One idea i had was for those teams who did not get a player should be able to either bid on the ones not recruited or maybe hold a mini draft type thing where going off worst record for those teams, they get to pick a player 

Not to be contrarian, but I feel like teams have a full and fair opportunity to bid on players as they pass trough the marketplace. If the auction concludes with no interest from any team, that's the result. Teams that did not fill their recruitment quota have an opportunity to do so through walk ons. No rule change needed here. Nothing is broke...don't fix it.

I agree with Phil. Except for the contrarian thing. I'd like to be contrarian.

I tend to agree with Phil, but also like the suggestion that 3 & 4 star players are made slightly more attractive.  Maybe make 4*s 9-10 range  rather than 8-10, and yes 3* stars always with a Max + 1 minimum.  Or maybe weight the 4*s so that only one minimum can be rolled.

4*s without an additional max can easily roll 8's and 9s and so you are better off with a 3* with a Max or max + 1.

I agree with Roger. Except for the contrarian thing, or does that make me contrarian? Where is Contraria anyway?

I like the idea of all 3 stars having a max skill 

A post season auction might be useful, but I don't think it's worth the implementation effort,

Many teams have simply adjusted their recruitment, resulting in many no-buys.

But that's perfectly OK; no need to change.

I'm not in favor of adding a post-season auction for these players at this time.  Maybe if it repeats itself and we have at least 2-3 each season for the next few seasons also go unrecruited, it could make sense to try something out.  As opposed to automating it, it might just be easier to have a blind e-mail bid for each player.  If you want 'em, e-mail your bid to ____ (doesn't have to be Al) and the highest bidder gets the player along with any walk-ons, manually added to the team when there are those manual updates already occurring.

For perspective on this season's 'no bid' players (because someone tracks these things):
Session 3 3* L - only Antioch bid on him in step 1.  And only Antioch in step 2.  Anyone else could have jumped in, as everyone had 500 RP+ to start the season.  The GlowGuppies ended up not bidding on him because they won the 4* L instead, in lot 8 that auction. Didn't need two. Clearly, no one else wanted this player from the start, and Rob got someone better.

Session 5 4* OH.  Four teams bid in step 1: Baton Rouge, Carlsbad, Pekin & San Diego. That same session as step 1, Baton Rouge won a 5* OH, so they dropped off this guy.  San Diego continued with step 2, and then won two players, including an OH, in session 4. Nobody new jumped in, so that left Carlsbad and Pekin.  Carlsbad won a 5* MB for big money in session 4, which they could not have predicted for sure, and ended up at 348 RP left, 12 RP short of being able to bid for this player in session 5.  Pekin was going to win by default at 360 RP, yet they ended up winning the 4* OH +1 Atk one slot before this player, so they dropped their bid.  Anyone else could have jumped in at step 2 if they noticed teams dropping or winning OHs, and didn't.

Session 10 4* RS.  Step 1: Dallas, Quincy, San Jose. Just three teams bid initially.  Same session as step 1 (sess 8), Dallas won a 4*MB and had under 100 RP left.  San Jose won a RS in session 8 too.  That left just Quincy at step 2, and no one else jumped in.  Quincy then won the 5* RS in session 9, so they didn't need the 4* in session 10.  Any of us wanting a RS could have jumped in at step 2, seeing as Quincy had top RP on the session 9 RS they won.  Some of us didn't have enough RP, others didn't want an RS this season. The rest of us?  Not sure.

Session 10 3* RS.  Only Dallas bid in step 1, and they won the 4* MB in session 8 so they ran out of RP to also pursue this guy.  No one, NO ONE, bid in step 2 and everyone could see that by the weekend after Dallas got in their orders and this auction slot was still showing empty for bidders.  Clearly, there was little interest at the time, or we're all gunshy about spending the extra RP to enter into step 2 when a clear min bid could be on the line.

Session 11 3* MB.  Only New Orleans bid in step 1, and then that same session (9) we won a 5* L and a 3* MB.  Didn't need a 2nd MB, so didn't put in a step 2 bid.  Again, every other manager could see where the Rats put in a bid check for session 12, yet didn't pursue the ones from session 11 (2 Ls, 1 MB).  So this auction lot sat empty for at least 4 days (I think I got orders in on Tuesday that week) and anyone could have jumped in for 60 RP to get a min bid 3* MB +1.  Nobody did.

Seems clear to me that there was very little interest from the start for the 3* guys, and the two 4* players had both few bidders (4 or less in step 1) coupled with teams at the step 1 level also winning lots that either dropped their RP or got them another player at that position.  Probably not a common occurrance overall, so maybe only repeats once a season.  Mostly, only 12 teams have jumped in at step 2 this season at all, and just two (Carlsbad and San Diego) more than once.

I don't see a need to offer second-chances on players when in three cases this season, 31 teams passed on even spending a speculative 15 RP on a 3*, and none of us thought it worth it to jump in for 80 RP in step 2 when it was looking pretty clear that we were only going to have 1 team still in it for the step 3 bidding.

Finally, with the walk-on process and players available at all positions to buy, no one is completely out on players.  Everyone gets a free guy, and anyone can pick up a low-skill filler if needed.  If you saved up the RP this season, then that was your choice.  Getting a low-price 'last chance' player seems like we might be rewarding non-competitive beahviors.  I think if managers start recognizing where value buys might fall, we could see more competitive recruiting overall, which will help the game be more balanced and fun for everyone.

So, to recap, the Rats say no change needed.  If we get screwed over in the future, we will of course then rail against the utter injustice of it all and how the powers-that-be are clearly aligned against us.

I'm not really able to post but I'm on my old laptop using Opera instead of my old laptop using Firefox on Linux or Windows or my new laptop using Firefox on Linux... so just to be clear this is a one off :)

Kevin makes good points, but if you didn't have to spend early points on these players I think they would get more bids.

Allan, how hard would it be to code this? It seems fairly straightforward on my end but I'm not in charge of your code :)

If a player receives no bids before session 12, insert them into session 12, with every team eligible to bid on them. If a player gets no bids in session 12, tough snickers

Hi guys,

Thanks for all the feedback!  I appreciate it!

As you can see we've seen some level of this the past 4 seasons, but not a lot before then.  Maybe its because I keep telling everyone you have to get two 5-stars a season and its my fault?

In reading some of the ideas (Kevin's email idea inspired me a bit) I have one that I'd support right now as it means no coding for me and some limited data entry. 

1. After Session 12, I sort the standings from worst to best using this page: https://www.olmec.org/tmvl/standings.php?type=O

2. Depending on how many non-signed (X) players there are I email the top X teams the list of non-signed recruits available

3. Each team sends back a list to me on who they want (like a top 5 list where they ONLY list who they want to sign).  The teams MUST have an open slot for a competitive recruit signing and MUST have enough min RP to get the player (per original recruiting info)

4. I manually adjudicate (yes, there will be adjudication) and teams must/will pay the min RP amount for the one player they get (most teams get none).

5. I will manually update the recruiting sessions, rosters, teams (deduct RP), etc.  That takes me a little time but I can commit to it.

6. Teams taking advantage of this can still sign their free 3-star walk on.  

That's my plan and what I could commit to.  Its still a manual step which I don't love, but it can help (at least a little; not a lot) teams that may need it.  I also don't see it as a big "I'm going to try to lose my last 10 matches to finish worst" strategy angle either (tanking).

Thoughts?

-----------------------

As I mentioned, this post was inspired by my friend John Holden (and I will eventually fix his posting issues when I get a new WYSIWYG implemented).  

Respectfully with John's suggestion it could be done (though I am not as good a coder as John even with "Claude AI" help).  But there's a lot I have to account for I feel like to make it happen and its definitely not trivial for me.   Auction/Recruiting code has always been challenging for me and I'm scared to touch it much once it works.  It feels like the coding, especially testing, and the overall changes (lots of session 12 recruits) could throw off some existing processes, pages, etc that would lead to a lot of work for me.  

-----------------------

Al,

I feel you're proposing a type of limited draft system to give the teams at the very bottom of the standings get a leg up.  You definitely have my support in principle for that.

My question would be - if you were aiming to introduce a draft for this purpose, and we weren't having this conversation because five imaginary players are going to vanish into the ether, is this the solution you'd come up with?

I'd be surprised if it was. The numbers of players available varies, so the numbers of teams who get support varies - in some years not even the worst club will benefit.  And if I'm bottom of the standings in either Season 15 or 16 and would quite like a MB or a RS, but don't need an OH or L then I'm also out of luck.

So if the problem is trying to keep these players in the game, yep this works and is an elegant way of doing it.  If you're trying to give a boost to teams at the wrong end of the league, I think we can do better.  And to try and be helpful, if you do decide to consider introducing a draft instead, I'd be more than happy to help you work up some proposals.

No objections to your proposal, Al.  Happy to help negotiate the bidding/player process and tally a final list if that would be helpful to League Admin.  I agree with Roger's overall theme that I see this as being minimally impactful on overall league balance, and will not necessarily help a team build up from last to first, yet could help a few teams in a given season pick up a solid role player for minimum RP.  Of course, teams will still have to develop them, and they won't be free.  I don't see a negative impact on any of the teams that are currently faring better with regard to on-court talent.  If we'd like a little something extra for a few teams and a little late-season bonus drama for teams out of the running for anything trophy-related, I like the idea as a league enhancement.  Thanks, Al

Roger - 

Ha!  Well...this is mostly a reaction to "what to do" with these guys (if anything).  It is interesting in that the college game (unlike professional here in the USA) has virtually no interest in helping teams in the building stages.  

To answer your question though I think I'm still looking for some consensus on a need to do something?

Kevin - 

Thanks for your feedback here as well.  

I think I'm just proposing another idea on what to do with them that's a little more palatable to me in a minimal effort way.  😎

Maybe the answer here is still no change?