I am with you.

1) Fix Ees
2) Cap d3 to 540, frosh, 575 d2, regardless of the division.
3) Fix job changing in D1, it sucks. It's a wasted season. I experienced it in D3 and you can have a productive 2nd recruiting session.
4) Fix the time when newcomers arrive, make them join at the first recruiting session so they don't play a full season without their own players.
5) Reduce the lottery impact in D1 and put some strategy into it.
6) Revisit division prestige strenght and team prestige strenght. If you are dumb and have a Kentucky c- team, it's allright but at A+, you will lose a player to a D 1 out 100 times... Maybe less.

I didn't ask for permission to re-post so I have taken the poster's name off. This is a cogent argument for the EE process as it stands.

"The counter argument to this "fix" is that if EEs declare early and you give teams those resources before recruiting starts then there is very little that deters coaches from focusing on building a team built almost entirely of EE caliber players. I don't think that the developers believe a fix is needed because I don't think they believe the process is broken. I think their intent was to encourage coaches to focus on team building that doesn't rely solely on EE talent. I think that is why they are not taking action on the issue.

They set the price of an EE caliber player very high. As a coach you can recruit them with more competition and risk and if you land them you know you will only have them for two or three seasons with no compensating resources until it is almost too late in the recruiting process to matter. But the talent they bring is also high. We the coaches are the marketplace for those players. If that price was too high for the talent elite players bring then nobody would recruit them. We'd all decide they aren't worth having on our team and we'd look somewhere else.

That hasn't happened though. Coaches are still recruiting the EEs. So the market place is telling you the current price structure is high but it isn't too high.

Clamoring for a fix to this issue is nothing more than asking for a lower price so you can afford more. That doesn't seem to comport with the way they designed the new recruiting. You are still welcome to buy EE caliber players in plentiful supply if you so choose. That choice is still yours to make, but don't suggest it's unfair that the cost is so high for buying that talent, you know that going in now."

Very valid point. It will take a mindset change to only recruit one or two 5 stars because EE becomes a punitive outcome. A middle ground could be reduced attention points for EE's, maybe 10 or 15 vs 20 in the scenario where they declare early. But, again, I see the logic of your assessment.
I must say, in the BETA I had a season with 1 EE and no seniors. I assumed he would go so I scouted and recruited under that assumption. I focused on late deciders only and ended up with the #8 point guard. So the problem is clearly exacerbated by EE volume. Ga Tech in Iba had 5. He never stood a chance. What you are saying, then, is load up on 5 stars at your own risk.

1. I don't think the EE process needs changing (though I'm not terribly against it either). What would be a very simple fix is if a higher % of 4 and 5 star candidates signed later than the 1st signing period (like 50 or 60%). Coaches that know they will have EE's would put attention points toward more of those late signing top players.

2. Zorzii, I don't think there should be caps, especially using the very misleading OVR rating. I think DIII and DII will be more appealing for coaches that want to throw all their ATT points at a higher level player - its a gamble, versus going after multiple attainable recruits. I think the lack of caps actually adds strategy.

3. I absolutely agree with zorzii that job changing is a disaster because of what happens to the recruiting for the team you sign with. When I switched from Campbell to Creighton in Allen D1 for instance, I accidentally signed 3 Sim AI Creighton recruits under my name. When you get the new job, the Sim AI will recruit and sign for you unless you cancel the Sim AI's actions....there's no way that new (or even some veteran) coaches will catch this.

4. Maybe tweak the meanings of "very high" and "high" since that's bothering a lot of people on this board.

a productive thread, kudos

in any discussion of EE's need to keep in mind that as of now EE's are uncertain. This is fine. But it complicates planning - say you have four guys who might EE - in different positions. No one to plan ahead for all.

In the future, large numbers of EEs should be less likely, but EE uncertainty needs to be part of any discussion of EEs

Posted by bbunch on 11/19/2016 10:13:00 AM (view original):
1. I don't think the EE process needs changing (though I'm not terribly against it either). What would be a very simple fix is if a higher % of 4 and 5 star candidates signed later than the 1st signing period (like 50 or 60%). Coaches that know they will have EE's would put attention points toward more of those late signing top players.

2. Zorzii, I don't think there should be caps, especially using the very misleading OVR rating. I think DIII and DII will be more appealing for coaches that want to throw all their ATT points at a higher level player - its a gamble, versus going after multiple attainable recruits. I think the lack of caps actually adds strategy.

3. I absolutely agree with zorzii that job changing is a disaster because of what happens to the recruiting for the team you sign with. When I switched from Campbell to Creighton in Allen D1 for instance, I accidentally signed 3 Sim AI Creighton recruits under my name. When you get the new job, the Sim AI will recruit and sign for you unless you cancel the Sim AI's actions....there's no way that new (or even some veteran) coaches will catch this.

4. Maybe tweak the meanings of "very high" and "high" since that's bothering a lot of people on this board.

1. I'm glad other people are picking up this idea. This is the EE fix that doesn't obliterate the great new competitive 3.0 landscape, but ensures that there are a rational and realistic number of EE caliber players who will be interested in the intended effort that teams with early entries will extend.

2. Caps are a bad idea, but I do think there should be a little more risk for D2 and especially D3 reaches into the D1 pool. 1 or 2 extra non-signing periods for "late" preference players will help (especially if there are more of them). That gives people changing jobs or dealing with unexpected EEs a reasonable chance to catch up on a recruit. Also, there should be some risk that a D1 projected player chooses juco over a lower division team. Maybe starting at 5% chance for mid level prestige D2s, and working its way down to 50% for mediocre or worse D3s.

3. Changing jobs to a low level D1 isn't tough, if you know the system, manage expectations, and you're prepared. In Phelan, I just jumped to D- Lipscomb from D3. Sim had already signed 2, which I couldn't do anything about. I chose 6 players (juco and freshmen) that I thought would be improvements over what I had, and I was able to get them all. Are these players that will get Lipscomb to the sweet 16? No. Hopefully they'll be good enough to get me competitive for some conference titles, and prestige increases. I would agree, changing jobs at a higher level, with higher expectations would be difficult, if you had a lot of spots you felt you *absolutely* needed to fill *now*. I don't think that's anything to "fix", though. That's a natural part of the calculation when a coach thinks about moving on.

4. Agnostic. I'll adapt to however you want to parse and and label those singable players. But generally, I think the probability ranges right now are about right.

1. I don't think the EE process needs changing (though I'm not terribly against it either). What would be a very simple fix is if a higher % of 4 and 5 star candidates signed later than the 1st signing period (like 50 or 60%). Coaches that know they will have EE's would put attention points toward more of those late signing top players.

They said they were going to do change this I thought... Looking at Phelan top 100, 23 are Late. Allen is a little better at 33. This would certainly help but I don't think it's enough. Still need to add in a signing free cycle or two in the 2nd session.

Changing jobs and taking over a new job in a new world sucks.

Posted by Benis on 11/19/2016 11:06:00 AM (view original):
1. I don't think the EE process needs changing (though I'm not terribly against it either). What would be a very simple fix is if a higher % of 4 and 5 star candidates signed later than the 1st signing period (like 50 or 60%). Coaches that know they will have EE's would put attention points toward more of those late signing top players.

They said they were going to do change this I thought... Looking at Phelan top 100, 23 are Late. Allen is a little better at 33. This would certainly help but I don't think it's enough. Still need to add in a signing free cycle or two in the 2nd session.

Changing jobs and taking over a new job in a new world sucks.

No, they didn't change that yet. They did "fix" whenevers, but that had the reverse effect from what we're talking about here, because now more whenevers sign early.

Oh my fault. Wishful thinking.

They fixed the preferences on success and conf strength but didn't change signing tendency.

Posted by CoachSpud on 11/19/2016 2:06:00 PM (view original):
“The fix with EE's should be simple and easy to deal with: Have them declare prior to recruiting period and treat them like seniors.”
Thank you for the bold text. That makes it important … or something.

“The counter argument to this "fix" is that if EEs declare early and you give teams those resources before recruiting starts then there is very little that deters coaches from focusing on building a team built almost entirely of EE caliber players.” Pay attention! There should be a risk associated with going after any special commodity, and your “fix” removes the risk. The real problem is not diminished one bit by your proposed fix.

"1. I don't think the EE process needs changing."
I’m with these guys.

I would urge all participants in this interesting thread to ignore this hostile and un-informative post

I would urge all participants to think for themselves.

Coach Spud: I type in bold because it's easier for me to read with cataracts. There was an implied sarcasm in your response that I'm sure you'd like to withdraw.
I cited a well expressed reasoning posted from another thread that made a cogent case for not changing the EE situation. I also proposed a possible middle ground with reduced attention points for EEs so there was still some risk to attempting to hoard 5 stars, which was a problem in 2.0. that I share your distaste for. I also agree with you on a reasonable risk/reward relationship for recruiting potential EEs. I believe for the good of the game's overall population, if there is a middle ground option, it would be worth considering. It's going to be up to the vendor to decide. I look forward to future input from you of a more constructive nature.