I think seble has decided - he said they will leave as is and watch the effects

I think its a bad decision. Along with a few others of the worst decisions embedded in the new game - which is why I expect to bail after giving it a brief try. Overall, I think the game play will not be fun for me in light of this and other bad decisions.

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.

Well first off, I have to say again, it's not about punishment. No one is saying that people shouldn't go after the best players they can get. This isn't like booster violations.

So we agree that there will be fewer instances of teams landing more than 2 EE candidates in a class. We know 3.0 is likely to spread talent out more, we know most coaches will likely adjust their recruiting habits, and super-classes of 6 4-5 star freshmen are going to be anomalies. But now we're back to implementing a long-term fix for a short term problem that is best worked out through adjustments in gameplay. I'm ok with tweaks that happen to alleviate some of that pain - more players with late preference, no late preference signings the first cycle or two of the second session, adding some decent jucos for the second session. But those are geared primarily toward improving playability for coaches who change jobs. I'd be hesitant to make changes for something I expect to work out through adjustments in gameplay and strategy. Dealing with an EE or two isn't bad or scary in 3.0. It's just going to be bad when you have more EEs than graduating seniors. And as discussed above, that's likely to be rare, and only felt by coaches who try to continue to hoard. Why should I be compelled to support re-instating the protection from those consequences?

Posted by pkoopman on 9/7/2016 6:14:00 PM (view original):

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.

I was referring to you complaining about BC beating you for a recruit. You don't mind the risk for schools to have multiple EEs, but you seem upset that when you risked going after a stud with your B school and were beaten by a higher prestige school.

So if you're not for leveling the playing field, why are you excited about it? Hasn't that been the driving force in this whole thread and in 3.0 been to reduce the advantage that high DI schools have in the current game? You'll have to excuse my feeling put out when the guy who created the imbalance can't be bothered to come up with a response to a serious issue beyond "Eh, we'll see what happens."

So who should be able to compete nationally? More than the current 10-15, but not including small schools? Only BCS? BCS, A-10, and a few others?

I would accept how EEs are right now if the draft board was static (i.e. top 60 at the start of the season would be drafted in the order you see) and how it works today. You could at least then argue that you can *see* that you have to plan for 2 EEs with just 1 opening. What is ultimately frustrating is thinking you have 1 opening to fill with the #89 player on the board saying "likely staying" and then end up with him leaving PLUS one other not on the board at all just because you made it to the F4.

How in the world do you plan for that mid-season? By the time you are told you got two EEs when you expected none, most D1 recruits are gone (and you might be locked into a fight already for the 1 recruit you are battling for). Moving AP away to try and find additional backups might put you behind him as well.

Posted by acn24 on 9/7/2016 7:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 9/7/2016 6:14:00 PM (view original):

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.

I was referring to you complaining about BC beating you for a recruit. You don't mind the risk for schools to have multiple EEs, but you seem upset that when you risked going after a stud with your B school and were beaten by a higher prestige school.

So if you're not for leveling the playing field, why are you excited about it? Hasn't that been the driving force in this whole thread and in 3.0 been to reduce the advantage that high DI schools have in the current game? You'll have to excuse my feeling put out when the guy who created the imbalance can't be bothered to come up with a response to a serious issue beyond "Eh, we'll see what happens."

So who should be able to compete nationally? More than the current 10-15, but not including small schools? Only BCS? BCS, A-10, and a few others?

1) No, you're projecting. I don't mind that risk at all. I gamble for recruits all the time. One of the things I appreciate most about 3.0 is that it encourages the battles. The risk of not getting a recruit is fine. Believe me, I'm used to it. What annoys me is the sniping, and the fact that *all those scholarships*, far more than the prestige, is the reason why no one battled BC for those other recruits. Because no one battled him for the other recruits, he could confidently dump right before the signing cycle, and disappear the effort and assets I had invested. In the real world, there is no reason at all why the #9 center in the country, right in my back yard, would be considered a reach for a B level big 6 team. Especially when BC had also just signed a higher rated center, and another top 10 big man. Leading to...
2) I like a lot about 3.0. It's more fun, recruit decisions are more rational (see above) or at least can be. Reducing the power of elite D1 teams to get what they want unchallenged is not the equivalent of leveling the playing field. I'm not interested in absolute parity (as I've said many times) but I am interested in a game where coaches don't feel like they need to join a cartel to legitimately compete for elite commodities. I dislike mob/cartel games, and thatis basically what high D1 is in 2.0.
3) Everyone should be *able* to compete nationally. But it should be a long, hard road, and take a lot of luck and creativity for those outside big 6. And it should never be static over dozens of seasons. It's not in the game's interest, because then you're back to a few handful of coaches who don't pay and are happy, and the rest who do pay and are frustrated. The best scenario, I think, is a game that rewards good planning, creativity, and some luck/risk-taking, and requires the same to stay at or near the top.

Posted by oldresorter on 9/7/2016 6:47:00 PM (view original):

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.

Sure, in the second round coaches who have not planned and prepared will be at a disadvantage, largely of their own making. There's no disagreement there. Of course, they will have enjoyed the superior performance of NBA-caliber players, too, a point that seems to be conveniently forgotten so often in these conversations. And if I read your post correctly, you have conceded that "with less resources in the first round" was actually not accurate, as every school in the division gets the same base $ and the same per-opening $ in the first round. It is the second round where EE's can make an impact that coaches must be prepared for.

So for all the coaches who love this means of evening out the playing field... do you all support implementing a similar system for D2 and D3 elite programs to get the same equal treatment?

And if not, why not? What is the difference?

Posted by CoachSpud on 9/7/2016 10:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by oldresorter on 9/7/2016 6:47:00 PM (view original):

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.

Sure, in the second round coaches who have not planned and prepared will be at a disadvantage, largely of their own making. There's no disagreement there. Of course, they will have enjoyed the superior performance of NBA-caliber players, too, a point that seems to be conveniently forgotten so often in these conversations. And if I read your post correctly, you have conceded that "with less resources in the first round" was actually not accurate, as every school in the division gets the same base $ and the same per-opening $ in the first round. It is the second round where EE's can make an impact that coaches must be prepared for.

Memo to all coaches: The moment you start to play #Spudball, you've already lost.

Splat....you've been Spudholed!

\

Posted by buddhagamer on 9/7/2016 10:56:00 PM (view original):
So for all the coaches who love this means of evening out the playing field... do you all support implementing a similar system for D2 and D3 elite programs to get the same equal treatment?

And if not, why not? What is the difference?

It's an interesting thought, but what's the point? You'd have to make the case that it would make the game better and/or more enjoyable for a significant number of players to justify it. Would it be good for the game? D1 is a totally different game. There's no baseline prestige in lower levels, and the since many successful coaches want and intend to move up, it's not a stopping point, the way big 6 D1 is. That said, the new engine would lend itself to teams being able to recruit wildly discrepant caliber players, so it may turn out to be a useful tool.

Posted by pkoopman on 9/7/2016 11:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by buddhagamer on 9/7/2016 10:56:00 PM (view original):
So for all the coaches who love this means of evening out the playing field... do you all support implementing a similar system for D2 and D3 elite programs to get the same equal treatment?

And if not, why not? What is the difference?

It's an interesting thought, but what's the point? You'd have to make the case that it would make the game better and/or more enjoyable for a significant number of players to justify it. Would it be good for the game? D1 is a totally different game. There's no baseline prestige in lower levels, and the since many successful coaches want and intend to move up, it's not a stopping point, the way big 6 D1 is. That said, the new engine would lend itself to teams being able to recruit wildly discrepant caliber players, so it may turn out to be a useful tool.

HD 3.0 will make D1 a completely different game. Why would any coach want to go to lower end Big 6 schools? Removal of post season cash and the prospect of getting beat up a dozen times or more will make those jobs even more unattractive than they are now.

With the spreading of recruits, I forsee a huge migration to the non-Big 6 conferences where mid-tier coaches will go about battling similarly talented coaches. Mid Majors will likely be near full, Big 6 conferences will be approx half full and with the exception of baseline prestige which I could care less about, it will look pretty similar to D2 and D3 layout with very little difference.

Posted by pkoopman on 9/7/2016 11:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by buddhagamer on 9/7/2016 10:56:00 PM (view original):
So for all the coaches who love this means of evening out the playing field... do you all support implementing a similar system for D2 and D3 elite programs to get the same equal treatment?

And if not, why not? What is the difference?

It's an interesting thought, but what's the point? You'd have to make the case that it would make the game better and/or more enjoyable for a significant number of players to justify it. Would it be good for the game? D1 is a totally different game. There's no baseline prestige in lower levels, and the since many successful coaches want and intend to move up, it's not a stopping point, the way big 6 D1 is. That said, the new engine would lend itself to teams being able to recruit wildly discrepant caliber players, so it may turn out to be a useful tool.

Div-2 and Div-3 are already evened out. Prestige is based on wins alone and not baseline.

All the changes in 3.0 are implemented in d2 and d3 as well.

And they did not level the playing field completely in Div-1 anyway. The teams with the highest prestige still win most of the time, they just don't win 100% of the battles with 50.00000001% of the effort every single time.

The fact is, one should have to put in effort to find the best recruits. And one should have to put in effort to get the best recruits. The game should never have been set up where no one challenges for a top 5 player because he is within 180 miles of A+ Georgetown. They should have an advantage, sure .. but they should also have to invest some minimal amount of effort. You should not be able to sign the 5th best player without spending a significant amount of effort. Getting them for less than 1% of your budget because people have ceded them to you then allows you to put in effort it should have taken to get a top recruit elsewhere.

This was never a problem in Div-2 or Div-3. They were already more balanced. But the things put in place in 3.0 also maintain balance in Div-2 and Div-3.