I had to buy 2 a couple of seasons ago. 

Hey Andy, walk me through, step by step, the scenario you and/or another team would be in with this situation.

End of season, recruited two players only. 
One free walk on, makes three. Squad only 12 so that would bring it back up to 15.

At this point you have a decision who to buy.

Three star player, train & play as normal.(My and most peoples choice). One star player(cheaper) doesn't get any playing time or training. Just to get your squad up to 16. 

Maybe what I'm asking for is a Zero star player who is free, he won't play/train but will bring my squad to 16.

I just think missing out this season should give you a better chance next season if you don't lose any RP. You basically are getting penalised twice. Not getting any decent players this season and then having to pay for a player you don't want.

Just a thought and not asking for the rules to be changed. 

Thanks for walking through that Andy!

Coaches: What do you think about Andy's idea?

Should we add a "0-star" level and make it free (like the first 3-star player)?

What are the pros/cons of this idea?

Background

I believe in season 3 (could have been 2) we added the expensive 3, 2, and 1-star approach for walkons.

The concept was that if you are engaged in the competitive recruiting sessions (STEPS 1-3) you are spending RP and trying to get the best players.  Ideally you will get 2-3 in that process.

Teams typically need to get 0-2 players in the walk on phase.  Initially ALL the 3, 2, and 1-star walkons cost RPs.

In season 3 (or 4) we relaxed that to one free 3-star walkon with all other walkons costing the higher RP costs.

The concept in my mind was/is this.  If I'm actively spending RPs to recruit players I should get 2-3.  If I'm sitting on the sidelines not spending ANY RPs in STEP 1 or 2 and just waiting to get some walkons...why should the latter scenario be rewarded with regular/cheap/non competitive RP costs?  So that's why you see higher costs for 3, 2, and 1-star players.

So I don't want to support that scenario above with cheap walkon RP costs.

Teams HAVE signed 1-star walkons that have played little and never been CP'd.  

I don't plan to make any rules changes for the end of this season.  But, if there are some solid pros we could consider it for next season.

Coaches: What do you think of Andy's scenario and idea?  Should we add a 0-star (one is free) level for when teams just need a player to hit the roster minimums?

It looks like Andy is unlikely to pick up the MB he needs in the final round even with 700+ RP in the bank as there are a few other teams with bigger RP in their banks.

It looks like he's been involved in every single round of recruiting and his 4* win was 800 RP which wiped out a lot of his reserves, so it's not through a lack of effort that he hasn't been able to sign players. He's also been getting close to the max RP from match comments etc.

I did wonder before the season started if something like this might happen with the expanding of the league - would there be enough players to go around? Would the older teams with more RP in the bank before the season start be able to outbid the newbies?

Andy can get a free 3 star MB and then would have to pay a minimum of 140 RP for a 1 star libero to hit his 16 required players, 140 isn't a huge fine - it's one sessions RP. However, I would argue for a one off newbie allowance this season/for new players.

Roy's comment on "newbie allowance" got me thinking perhaps there can be a slight rule amendment without changing the current setup. I do like the higher RP costs as a strong incentive to be active in the competitive recruiting process. You will pay more for less if you don't. As someone who has had to do that more than once, it keeps me active in striving for at least 3 recruits each season, and keeps me bidding a bit higher than I want. Spend It now or later. You get smaller returns later.

What if we allow a rookie manager (or returning manager taking on a new team after being away for at least a season), to just get reimbursed for a 1-star walk-on? No coding. Just a database edit to add RP back. May not even be needed every season. Seems simpler than a new page/code. Also avoids any possible use by existing managers to exploit a 0-star while spending that extra RP to get two 5-stars, and the free 3-star in a season, spending nothing else.

I like the idea of a zero star player. It makes sense to have one- two- and a second three-star player cost more than what they could get at minimum bid. But if a coach is willing to take on a player that will get very little, if any, playtime, (and straining their roster in doing so) then that makes sense as a strategic choice. 

the recruiting process has been interesting as a newbie. at first thebest players were completely out of our reach and i was looking at where I could get special 3 star players, but as the auctions progressed and the top teams spent their cash mountains  it became clear that it was possible to pick up 4 and 5 star players. Not easily but is has been possible. Having said that i have only picked up two players so far, but hope to get my third in the last auction session and filling my roster with the free  3 star walk on.  The last few sessions have been hard for those with few RP´s as a last minute buy frenzy has occurred with players desperate to get their final players. I was initially guessing that players at the end of the recruiting process might be cheaper, but I don´t think that is going to be the case at all.

so what are my views. I think it´s right to make these post auction players more expensive to encourage people to get more involved in the actual auction process, but giving away a free zero star player to those that have not managed to fill their roster  is a good stop gap. these players are largely going to be crap after all so I don´t think will unbalance anything. Alternatively Kevin´s idea of a  1 star reimbursement might make it easier in regards to your coding so could be a good idea.

Thanks to Andy, Roy, Kevin, Mike, and Vick for the feedback.  I spend a lot of time coding the webpage portion of things so my first reaction to a new idea is:

- how long will it take me to implement?

- do I agree with the idea and think it is something I want to take ownership for?  Am I on board with it?

I say that, as there have been times where people introduce crazy ideas, I buy in, and then I'm stuck with implementing them and managing that going forward.  

So with this idea, I really needed a case to be made.  I think there are good ideas here and the case was made to do something for a first time manager.  While I don't love the approach I'll take below (that's from an "I need to remember to do it and it is a manual step that I need to then tell a new manager of"), I am going to rely on this community to help remind new managers and I do have a note to add it to the rules (and the info below in bold has been added to the XPs-Walkons Session 13 page as well).

I debated with myself on just doing the free 0-star approach (for any coach) because I could cleanly automate it, but I think I'll go with the free 1-start approach for a new coach and put the responsibility on the new coach to tell me they want to be reimbursed (so I don't have to remember).  

Please review the info below I have added to the XPs-Walkons page.  I can/will update it for clarity, I just need your feedback. Thanks!

========

NOTE #2: If you are a brand new coach in the current season, you will also get ONE FREE 1-star player. Please select the player you want and note the RPs will be temporarily spent for that 1-star. You then MUST EMAIL Al to get reimbursed the RPs (this is a manual implementation and you must notify Al). For example if the 1-star costs 200 RPs you will temporarily spend that but if you email Al you will get the 200 RPs added back in after processing.

Al. After all my whining I think I'm going to just get a three star player and take the hit. I do think it's a good idea to reimburse new managers for an one star player though. 

Andy's onto something though with the economics of the game. There are 90 players available through competitive recruiting. Only 87 of them were actually recruited this year. The game needs to turn over 128 players a year, and there are 32 "free" players each season, meaning that there are 96 players that need to be added to rosters, and that the average team will recruit 2.81 players competitively. It's not impossible a team recruits really unluckily - or really poorly, and the RP they have left at the end of the year won't cover the costs of the three additional players they need, which is a minimum of 470 RP for three one-star players.

Now, this isn't too big of an issue, as Pekin, who didn't recruit nobody last season, have the most RP, but Portland only have one player recruited and 790 RP. With the free three-star it's a bit less of an issue fortunately, and it's not really a problem, but the one-star players are terrible and are basically a tax on team building in and of themselves - I'd love to release my old one-star player but that's not built into the system.

I don't think any change is needed at the moment, but there's a potential problem in the game where there's a spiral of bad teams not recruiting well and then being subject to a continuous "bad recruiting tax."

I also don't have a problem with the one off rule either - only one expansion team finished top 10 in recruiting this year, which I expect to change next season.

really helpful comments here by all (and Al !)

Andy makes a decent argument amd maybe 1 free zero star could be considered in future.

I was struggling to make sense why star 1 cost me money but a 3 star costs zero.  It now makes sense as outlined on this topic.  And I note a refund of cost for newbies so that scenario has been covered and well thought out.