No fix for EE problem Topic

Posted by oldresorter on 9/7/2016 5:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by pkoopman on 9/7/2016 5:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by buddhagamer on 9/7/2016 5:23:00 PM (view original):
Why not just have WIS mark the players who will leave and when? Then I can buy your argument and access the risk properly if I want to recruit someone or not. But as long as it is random and this is how EEs are treated, then I guess we might as well just get rid of prestige and hey we can all start every season on an even playing field like you want.
It's not random. As I said earlier, of the 60 EE candidates on the board in Allen, all but 4 were in the top 15 at their position when they were recruited. I know this isn't exactly the assessment you're looking for, because we can't view HS ratings post-draft, but it's not going to be a big discrepancy. Top 10 in class is a pretty decent risk he'll consider. Top 11-20 much smaller, but still a risk. We're not flying blind here.
but it is unfair, EE schools and players, even if it was 100% known who would declare (which I agree, I feel like I have a pretty good idea if I'm losing someone or not), don't get all the resources every one else does in the first cycle. It is punitive in that sense, my words now - punitive because I'm recruiting for players that I don't have resources given to me that other schools have. Why not simply let them declare b4 recruiting starts and let's all move on to the next issue, rather than let this one fester and create for want of a better pair of words, bad blood. Obviously, there is enough of that already, isn't there? Bad blood, like punitive, again, my words.
I don't think you can say it's unfair if everyone is playing with the same risk. That's part of the risk. The consequence is attached to the player, not the program (I know team postseason success also plays a role, but presumably a small one relative to the players attributes). If you're recruiting that player, which you know is going to be an EE candidate, you are accepting the risk, right? Why is it unfair then when he leaves, and you only get the - very valuable - associated assets to allocate after he leaves? That's part of the risk, you have to plan, and you may need to scramble.

The reason I don't advocate WIS capitulating and having them declare early (and especially not eliminating EEs altogether) is because I think it is a good thing, a feature, not a bug, to make all teams, regardless of where they're perched, think and plan before they go after the best of the best. I don't think it's good to have teams in a commodity game enabled to hoard elite commodities year after year.
9/7/2016 5:53 PM
Posted by buddhagamer on 9/7/2016 5:47:00 PM (view original):
Posted by pkoopman on 9/7/2016 5:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by buddhagamer on 9/7/2016 5:23:00 PM (view original):
Why not just have WIS mark the players who will leave and when? Then I can buy your argument and access the risk properly if I want to recruit someone or not. But as long as it is random and this is how EEs are treated, then I guess we might as well just get rid of prestige and hey we can all start every season on an even playing field like you want.
It's not random. As I said earlier, of the 60 EE candidates on the board in Allen, all but 4 were in the top 15 at their position when they were recruited. I know this isn't exactly the assessment you're looking for, because we can't view HS ratings post-draft, but it's not going to be a big discrepancy. Top 10 in class is a pretty decent risk he'll consider. Top 11-20 much smaller, but still a risk. We're not flying blind here.
It is *random* in that who goes and who doesn't is not within my control (nor can I find out which recruit will leave and who won't). While I can possible anticipate who might have a higher chance of leaving, there are no guarantees that Player A is going to leave nor is there any guarantee that Player B is going to stay all 4 years (I've had what you would call "role" players leave in their JR season while they were sitting on the bench).

While you can say that almost every EE is in the top 10 of their positions, not *ALL* players in the top of their positions will go EE (some will participate all 4 eligible years). And I've had an EE that was NOT in the top 10 of their positions while at a D- D1 school in my *first* recruiting season.

And the punishment for one school who recruits role player A who goes EE versus an identical school who recruits role player B through no fault of their own other than the coach for player A actually is a better coach, goes onto a deep run and is rewarded with his player leaving is laughable.

If this is how you would want us to handle EEs, then I would petition seble to code in that post season success has ZERO effect on whether a player leaves or not or even player development. Why should the successful coach be punished by making a deep run (if two teams have identical players)? Why would even being better at player development be a factor then? Why not just decide when you recruit that 5 star, that he's going in SO/JR season, regardless of how the team performs or how his rating develop?
Might be semantics again, but I don't think the absence of a guarantee is equivalent to the presence of randomness.

I actually do agree that it would be a good idea to drop postseason success as part of the EE equation. I also agree that the whole logic behind it should be changed so that it is pretty straightforward and less squirrelly regarding who gets drafted where. But there's always going to be a point where someone leaves and someone stays, and that ambiguity is just part of the game.
9/7/2016 6:01 PM
I know team postseason success also plays a role, but presumably a small one relative to the players attributes.

This is hugely false. Miss the post season and a player doesn't go, win a championship or make a deep run a player not even on the board declares (I've had instances where I've lost in the 2nd round and a player leaves who wasn't on the board). It is completely random and as it state on the top of the draft board, you might not even see it coming.

It sounds like Dynasty games shouldn't be your thing because not all teams start on even footing. And why aren't you advocating for this to be expanded to D2 and D3 (where they randomly pluck guys off their rosters to transfer away).
9/7/2016 6:01 PM
Posted by pkoopman on 9/7/2016 5:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by oldresorter on 9/7/2016 5:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by pkoopman on 9/7/2016 5:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by buddhagamer on 9/7/2016 5:23:00 PM (view original):
Why not just have WIS mark the players who will leave and when? Then I can buy your argument and access the risk properly if I want to recruit someone or not. But as long as it is random and this is how EEs are treated, then I guess we might as well just get rid of prestige and hey we can all start every season on an even playing field like you want.
It's not random. As I said earlier, of the 60 EE candidates on the board in Allen, all but 4 were in the top 15 at their position when they were recruited. I know this isn't exactly the assessment you're looking for, because we can't view HS ratings post-draft, but it's not going to be a big discrepancy. Top 10 in class is a pretty decent risk he'll consider. Top 11-20 much smaller, but still a risk. We're not flying blind here.
but it is unfair, EE schools and players, even if it was 100% known who would declare (which I agree, I feel like I have a pretty good idea if I'm losing someone or not), don't get all the resources every one else does in the first cycle. It is punitive in that sense, my words now - punitive because I'm recruiting for players that I don't have resources given to me that other schools have. Why not simply let them declare b4 recruiting starts and let's all move on to the next issue, rather than let this one fester and create for want of a better pair of words, bad blood. Obviously, there is enough of that already, isn't there? Bad blood, like punitive, again, my words.
I don't think you can say it's unfair if everyone is playing with the same risk. That's part of the risk. The consequence is attached to the player, not the program (I know team postseason success also plays a role, but presumably a small one relative to the players attributes). If you're recruiting that player, which you know is going to be an EE candidate, you are accepting the risk, right? Why is it unfair then when he leaves, and you only get the - very valuable - associated assets to allocate after he leaves? That's part of the risk, you have to plan, and you may need to scramble.

The reason I don't advocate WIS capitulating and having them declare early (and especially not eliminating EEs altogether) is because I think it is a good thing, a feature, not a bug, to make all teams, regardless of where they're perched, think and plan before they go after the best of the best. I don't think it's good to have teams in a commodity game enabled to hoard elite commodities year after year.
So you don't like having risk recruiting a 4 or 5 star recruit at a B prestige Big East school, but you're fine with moving risk to other coaches? As long as we know this is about your self-interest too.

You also glossed over that high DI schools have a huge advantage because of changes seble made, not because of the current recruiting mechanics or postseason bonus. Prior to recruit generation being tweaked, it was possible to compete nationally from Big Sky schools, Horizon schools, Ivies, or Patriot League schools.

9/7/2016 6:07 PM
Posted by buddhagamer on 9/7/2016 6:01:00 PM (view original):
I know team postseason success also plays a role, but presumably a small one relative to the players attributes.

This is hugely false. Miss the post season and a player doesn't go, win a championship or make a deep run a player not even on the board declares (I've had instances where I've lost in the 2nd round and a player leaves who wasn't on the board). It is completely random and as it state on the top of the draft board, you might not even see it coming.

It sounds like Dynasty games shouldn't be your thing because not all teams start on even footing. And why aren't you advocating for this to be expanded to D2 and D3 (where they randomly pluck guys off their rosters to transfer away).
You may be right on the postseason role, and I agree that shouldn't be much of a factor, if it is. But the player's attribute are still paramount, and it's kind of absurd to suggest otherwise. Your 650 backup pg isn't going to go pro, it doesn't matter if you've won eleven NTs in a row.

Regarding Dynasty games, I love them. And starting on "equal footing" is not one of my criteria. I love working up. What I don't love is perpetuity. It's Hoops Dynasty, not Hoops Perpetually Bulletproof Dynasty.
9/7/2016 6:09 PM
Posted by acn24 on 9/7/2016 6:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by pkoopman on 9/7/2016 5:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by oldresorter on 9/7/2016 5:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by pkoopman on 9/7/2016 5:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by buddhagamer on 9/7/2016 5:23:00 PM (view original):
Why not just have WIS mark the players who will leave and when? Then I can buy your argument and access the risk properly if I want to recruit someone or not. But as long as it is random and this is how EEs are treated, then I guess we might as well just get rid of prestige and hey we can all start every season on an even playing field like you want.
It's not random. As I said earlier, of the 60 EE candidates on the board in Allen, all but 4 were in the top 15 at their position when they were recruited. I know this isn't exactly the assessment you're looking for, because we can't view HS ratings post-draft, but it's not going to be a big discrepancy. Top 10 in class is a pretty decent risk he'll consider. Top 11-20 much smaller, but still a risk. We're not flying blind here.
but it is unfair, EE schools and players, even if it was 100% known who would declare (which I agree, I feel like I have a pretty good idea if I'm losing someone or not), don't get all the resources every one else does in the first cycle. It is punitive in that sense, my words now - punitive because I'm recruiting for players that I don't have resources given to me that other schools have. Why not simply let them declare b4 recruiting starts and let's all move on to the next issue, rather than let this one fester and create for want of a better pair of words, bad blood. Obviously, there is enough of that already, isn't there? Bad blood, like punitive, again, my words.
I don't think you can say it's unfair if everyone is playing with the same risk. That's part of the risk. The consequence is attached to the player, not the program (I know team postseason success also plays a role, but presumably a small one relative to the players attributes). If you're recruiting that player, which you know is going to be an EE candidate, you are accepting the risk, right? Why is it unfair then when he leaves, and you only get the - very valuable - associated assets to allocate after he leaves? That's part of the risk, you have to plan, and you may need to scramble.

The reason I don't advocate WIS capitulating and having them declare early (and especially not eliminating EEs altogether) is because I think it is a good thing, a feature, not a bug, to make all teams, regardless of where they're perched, think and plan before they go after the best of the best. I don't think it's good to have teams in a commodity game enabled to hoard elite commodities year after year.
So you don't like having risk recruiting a 4 or 5 star recruit at a B prestige Big East school, but you're fine with moving risk to other coaches? As long as we know this is about your self-interest too.

You also glossed over that high DI schools have a huge advantage because of changes seble made, not because of the current recruiting mechanics or postseason bonus. Prior to recruit generation being tweaked, it was possible to compete nationally from Big Sky schools, Horizon schools, Ivies, or Patriot League schools.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Rutgers has a guy on the big board this year, and it will hurt us more than anyone in the ACC if he goes. What's your point?

And I don't really care about changes made in the past. I care about the game I'd prefer to play now. Also pretty ambivalent to having small conference teams compete nationally. Should be possible, but very tough, and I think that's probably true now anyway.
9/7/2016 6:14 PM (edited)
Posted by pkoopman on 9/7/2016 5:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by oldresorter on 9/7/2016 5:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by pkoopman on 9/7/2016 5:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by buddhagamer on 9/7/2016 5:23:00 PM (view original):
Why not just have WIS mark the players who will leave and when? Then I can buy your argument and access the risk properly if I want to recruit someone or not. But as long as it is random and this is how EEs are treated, then I guess we might as well just get rid of prestige and hey we can all start every season on an even playing field like you want.
It's not random. As I said earlier, of the 60 EE candidates on the board in Allen, all but 4 were in the top 15 at their position when they were recruited. I know this isn't exactly the assessment you're looking for, because we can't view HS ratings post-draft, but it's not going to be a big discrepancy. Top 10 in class is a pretty decent risk he'll consider. Top 11-20 much smaller, but still a risk. We're not flying blind here.
but it is unfair, EE schools and players, even if it was 100% known who would declare (which I agree, I feel like I have a pretty good idea if I'm losing someone or not), don't get all the resources every one else does in the first cycle. It is punitive in that sense, my words now - punitive because I'm recruiting for players that I don't have resources given to me that other schools have. Why not simply let them declare b4 recruiting starts and let's all move on to the next issue, rather than let this one fester and create for want of a better pair of words, bad blood. Obviously, there is enough of that already, isn't there? Bad blood, like punitive, again, my words.
I don't think you can say it's unfair if everyone is playing with the same risk. That's part of the risk. The consequence is attached to the player, not the program (I know team postseason success also plays a role, but presumably a small one relative to the players attributes). If you're recruiting that player, which you know is going to be an EE candidate, you are accepting the risk, right? Why is it unfair then when he leaves, and you only get the - very valuable - associated assets to allocate after he leaves? That's part of the risk, you have to plan, and you may need to scramble.

The reason I don't advocate WIS capitulating and having them declare early (and especially not eliminating EEs altogether) is because I think it is a good thing, a feature, not a bug, to make all teams, regardless of where they're perched, think and plan before they go after the best of the best. I don't think it's good to have teams in a commodity game enabled to hoard elite commodities year after year.
Nothing wrong with your words. So everything you said is true, planning, thinking, etc, but it doesn't counter the FACT that schools that face EE's are recruiting with less resources in the first round, than schools that don't, when they lose EE's in the second round. Those planned replacements are being recruited for less than a buck on the dollar or so, in some cases, for pennies on the dollar, if the wrong things happen, planned for or not.

Sometimes I feel like some of you are like the French Revolutionaries, and you are looking to behead all of us vet coaches. You've already won the war, recruiting as we know it is gone, recruits will be evenly spread out, honestly, it will work. But why behead us, don't you want to try and win fair and square with us alive and breathing to compete against?





9/7/2016 6:12 PM
Posted by buddhagamer on 9/7/2016 6:01:00 PM (view original):
I know team postseason success also plays a role, but presumably a small one relative to the players attributes.

This is hugely false. Miss the post season and a player doesn't go, win a championship or make a deep run a player not even on the board declares (I've had instances where I've lost in the 2nd round and a player leaves who wasn't on the board). It is completely random and as it state on the top of the draft board, you might not even see it coming.

It sounds like Dynasty games shouldn't be your thing because not all teams start on even footing. And why aren't you advocating for this to be expanded to D2 and D3 (where they randomly pluck guys off their rosters to transfer away).
yep.
9/7/2016 6:16 PM
Posted by oldresorter on 9/7/2016 6:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by pkoopman on 9/7/2016 5:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by oldresorter on 9/7/2016 5:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by pkoopman on 9/7/2016 5:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by buddhagamer on 9/7/2016 5:23:00 PM (view original):
Why not just have WIS mark the players who will leave and when? Then I can buy your argument and access the risk properly if I want to recruit someone or not. But as long as it is random and this is how EEs are treated, then I guess we might as well just get rid of prestige and hey we can all start every season on an even playing field like you want.
It's not random. As I said earlier, of the 60 EE candidates on the board in Allen, all but 4 were in the top 15 at their position when they were recruited. I know this isn't exactly the assessment you're looking for, because we can't view HS ratings post-draft, but it's not going to be a big discrepancy. Top 10 in class is a pretty decent risk he'll consider. Top 11-20 much smaller, but still a risk. We're not flying blind here.
but it is unfair, EE schools and players, even if it was 100% known who would declare (which I agree, I feel like I have a pretty good idea if I'm losing someone or not), don't get all the resources every one else does in the first cycle. It is punitive in that sense, my words now - punitive because I'm recruiting for players that I don't have resources given to me that other schools have. Why not simply let them declare b4 recruiting starts and let's all move on to the next issue, rather than let this one fester and create for want of a better pair of words, bad blood. Obviously, there is enough of that already, isn't there? Bad blood, like punitive, again, my words.
I don't think you can say it's unfair if everyone is playing with the same risk. That's part of the risk. The consequence is attached to the player, not the program (I know team postseason success also plays a role, but presumably a small one relative to the players attributes). If you're recruiting that player, which you know is going to be an EE candidate, you are accepting the risk, right? Why is it unfair then when he leaves, and you only get the - very valuable - associated assets to allocate after he leaves? That's part of the risk, you have to plan, and you may need to scramble.

The reason I don't advocate WIS capitulating and having them declare early (and especially not eliminating EEs altogether) is because I think it is a good thing, a feature, not a bug, to make all teams, regardless of where they're perched, think and plan before they go after the best of the best. I don't think it's good to have teams in a commodity game enabled to hoard elite commodities year after year.
Nothing wrong with your words. So everything you said is true, planning, thinking, etc, but it doesn't counter the FACT that schools that face EE's are recruiting with less resources in the first round, than schools that don't, when they lose EE's in the second round. Those planned replacements are being recruited for less than a buck on the dollar or so, in some cases, for pennies on the dollar, if the wrong things happen, planned for or not.

Sometimes I feel like some of you are like the French Revolutionaries, and you are looking to behead all of us vet coaches. You've already won the war, recruiting as we know it is gone, recruits will be evenly spread out, honestly, it will work. But why behead us, don't you want to try and win fair and square with us alive and breathing to compete against?





Come on, that's some glaring hyperbole. I've been playing long enough to be a vet, I have a NT (other handle), I have 2 big 6 programs. I'm not interested in knocking players down, punishing success, and believe it or not, I don't want players to leave. I hope those vets like competition enough to compete without the perpetual advantage that full resources for early entries has afforded them in the past.

I'm not looking for brikeisco's head. There was nothing wrong with him getting the best players he could, even though I detest that system that allowed him to sign 5 elite prospects with little challenge so he could go all in on my top recruit. I don't want him to be punished for it. But I do want his team to have to deal with the natural and fair - because it applies to us all - consequences that will go along with it.
9/7/2016 6:25 PM
"the FACT that schools that face EE's are recruiting with less resources in the first round, than schools that don't"

I think that every school in a division starts the first round with $X base and $Y per opening in their scouting budget and $A base and $B per opening in their recruiting budget, and the only difference between X and Y or A and B for different schools depends on which division they are in. I do not think that within a division some schools start with more per opening than other schools. Is this incorrect?
9/7/2016 6:42 PM
Posted by CoachSpud on 9/7/2016 6:42:00 PM (view original):
"the FACT that schools that face EE's are recruiting with less resources in the first round, than schools that don't"

I think that every school in a division starts the first round with $X base and $Y per opening in their scouting budget and $A base and $B per opening in their recruiting budget, and the only difference between X and Y or A and B for different schools depends on which division they are in. I do not think that within a division some schools start with more per opening than other schools. Is this incorrect?
spud except you left out the final part of the sentence, which changes the meaning, does that make sense to you? Have you recruited in the beta with ee's? I did twice, both times two of them, the best planning still doesn't change you are trying to recruit for X openings with Y resources, with Z EE's coming, where X = Y + Z - make sense?

the FACT that schools that face EE's are recruiting with less resources in the first round, than schools that don't, when they lose EE's in the second round.

9/7/2016 6:47 PM
Posted by buddhagamer on 9/7/2016 6:01:00 PM (view original):
I know team postseason success also plays a role, but presumably a small one relative to the players attributes.

This is hugely false. Miss the post season and a player doesn't go, win a championship or make a deep run a player not even on the board declares (I've had instances where I've lost in the 2nd round and a player leaves who wasn't on the board). It is completely random and as it state on the top of the draft board, you might not even see it coming.

It sounds like Dynasty games shouldn't be your thing because not all teams start on even footing. And why aren't you advocating for this to be expanded to D2 and D3 (where they randomly pluck guys off their rosters to transfer away).
This has been mentioned before about the transfers from D2 and D3. Just recently a kid from D3 Grinnell transfered to Syracuse to be a Walk on. Imagine if it was like that in HD.

You could use the same argument to a D2 or D3 coach- well you shouldn't have gotten such a good player even though you were on equal footing with your competition, that's your fault. Fine, but at least give the resources to go out and try to get another good player.

In the nuHD, the field is very balanced and randomized. You can't just go around scooping up 5 stars with no effort. So if you're getting good players who are EE worthy then you are probably WORKING for it and EARNING it. Why would you have a system where you don't want to get the best players possible because it's going to royally screw you later on? Doesn't make sense to me.
9/7/2016 6:50 PM
Posted by pkoopman on 9/7/2016 6:25:00 PM (view original):
Posted by oldresorter on 9/7/2016 6:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by pkoopman on 9/7/2016 5:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by oldresorter on 9/7/2016 5:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by pkoopman on 9/7/2016 5:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by buddhagamer on 9/7/2016 5:23:00 PM (view original):
Why not just have WIS mark the players who will leave and when? Then I can buy your argument and access the risk properly if I want to recruit someone or not. But as long as it is random and this is how EEs are treated, then I guess we might as well just get rid of prestige and hey we can all start every season on an even playing field like you want.
It's not random. As I said earlier, of the 60 EE candidates on the board in Allen, all but 4 were in the top 15 at their position when they were recruited. I know this isn't exactly the assessment you're looking for, because we can't view HS ratings post-draft, but it's not going to be a big discrepancy. Top 10 in class is a pretty decent risk he'll consider. Top 11-20 much smaller, but still a risk. We're not flying blind here.
but it is unfair, EE schools and players, even if it was 100% known who would declare (which I agree, I feel like I have a pretty good idea if I'm losing someone or not), don't get all the resources every one else does in the first cycle. It is punitive in that sense, my words now - punitive because I'm recruiting for players that I don't have resources given to me that other schools have. Why not simply let them declare b4 recruiting starts and let's all move on to the next issue, rather than let this one fester and create for want of a better pair of words, bad blood. Obviously, there is enough of that already, isn't there? Bad blood, like punitive, again, my words.
I don't think you can say it's unfair if everyone is playing with the same risk. That's part of the risk. The consequence is attached to the player, not the program (I know team postseason success also plays a role, but presumably a small one relative to the players attributes). If you're recruiting that player, which you know is going to be an EE candidate, you are accepting the risk, right? Why is it unfair then when he leaves, and you only get the - very valuable - associated assets to allocate after he leaves? That's part of the risk, you have to plan, and you may need to scramble.

The reason I don't advocate WIS capitulating and having them declare early (and especially not eliminating EEs altogether) is because I think it is a good thing, a feature, not a bug, to make all teams, regardless of where they're perched, think and plan before they go after the best of the best. I don't think it's good to have teams in a commodity game enabled to hoard elite commodities year after year.
Nothing wrong with your words. So everything you said is true, planning, thinking, etc, but it doesn't counter the FACT that schools that face EE's are recruiting with less resources in the first round, than schools that don't, when they lose EE's in the second round. Those planned replacements are being recruited for less than a buck on the dollar or so, in some cases, for pennies on the dollar, if the wrong things happen, planned for or not.

Sometimes I feel like some of you are like the French Revolutionaries, and you are looking to behead all of us vet coaches. You've already won the war, recruiting as we know it is gone, recruits will be evenly spread out, honestly, it will work. But why behead us, don't you want to try and win fair and square with us alive and breathing to compete against?





Come on, that's some glaring hyperbole. I've been playing long enough to be a vet, I have a NT (other handle), I have 2 big 6 programs. I'm not interested in knocking players down, punishing success, and believe it or not, I don't want players to leave. I hope those vets like competition enough to compete without the perpetual advantage that full resources for early entries has afforded them in the past.

I'm not looking for brikeisco's head. There was nothing wrong with him getting the best players he could, even though I detest that system that allowed him to sign 5 elite prospects with little challenge so he could go all in on my top recruit. I don't want him to be punished for it. But I do want his team to have to deal with the natural and fair - because it applies to us all - consequences that will go along with it.
yea - that was pretty bad. Does it help if I swear to you that 'french Rev' comp is how some of your reactions to 3.0 makes me feel? I might be the only one who feels that, but honestly, I do, hyperbole or not. This whole EE thing seems crazy to me, I amazed that this topic needs to be discussed, fair and right seems most straightforward to me. Oh well.
9/7/2016 6:51 PM
Posted by Benis on 9/7/2016 6:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by buddhagamer on 9/7/2016 6:01:00 PM (view original):
I know team postseason success also plays a role, but presumably a small one relative to the players attributes.

This is hugely false. Miss the post season and a player doesn't go, win a championship or make a deep run a player not even on the board declares (I've had instances where I've lost in the 2nd round and a player leaves who wasn't on the board). It is completely random and as it state on the top of the draft board, you might not even see it coming.

It sounds like Dynasty games shouldn't be your thing because not all teams start on even footing. And why aren't you advocating for this to be expanded to D2 and D3 (where they randomly pluck guys off their rosters to transfer away).
This has been mentioned before about the transfers from D2 and D3. Just recently a kid from D3 Grinnell transfered to Syracuse to be a Walk on. Imagine if it was like that in HD.

You could use the same argument to a D2 or D3 coach- well you shouldn't have gotten such a good player even though you were on equal footing with your competition, that's your fault. Fine, but at least give the resources to go out and try to get another good player.

In the nuHD, the field is very balanced and randomized. You can't just go around scooping up 5 stars with no effort. So if you're getting good players who are EE worthy then you are probably WORKING for it and EARNING it. Why would you have a system where you don't want to get the best players possible because it's going to royally screw you later on? Doesn't make sense to me.
benis, that is the part that I can't understand, the dominate d1 program ogre is dead. Stabbed right thru the heart. Then he was beheaded. Then shot in the gut. Now it seems that burning at the stake is being asked for. 3.0 is doing a great job of fairly doling out recruits, spreading them about. Why not simply fix the EE issue, and move on to the next thing? make more progress, rather than get bogged down on this one, and in the process kind of hurt whatever momentum the new release should generate.

I honestly did not like the way the old system worked either. I asked for changes in recruiting for a long time. This is not my ideal, but a few things about it are near brilliant. It will work, albeit slow and clunky. Working well is a great thing.

How about we all bury the ogre in a proper grave, and move on.
9/7/2016 6:56 PM
all this posting was 'taxing', I'm going to leave it to higher minds for now. Been interesting, I did my best to portray my own POV on this topic, I did write up a ticket asking for Seble to resolve this issue in the manner I lobbied for. I suggest others to do the same, on both sides of the divide. I've always felt like this was 'our' game, all of ours, and it is our job to make ourselves heard, and to also listen, when others are trying to be heard. Can't have it just one way, right? I might check back in for the morning. I seldom blog on the main forum the past 5 yrs or so, but will probably do a little bit here and there with the 3.0 release. Good luck to all!
9/7/2016 7:04 PM
◂ Prev 1...9|10|11|12 Next ▸
No fix for EE problem Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.