I'm not even going to mention - cause it is off topic - how sad I am that my St Johns roster and its carefully constructed empty class will get no double postseason money as the new game is launched.....curses foiled again!

postseason cash/rollover will hugely impact everything in my opinion. I've finally gotten to the point of EE's and high draft picks, but also am a middling fish in very dangerous waters in Big 10 in Rupp. To me 3.0 seems an awful lot like everyone has a chance at a player, which certainly has plusses to it, but I'm also not sure that Oral Roberts, VCU, Montana and Air Force should have almost exactly the same chance of winning NT and becoming a dynasty as Michigan State, UCLA, insertA+prestige. Not the test that's been done before to build a mid major conference to be winning NT, I'm saying just that team with no conference mates "rising the tide" so to speak.

Maybe I'm used to the idea of working your way up the ladder to Big6 conference and more elite "name" schools as it is in 2.0, but I didn't mind building up UNH or Harvard or UAB to the point where I could transfer, or building up a D2 school to the point I could go to a (weaker) Big 6 team. I enjoyed the (very different) experience of taking Harvard from D to B as much as trying to get past S16 with B+ baseline Michigan. They're different games, and I'm ok with that.

If I wanted to take Howard and build to a chance of going deep in the NT, I'd pop a game in the playstation and play versus the computer. I still feel that there's a certain landscape at D1 and everyone shouldn't be on equal footing. D2 and D3, sure, take any team and make them a powerhouse. But we all know the D1 schools, and Indiana should always be better than Middle Tennessee State. Always. I realize prestige is still a factor in 3.0, but less of one.

That's why 3.0 is less appealing to me. I understand it's frustrating with job logic and firings and all, but I still much prefer it over any D3 team ever signing a ranked player (regardless of how bad he really is). I prefer it over having zero reason to build a conference with other coaches. I prefer it over finding the new (unthought of, or at least unpublished) seam to exploit. Sure you don't have conference cash anymore, but there will be certain locales that are much more appealing than in 2.0 I think, and that has yet to be really explored. New things will be exploited, just like superclasses and crazy ATH/DEF teams and press now.

EE's will be a problem that will somewhat equalize over a couple of seasons, but it's leveling the field for reasons I don't agree with.

Posted by mamxet on 9/7/2016 1:26:00 PM (view original):
a reasonable view - and maybe it works itself out

I bet it wont lead to a result that I see as fair. My favorite solution is to make up for the Attention Points that would have gone with a slot if it had been open in the first recruiting cycle - so that a coach would get the same aggregate amount of AP for an EE slot as for a regular slot.

If that turned out to be too little or too much to make it reasonably possible to get a serviceable DI replacement consistently, adjust. I do think that when you lose an EE should generally be replaceable with a serviceable DI player

It "works itself out" by immediately killing great teams to pull everyone to the same level.
I'd rather see the changes in the sim all designed to bring equity be what allows everything to "work itself out" over time rather than instant irreparable punishment.

Posted by shoe3 on 9/7/2016 10:17:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 9/7/2016 9:37:00 AM (view original):
koopman - agree and disagree with what you said.
1) Obscene post season cash is a big contributor to power conferences hoarding top recruits
2) Carry over cash is a big contributor to top teams restacking with top recruits.
BOTH of those components are gone.
3) Preferences have been added which GREATLY impact school choice.

An elimination of EEs would have been a logical solution. Current 3.0 solution is just a piling in order for less talented coaches to be able to compete.

Casper is a good example (no offense) - a mediocre coach who feels like now that "everyone" has a shot to compete that he will be able to prosper. Although this is exactly what Seble intended, it feels a bit like welfare.

1) Losing postseason cash hurts the low prestige teams in big 6 conferences far more than it hurts the elite.
2) Rollover also affects all teams. Anyone can order their class structure in a way to game the system. These two factors are actually the only reason I've been able to stash enough at Virginia in Naismith (illustrating the masochism of taking over a C prestige team in an A conference) to try to compete for one big guy per year. And I still almost always lost out (a few times to stewdog, lol) because I simply didn't have enough. Nothing matters as much on an individual team level as scholarships.

You don't think cream is going to rise to the top in 3.0? I think you're crazy. Those of us who don't like D1 in 2.0 and the card-counting, eBay-bidding winner's ball it resembles aren't looking for handouts. We just want to play a fun college basketball simulation.

ETA - shoe3=pkoopman for those who didn't know

Losing postseason cash hurts lower prestige teams in big 6 conferences? How so? How have you seen that one play out? Because my experience was that I was able to win a NC at Va Tech because of ACC money primarily. My experience currently in Iba, is that a middle prestige Ga Tech has ruled the world because of ACC money. the SEC in Iba, as well as lesser conferences have no shot recruiting against the lowest prestige ACC school currently. Add in the great Big 12 on the other side and big ten and sec have suffered because of two great conferences no one can compete with. The lowest prestige ACC school can beat KY and most Big East schools for most recruits.
This change will singlehandedly out lesser conferences on closer ground with ACC type conferences.
Think you're way off here.

Postseason cash change a good equalizing change in my opinion (I think they went slightly too far but whatever) that will clearly make it hard to stay on top.
and ee's is clear inequitable punishment to push people off the top.

Nope stewdog. It *feels* like punishment to you, because you're used to having the advantages afforded those extra scholarships. The loss of advantage is not "punishment". If we play monopoly, and you start out with twice the money I have, I may not want to play. That doesn't sound like a fun game. I'm not arguing for you to be punished, I'm arguing that you shouldn't have a perpetual advantage, and I'm not interested in playing winner's ball. By the way, Kentucky is a real life exception, not a rule, and not a model of realism that a game that expects paying customers should follow.

I dont want BC "punished" for recruiting 6 4-5 star players, including sniping my main target at signing cycle. I want the risk of that strategy to actually play itself out. It's not a desire to punish to say that people shouldn't be protected from the consequences of their decisions. You have known for a while that these changes were coming. Why haven't you adjusted your strategy? It's laughable hyperbole to talk about "PC socialistic 3.0" and how I must "want high D1 eliminated". Cream is going to rise to the top, and I think it will be a more valid achievement now, without being protected by winner's ball. Instead of rewarding risk aversion, card-counting in the form of trying to figure out how much your opponents can bid, and operating as part of a cartel, 3.0 is going to put a premium on long-term planning, having good, balanced classes, mixing stars with role players, and putting in the work to find good program fits. I don't want socialism or absolute parity. I want a fair game that rewards creativity, planning, and risk assessment (instead of aversion).

On conference cash, losing it absolutely hurts Virginia in Naismith ACC more than it hurts Duke. The lowest prestige team in a power conference gets the same amount of cash as the top team. It's more meaningful for a C team than an A+ team. As I said, nothing compares on an individual team basis with how much an advantage having 6-8 open scholarships coupled with an A+ prestige is.

Posted by pkoopman on 9/7/2016 2:30:00 PM (view original):
Nope stewdog. It *feels* like punishment to you, because you're used to having the advantages afforded those extra scholarships. The loss of advantage is not "punishment". If we play monopoly, and you start out with twice the money I have, I may not want to play. That doesn't sound like a fun game. I'm not arguing for you to be punished, I'm arguing that you shouldn't have a perpetual advantage, and I'm not interested in playing winner's ball. By the way, Kentucky is a real life exception, not a rule, and not a model of realism that a game that expects paying customers should follow.

I dont want BC "punished" for recruiting 6 4-5 star players, including sniping my main target at signing cycle. I want the risk of that strategy to actually play itself out. It's not a desire to punish to say that people shouldn't be protected from the consequences of their decisions. You have known for a while that these changes were coming. Why haven't you adjusted your strategy? It's laughable hyperbole to talk about "PC socialistic 3.0" and how I must "want high D1 eliminated". Cream is going to rise to the top, and I think it will be a more valid achievement now, without being protected by winner's ball. Instead of rewarding risk aversion, card-counting in the form of trying to figure out how much your opponents can bid, and operating as part of a cartel, 3.0 is going to put a premium on long-term planning, having good, balanced classes, mixing stars with role players, and putting in the work to find good program fits. I don't want socialism or absolute parity. I want a fair game that rewards creativity, planning, and risk assessment (instead of aversion).

On conference cash, losing it absolutely hurts Virginia in Naismith ACC more than it hurts Duke. The lowest prestige team in a power conference gets the same amount of cash as the top team. It's more meaningful for a C team than an A+ team. As I said, nothing compares on an individual team basis with how much an advantage having 6-8 open scholarships coupled with an A+ prestige is.

It IS punishment because if you need 4 and I have four ee's, you get money, time to scout, attention point accumulation, and an entire recruiting period to go after players while I get nothing until after the majority of the recruits are gone and I had zero shot at them.
How is that not punishment?

I don't get why people want EE's eliminated on one hand, yet strive for realism on the other. If a player is a lock in the NBA lottery he is not coming back to school. College ranks are filled with one and done players. And many players listen to greedy agents and leave school way too early. You want realism, there it is.

Can someone in the beta trials explain how the attention points would work for the schools that lost players as an early entry? I've seen people say they should get a full roster spot worth of points in the second signing period (I apologize if I am not wording this right), would this be fair, unfair, or not make a difference? Wouldn't most top guys normally be targeted by then anyways?

Posted by stewdog on 9/7/2016 3:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 9/7/2016 2:30:00 PM (view original):
Nope stewdog. It *feels* like punishment to you, because you're used to having the advantages afforded those extra scholarships. The loss of advantage is not "punishment". If we play monopoly, and you start out with twice the money I have, I may not want to play. That doesn't sound like a fun game. I'm not arguing for you to be punished, I'm arguing that you shouldn't have a perpetual advantage, and I'm not interested in playing winner's ball. By the way, Kentucky is a real life exception, not a rule, and not a model of realism that a game that expects paying customers should follow.

I dont want BC "punished" for recruiting 6 4-5 star players, including sniping my main target at signing cycle. I want the risk of that strategy to actually play itself out. It's not a desire to punish to say that people shouldn't be protected from the consequences of their decisions. You have known for a while that these changes were coming. Why haven't you adjusted your strategy? It's laughable hyperbole to talk about "PC socialistic 3.0" and how I must "want high D1 eliminated". Cream is going to rise to the top, and I think it will be a more valid achievement now, without being protected by winner's ball. Instead of rewarding risk aversion, card-counting in the form of trying to figure out how much your opponents can bid, and operating as part of a cartel, 3.0 is going to put a premium on long-term planning, having good, balanced classes, mixing stars with role players, and putting in the work to find good program fits. I don't want socialism or absolute parity. I want a fair game that rewards creativity, planning, and risk assessment (instead of aversion).

On conference cash, losing it absolutely hurts Virginia in Naismith ACC more than it hurts Duke. The lowest prestige team in a power conference gets the same amount of cash as the top team. It's more meaningful for a C team than an A+ team. As I said, nothing compares on an individual team basis with how much an advantage having 6-8 open scholarships coupled with an A+ prestige is.

It IS punishment because if you need 4 and I have four ee's, you get money, time to scout, attention point accumulation, and an entire recruiting period to go after players while I get nothing until after the majority of the recruits are gone and I had zero shot at them.
How is that not punishment?

Maybe this is semantics. What you say is "punishment", I say is removing protection from consequences. Punishment implies (to me) that you broke a rule, and now your team is going to be harmed, put down lower than before the infraction. I think of the old booster violations as "punishment". Losing 4 EEs isn't punishment, not by that standard and definition. It would suck, and I actually do have some sympathy for guys in this first year, because maybe they didn't know about the changes, didn't get in the forums, don't pay attention to coaches corner, whatever, and might be caught by surprise that the mechanism that used to shield them from the consequences of losing EEs is now partly gone. But moving forward, if you're getting 4 or 5 early entry caliber players in 3.0, you've been very lucky, and won most, if not all of your dice rolls. Your team isn't "punished" when they leave and you're unable to replace them with equivalent commodities. You're not worse off than you would have been if you lost those dice rolls in the first place. It's not about knocking anyone off their perch, per se. But it is about an interest in avoiding a perpetual meal-ticket scenario. As I said weeks ago in this thread, fairness isn't sameness or absolute parity, it's about getting what we deserve. In a commodities game where we're all after as many high-value commodities we can acquire, we deserve what we have planned and prepared for.

Really PK...Winners ball??

So lets use your monopoly example.
Considering its so unfair that I am able to build hotels on my properties because I managed to acquire enough to make sets, you/Seble would argue I should sell those back to the bank to give the other player a chance to catch up?

I am not saying the current system isn't flawed. Just arguing the extent/magnitude of these changes

Posted by grillmaster on 9/7/2016 3:43:00 PM (view original):
I don't get why people want EE's eliminated on one hand, yet strive for realism on the other. If a player is a lock in the NBA lottery he is not coming back to school. College ranks are filled with one and done players. And many players listen to greedy agents and leave school way too early. You want realism, there it is.

Can someone in the beta trials explain how the attention points would work for the schools that lost players as an early entry? I've seen people say they should get a full roster spot worth of points in the second signing period (I apologize if I am not wording this right), would this be fair, unfair, or not make a difference? Wouldn't most top guys normally be targeted by then anyways?

Well do you think Kentucky in RL is hamstrung in recruiting when they have 6 freshman who they know are leaving at the end of the season? Do you really think Calipari's staff say "hey our roster is full, no need to go out on the recruiting trail to recruit" and then scramble around when the 6 guys the recruited declare?

No, for game balance, WIS decided that if you have zero seniors and no walkons, they get ZERO additonal resources to recruit in the first period (when most recruits are available for signing). Then when almost 2/3 of the available recruits have already signed, and a huge portion of the roster declares, the NCAA decides now you can go contact recruits. Sounds exactly how it works in RL.

The issue with getting AP in the second period is that AP actually carries recruiting value and any recruit worth a damn has multiple schools on them that have been accumulating AP for multiple cycles (literally hundreds of AP is not uncommon for top elite recruits). So when a school which has an EE, they get 20 AP to try just open up recruiting actions (problem #1), and if the recruit hasn't already signed in the first few cycles of the 2nd period (problem #2), then you hopefully can dump your extra resources but still can't catch up due to the huge accumulated AP the other teams had in the first place (problem #3). Even if everything was even, all you get for that is a even chance to replace the recruit (50/50) if there are 2 teams involved, otherwise its a *WALK ON* or you could recruit a D2 recruit for 4 seasons (since all D1 recruits are now open to everyone).

Posted by grillmaster on 9/7/2016 3:43:00 PM (view original):
I don't get why people want EE's eliminated on one hand, yet strive for realism on the other. If a player is a lock in the NBA lottery he is not coming back to school. College ranks are filled with one and done players. And many players listen to greedy agents and leave school way too early. You want realism, there it is.

Can someone in the beta trials explain how the attention points would work for the schools that lost players as an early entry? I've seen people say they should get a full roster spot worth of points in the second signing period (I apologize if I am not wording this right), would this be fair, unfair, or not make a difference? Wouldn't most top guys normally be targeted by then anyways?

When you lose an early entry in 3.0, you get the attention points and full dollar value of the spot, but not until the second signing period. The issue is that many guys sign in the early period. The one legitimate beef that I can see as a problem is that many guys with the "late" preference sign in the first cycle of the second period, before a team with early entries is able to go after them full on (keep in mind, you do get attention points and some baseline cash even without a scholarship, so you've got a little to work with in the early session). More importantly (to me) coaches that change schools are stuck with very little hope to cobble together anything more than a replacement-level first class.

I'm personally ambivalent to the idea of increasing the amount of attention points to "make up for" not having them in the first session. I think the idea here is to not count on being able to directly replace an early entry with an equivalent commodity. You have to plan ahead, have replacements on your roster, strategically target guys with a late preference early on in anticipation.

And for you guys that say we're taking risks by recruiting elite D1 players, can you show me where there's some way I can tell who will go EE and who will not? Because I just had the #1 overall PF in Phelan decide to stay when he was #4 on the overall board while the #53 guy decided to leave on my team. That is random. If WIS wants it this way, then I suggest they just get rid of EEs by just marking new recruits as 1 year eligible (i.e. I'm leaving as a FR) or 2 year eligible and giving us the info to recruit them or not.

At least then you can claim I knew about what I'm getting into when I recruited him. Right now, I could have a 1 star D1 guy with high WE and starting out at 500 still go EE.

Posted by mullycj on 9/7/2016 3:56:00 PM (view original):
Really PK...Winners ball??

So lets use your monopoly example.
Considering its so unfair that I am able to build hotels on my properties because I managed to acquire enough to make sets, you/Seble would argue I should sell those back to the bank to give the other player a chance to catch up?

I am not saying the current system isn't flawed. Just arguing the extent/magnitude of these changes

Not at all. I'm arguing against perpetuating advantages. For example, say we play a game of monopoly and you win. Good for you! I don't want to start the next game if you got to keep all the properties from the last game. I like the WIS rewards system: but it"she not in their interest to let the game get to the point where the same 12-15 schools are getting all the top recruits every year, getting to the Sweet 16 and beyond most years, and end up paying very little for the game... *especially* because that situation is so frustrating to players who are paying.

there is nothing 'perpetuating' about declaring b4 recruiting starts, and letting every team fill openings and get recruiting resources in an equal system. It is the most simple and straightforward fix to this problem.