When you know you are going to have early entries, but fall way behind in recruiting a player...it's just, completely unrealistic and not intuitive.

Current HD position FWIW: "When a player departs for the draft, the school earns additional recruiting money for the second recruiting period. With the removal of some of the snowball logic, we expect the number of schools with multiple draft departures to decrease moving forward lessening the impact of your scenario. That said, we are actively monitoring EEs and have some potential ideas to address in the short term."

Posted by grantduck on 11/1/2016 1:12:00 PM (view original):
Current HD position FWIW: "When a player departs for the draft, the school earns additional recruiting money for the second recruiting period. With the removal of some of the snowball logic, we expect the number of schools with multiple draft departures to decrease moving forward lessening the impact of your scenario. That said, we are actively monitoring EEs and have some potential ideas to address in the short term."

To this I would say, reducing early entries is unrealistic. CBB has many early entries.

What should be changed instead is the recruiting points system for cycle 1. Think about it in real life. Does a school have less time/resources for recruiting just because they have less open scholarships? No. So the whole logic behind how recruiting points are set is flawed to begin with.

Posted by grantduck on 11/1/2016 1:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by grantduck on 11/1/2016 1:12:00 PM (view original):
Current HD position FWIW: "When a player departs for the draft, the school earns additional recruiting money for the second recruiting period. With the removal of some of the snowball logic, we expect the number of schools with multiple draft departures to decrease moving forward lessening the impact of your scenario. That said, we are actively monitoring EEs and have some potential ideas to address in the short term."

To this I would say, reducing early entries is unrealistic. CBB has many early entries.

What should be changed instead is the recruiting points system for cycle 1. Think about it in real life. Does a school have less time/resources for recruiting just because they have less open scholarships? No. So the whole logic behind how recruiting points are set is flawed to begin with.

I personally like the idea of having a static number of attention points for every team, regardless of openings, and I was advocating that before beta even opened. Alas, it got no traction with Seble, or anyone else. Too many people are too attached to expending resources in a bidding process, where scholarships = resources.

koop - assuming static budget, what's your response to the argument that teams with large classes will never be able to compete with teams with only 1-2 openings? Have you thought this through?

Posted by mullycj on 11/1/2016 2:12:00 PM (view original):
koop - assuming static budget, what's your response to the argument that teams with large classes will never be able to compete with teams with only 1-2 openings? Have you thought this through?

I stopped beating that dead horse a long time ago, it's not going to fly. One big change a year!

But for the sake of discussion, the idea was to have the principle determining factors be, in no particular order, preferences, prestige and promises. For the system I was envisioning, resources shouldn't matter (for recruiting - I was assuming scouting resources would still be affected by open scholarships). The recruiting process, in that hypothetical universe, is to find good matches for your program, then prioritize your efforts through allocation of attention, and especially promises (starts, minutes, and I wanted to add shots in there as well).

The advantage teams with lots of open scholarships would have in this situation is freedom to offer lots of promises, which takes the place of "effort". A team with only 2 scholarships and lots of returning upperclassmen may be giving up quite a bit of production giving all those starts, minutes, and shots to freshmen. And if the team lost early entries, they should have those prestige benefits as well. That's the gist.

It would have been a huge change, and probably too much to seriously consider, given everything else that was changing.

Attention points a locked set but have recruiting budget set up on open schollie. And oh yeah atleast half the sessions need to be in the 2nd session not a measly 10

Posted by mullycj on 11/1/2016 2:12:00 PM (view original):
koop - assuming static budget, what's your response to the argument that teams with large classes will never be able to compete with teams with only 1-2 openings? Have you thought this through?

Well now since WIS has introduced an 80 AP cap, would that still be an issue? If they gave everyone a static # of AP to spend (ex. 200) regardless of the # of openings, this would at least make schools that get EEs be on equal footing with other schools fighting for late recruits (even though they would NOT get the EE recruiting cash until after they left prior to session #2).

Posted by grantduck on 11/1/2016 1:10:00 PM (view original):
When you know you are going to have early entries, but fall way behind in recruiting a player...it's just, completely unrealistic and not intuitive.

Do they currently take into account the EE list during the season when grading schools for Playing Time availability?

I think he's talking about the same amount of $$ also regardless of openings

Posted by mullycj on 11/1/2016 2:12:00 PM (view original):
koop - assuming static budget, what's your response to the argument that teams with large classes will never be able to compete with teams with only 1-2 openings? Have you thought this through?

I don't mind the per ship... but maybe a base of 50-60 and 20 per ship? I think those with more openings need to have a logical way to compete with those with fewer ships but I also like the idea of leveling the playing field a bit which helps EE's, etc.

Posted by zhawks on 11/1/2016 5:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 11/1/2016 2:12:00 PM (view original):
koop - assuming static budget, what's your response to the argument that teams with large classes will never be able to compete with teams with only 1-2 openings? Have you thought this through?

I don't mind the per ship... but maybe a base of 50-60 and 20 per ship? I think those with more openings need to have a logical way to compete with those with fewer ships but I also like the idea of leveling the playing field a bit which helps EE's, etc.

I think zhawks suggestion is pretty strong. It's not ideal, but nothing is going to be, and I think it's a pretty fair balance. You want to give more ships a bit of an advantage, but not completely screw over the teams that have a lot of EE's, which is what happens now.

Just have them declare in the first period... I mean, why are we even discussing this again. It's a logic solution to a problem that is easily fixed.

Posted by zorzii on 11/2/2016 3:13:00 PM (view original):
Just have them declare in the first period... I mean, why are we even discussing this again. It's a logic solution to a problem that is easily fixed.

No, that's a terrible "solution", and it's a non-starter.

Posted by shoe3 on 11/2/2016 3:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 11/2/2016 3:13:00 PM (view original):
Just have them declare in the first period... I mean, why are we even discussing this again. It's a logic solution to a problem that is easily fixed.

No, that's a terrible "solution", and it's a non-starter.

Why is it a terrible solution? It's fair. Do you think Calipari does not have the ressource right off the bat even before his kids declare?