodd15 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the current recruit generation is done through a gaussian distribution but it might be better to use just the tail of a gaussian distribution.

 

The people going on to play college football from HS football dont have a normal distribution of talent in football. They are really the top ~5% of football players, and I think by changing the distribution to reflect that the sim would be more realistic.

 

One significant downside is 5 potential players would probably be way less common and it probably wouldnt be very popular but I think it could add a more interesting aspect to recruiting. It would also make 3-3.5 players the backbone of most programs and more similar to IRL. Most IRL college teams have a couple really good to above average players but have a lot of players that are just okay and have major flaws.

 

Granted it probably isnt very realistic to have such a drastic change as it would make the recruits signed before the change significantly more valuable than any signed after and give already good teams a significant advantage for 3-5 years

TuscanSota likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, npklemm said:

 

I like your first point, but disagree with the last two.

 

I think telling you exactly how big your lead/deficit is a little too much. Teams don't always know how far ahead or behind they are in the player's rankings. I think that would lead to "gaming" the system in a way.

 

I don't think it is gaming the system.  I think it is more realistic.  In real life you can tell if guys are leaning a certain way.

 

2 minutes ago, Vxmonarkxv said:

my issue with ties being shown is it is a slight advantage to whoever is first cuz they're the only one that knows if they're ahead or tied depending on how much they put on/if they put on at all. I'd say denote ties but not show how far apart they are. 

 

I'm saying denote ties to everyone.  It wouldn't benefit anyone there it is just more info.  I am always listed first in a tie with Kansas bc of reverse alphabetical order. 

1 minute ago, Quasar said:

I think it's beneficial to know to some degree what the lead is, IRL it'd be easy to tell whether a recruit was barely leaning a certain way or almost ready to commit to a school

 

^^ This

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, cmcgill said:

I believe the current recruit generation is done through a gaussian distribution but it might be better to use just the tail of a gaussian distribution.

 

The people going on to play college football from HS football dont have a normal distribution of talent in football. They are really the top ~5% of football players, and I think by changing the distribution to reflect that the sim would be more realistic.

 

One significant downside is 5 potential players would probably be way less common and it probably wouldnt be very popular but I think it could add a more interesting aspect to recruiting. It would also make 3-3.5 players the backbone of most programs and more similar to IRL. Most IRL college teams have a couple really good to above average players but have a lot of players that are just okay and have major flaws.

 

Granted it probably isnt very realistic to have such a drastic change as it would make the recruits signed before the change significantly more valuable than any signed after and give already good teams a significant advantage for 3-5 years

 

 

I think this is the approach that is currently being used in CBBHC, iirc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Vxmonarkxv said:

my issue with ties being shown is it is a slight advantage to whoever is first cuz they're the only one that knows if they're ahead or tied depending on how much they put on/if they put on at all. I'd say denote ties but not show how far apart they are. 

 

 

Being listed first means you never know if you are tied or ahead on a guy that you have put points on. There are definite positives to being listed first as no one can know if you put any points on a player or not but there are also significant downsides

 

1 minute ago, Quasar said:

I think it's beneficial to know to some degree what the lead is, IRL it'd be easy to tell whether a recruit was barely leaning a certain way or almost ready to commit to a school

 

When you aren't up by 30 you dont really have a big lead. The fact that teams drop off after a 30 point lead does exactly that without giving too much information

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, stormstopper said:

I'd second that, and also suggest that a scholarship be worth at least enough to cancel out the in-state bonus so that in-state schools have to do at least the bare minimum to defend their state's recruits. 

Yeah and I feel this is more realism. For example if im poor man Joe in Arkansas  and latechs offers to pay for school and wants me to play, then I'm going there over say my home state university Arkansas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I would consider is this: a scholarship offer, in addition to providing points, cancels all automatic state points on that player

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, inspiral said:

Yeah and I feel this is more realism. For example if im poor man Joe in Arkansas  and latechs offers to pay for school and wants me to play, then I'm going there over say my home state university Arkansas.

 

I like this idea - I think it still gives an slight advantage to home state schools, but can really help to even the playing field for schools in states that don't produce a lot of recruits.  

 

West Virginia as a state doesn't produce a lot of recruits, that's a given, but WVU doesn't have an issue recruiting.  

 

Edit - Also I think it'd be cool to see an increase in the number of JuCo players.  WVU brings in a lot of JuCo players each year and with the current number of JuCos that isn't really possible.  I don't think they necessarily all have to be these great players, but adding some additional 3.5 potential players or something like that would give coaches the ability to utilize some different strategies.  A 3.5 potential player represents a contributing/starter level player on almost every team so I think adding some additional guys that level would add additional strategy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cmcgill said:

I believe the current recruit generation is done through a gaussian distribution but it might be better to use just the tail of a gaussian distribution.

 

The people going on to play college football from HS football dont have a normal distribution of talent in football. They are really the top ~5% of football players, and I think by changing the distribution to reflect that the sim would be more realistic.

 

One significant downside is 5 potential players would probably be way less common and it probably wouldnt be very popular but I think it could add a more interesting aspect to recruiting. It would also make 3-3.5 players the backbone of most programs and more similar to IRL. Most IRL college teams have a couple really good to above average players but have a lot of players that are just okay and have major flaws.

 

Granted it probably isnt very realistic to have such a drastic change as it would make the recruits signed before the change significantly more valuable than any signed after and give already good teams a significant advantage for 3-5 years

 

I was thinking about this change but the problem is, it might be too late. It would be a weirdly jarring change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Soluna said:

 

I was thinking about this change but the problem is, it might be too late. It would be a weirdly jarring change.

 

Not to mention how that would affect NFLHC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cmcgill said:

I believe the current recruit generation is done through a gaussian distribution but it might be better to use just the tail of a gaussian distribution.

 

The people going on to play college football from HS football dont have a normal distribution of talent in football. They are really the top ~5% of football players, and I think by changing the distribution to reflect that the sim would be more realistic.

 

One significant downside is 5 potential players would probably be way less common and it probably wouldnt be very popular but I think it could add a more interesting aspect to recruiting. It would also make 3-3.5 players the backbone of most programs and more similar to IRL. Most IRL college teams have a couple really good to above average players but have a lot of players that are just okay and have major flaws.

 

Granted it probably isnt very realistic to have such a drastic change as it would make the recruits signed before the change significantly more valuable than any signed after and give already good teams a significant advantage for 3-5 years

 

So I see where you're coming from on this, but I disagree on the solution. I ran the numbers last year and assigned star ratings to people based on a formula (nothing fancy, just based on skill and potential) I came up with, and it basically matched up with irl numbers of 4 and 5 star recruits (~30 and ~300 respectively). I think the problem, though, is that in CFBHC it's really hard for a recruit to bust. For example, going back to 2018 (the last season we have complete stats), the worst statline for a 5.0/5.0 QB was Lawrence Pritchett, whose stats were: 194/301 (64%) for 2539 yards, 16 TDs and 12 INTs. Aside from Pritchett, none of the 10 other 5.0/5.0 QBs came close to having a TD/INT ratio lower than 2 (the next closest was Eric Jennings at 2.5), and only three had a completion percentage lower than 65%. While it's harder to assess how other positions do given how stats are presented, the same holds true with RBs. Excluding Marshawn Matthison, who at this point I think it's fair to say was being misused (sorry deandean), every 5.0/5.0 RB had >5 YPC, >1400 yards, and all but one had at least 18 TDs.

 

In contrast, let's look at every Texas A&M (I'm using A&M since I know the program well) recruit from 2013, 2014, and 2015 who had a >.95 rating on the 247 composite rankings:

2013

Ricky Seals-Jones - Was alright but never lit the world on fire like you'd expect from the #2 WR in the country.

Justin Manning - Caught 1 TD pass, then dropped out of school and then murdered a jogger with a machete. The jogger murderer was actually Thomas Johnson, got them confused.

Justin Manning - Forced to quit football due to injury.

Isaiah Golden - Arrested for armed robbery

 

2014

Myles Garrett - Will be picked in the top 2 tonight.

Speedy Noil - Had a good freshman season and then had weed problems, never even came close to fulfilling his potential. 

Kyle Allen - Transferred due to QB mismanagement.

Nick Harvey - Meh. Started last year but wasn't that great.

Frank Ihenacho - Hasn't started yet for A&M.

 

2015

Daylon Mack - Struggled to make an impact in his first two years, we'll see if he can turn it around. 

Christian Kirk - Legit stud.

Kyler Murray - Transferred due to QB mismanagement.

 

So out of 11 players that were top recruits, there were: 2 great players, 5 were/are good-to-mediocre players that never lived up to their potential, 2 are no longer on the team due to transferring, and 1 is no longer on the team due to injury, and one is no longer on the team due to criminal reasons. While the transfer thing is a special case, I think think that my point still stands: players bust all the time irl, but almost never do in the sim. If I had to suggest a solution to this, it'd probably be something along the lines of decreasing the chances that players progress well, which means you'd see more 4.0/5.0 (Sr) players, or something like that. This'd mean that you'd have a reason to start a 4.0/4.0 or a 3.5/3.5 over a high potential sophomore that so far hasn't progressed well. Of course, if you were to implement changes like this, it'd impact the quality of players coming into NFLHC, which is also something that needs to be considered.

 

TL;DR: please read the thing so I can feel validated about writing 550 words about recruiting on a fake football website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about creating pipelines at certain high schools. If you signed a recruit from a high school last year you get a 25% bump in recruiting points at that high school the following year. 

 

IRL if you visit a high school you notice other players at that same school. Also, some players tend to follow old teammates to college. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now