Posted by fd343ny on 12/1/2016 3:53:00 AM (view original):
hoarding in this context means doing the best you can under the rules then in effect

the transition problem for teams with large numbers of EEs or unpredictable EEs is large and WIS decided not to care - hoping that in the long term it works out

shafting folks who had optimized under 2.0 was the WIS deciiion after the issue was identified in the beta.

folks should distinguish when discussing EEs whether they mean the transition issue or the ongoing issue.

In HBD there was much ******** about "too many home runs". IMO, it was self-inflicted. Teams were using crappy AAA/AA-level pitchers and they were getting blasted. After all, for every HR, there's a HRA. Some owners began taking advantage of it and using terrible players with 90+ power. Well, after much debate, WifS acted. Those who invested heavily in those terrible, 90+ power guys were screwed. Much ******** followed. Those guys were shafted. They optimized the current state of HBD and paid for it after the update.

It worked out long-term. EE will too. Either users will know that recruiting that "super class" will have drawbacks or the EE-quality players will be spread around. This is the transition period where the 2.0 bounty is costing 3.0 users.

Posted by CoachSpud on 12/1/2016 1:11:00 AM (view original):
"Question 1: Who are these coaches?"
Well, there are about 30 EE's per season per world, give or take a couple, and only a handful of coaches are asking to be indemnified for EE's on the forums. You do the math. And BTW, as long as this continues I believe all the consternation in the forums will fall on deaf ears at WIS, as it should.

"Question 2: ...I had 0 seniors on my team and 4 EEs."
Fortunately for everyone here, multiple EE's like that are soon to be a thing of the past now that actual competition has returned to the top of D1. (Yay!) Everyone knew that during the transition from HD 2.0 to 3.0 some of the stacked teams would have to pay the piper for their hording of EE's. It was discussed a lot in the beta forums; it is no surprise. Give it two or three seasons in each world and the so-called "problem" will have resolved itself.

You didn't answer either question. Not particularly surprising -- but more evidence (as if it was needed) of your bad faith and trolling on the forums. I assume the reason you didn't answer #2 -- and I was sincerely interested in your strategic thoughts, if you had any -- is because you have no idea of an answer. "This will soon be a thing of the past" is not a valid response.

And I don't think people are asking to be "indemnified" -- I think people are asking for a fair opportunity to compete to replace the player if they have EEs, especially unexpected EEs. Right now, they simply do not have it. It's unrealistic, it screws up the incentives of the game, and it remains mind-boggling to me that WIS hasn't fixed it.

Posted by johnsensing on 12/1/2016 8:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 12/1/2016 1:11:00 AM (view original):
"Question 1: Who are these coaches?"
Well, there are about 30 EE's per season per world, give or take a couple, and only a handful of coaches are asking to be indemnified for EE's on the forums. You do the math. And BTW, as long as this continues I believe all the consternation in the forums will fall on deaf ears at WIS, as it should.

"Question 2: ...I had 0 seniors on my team and 4 EEs."
Fortunately for everyone here, multiple EE's like that are soon to be a thing of the past now that actual competition has returned to the top of D1. (Yay!) Everyone knew that during the transition from HD 2.0 to 3.0 some of the stacked teams would have to pay the piper for their hording of EE's. It was discussed a lot in the beta forums; it is no surprise. Give it two or three seasons in each world and the so-called "problem" will have resolved itself.

You didn't answer either question. Not particularly surprising -- but more evidence (as if it was needed) of your bad faith and trolling on the forums. I assume the reason you didn't answer #2 -- and I was sincerely interested in your strategic thoughts, if you had any -- is because you have no idea of an answer. "This will soon be a thing of the past" is not a valid response.

And I don't think people are asking to be "indemnified" -- I think people are asking for a fair opportunity to compete to replace the player if they have EEs, especially unexpected EEs. Right now, they simply do not have it. It's unrealistic, it screws up the incentives of the game, and it remains mind-boggling to me that WIS hasn't fixed it.

All the coaches who don't post on the forums haven't said anything so they must be happy!

And calling attention to the problem hasn't fallen on deaf ears thankfully since WIS did mention a possible change to EEs announcing. Duh.

Are there "unexpected EEs"? That's a serious question.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2016 9:16:00 AM (view original):
Are there "unexpected EEs"? That's a serious question.

yep, definitely a few each season do happen around D1, though i wouldn't say it's a big problem. I've had guys go EE who were "likely staying" and guys who weren't on the draft big board at all (last season I had a guy go from off the board who wasn't a starter for my Arizona squad in Smith, and he literally went last in the draft).

for what it's worth, i still think a single signings-free cycle in session 2 might make a tremendous difference with this EE issue. it's such a slight change and might allow people hit the worst with EEs to at least open up an additional player or two to compensate, without tipping the balance too far the other way.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2016 9:16:00 AM (view original):
Are there "unexpected EEs"? That's a serious question.

Yes, and I have found that a deep NT run seems to push up the probability of EEs. In Texas Allen a season or two ago, I went on a (completely unexpected) final 4 run, and had two guys who were below 80 on the big board declare. My recollection, which could be wrong, was that one was "on the fence," and the other was "likely staying." Very difficult to plan for that, esp. since the NT happens after session 1.

Posted by bfflcommish on 11/27/2016 1:44:00 PM (view original):
I can't believe it but...I am in agreement with Spud in that I would not be in favor of your suggestions 2-4.

With regard to item #1, I do not play at the D1 level so my input carries little weight...however, it has always seemed to me that having EEs declare earlier would resolve most of the problems that coaches have with the new system.

+1, except I do play at D1.

The only thing that is really wrong with D1 imho is the EE thing.

There are unexpected EEs. I've lost guys in the #90-100 range on the big board who were likely staying. It's not crippling if it's your only EE, but when it's the 3rd EE for a class, it really sucks.

there are for sure unexpected EEs

it is rare to see someone not on the big board go, but reasonably often one sees someone who is "likely staying" go

guys who are "on the fence" are coin tosses - roughly

especially tough to plan ahead if you have 3 or 4 possible EEs at different spots - and you can figure it is likely that say 2 will go - but cant tell which 2

this should become less of an issue after a couple more seasons since the 3.0 makes having 3 or 4 EEs less likely. In transition, it is painful

What's so hard about understanding the thought that a player who wasn't on the draft board getting EE is "unexpected".

Maybe the fact you haven't had any makes it new to you, but it happens to someone every season.

Posted by mullycj on 12/1/2016 11:29:00 AM (view original):
What's so hard about understanding the thought that a player who wasn't on the draft board getting EE is "unexpected".

Maybe the fact you haven't had any makes it new to you, but it happens to someone every season.

I have had an early entry (as pkoopman) and I have been trying to recruit them for as long as they've been available to me (the past 3-4 seasons at Rutgers and Virginia). I would expect the *possibility* with each one I land - again, generally top 20 in his class at his position.

Are you you telling me that coaches whose standards exclude basically anyone who isn't a possible early entry candidate can be truly surprised when they lose early entries? That doesn't make sense. Even if the probability is low, as long as you know it's possible to lose a guy who isn't on the big board, if you are only bothering with elite commodities, you can't legitimately be surprised when they behave like elite commodities.

Regarding EE, several of you laid out examples of guys going who were on the fence or likely staying. And that a deep run in the NT makes it more likely.

So, with all this info in hand, how "unexpected" can they be? You know the parameters, more or less, for an EE. If I see "on the fence" and I made a run to the Sweet 16, I don't think his departure would be all that unexpected.

Anyway, I understand have 4-5 is troublesome whether they're expected or not. But that should go away if talent is spread out better. And, even if you do manage a "super class", you know what you're getting into.

“hoarding in this context means doing the best you can under the rules then in effect”
That’s true. The problem was with the game, not the coaches, and it has now been corrected.

“It worked out long-term. EE will too. Either users will know that recruiting that "super class" will have drawbacks or the EE-quality players will be spread around. This is the transition period where the 2.0 bounty is costing 3.0 users.”
That is also exactly right.

“You didn't answer either question.”
So if you don’t get the answer you want, you don’t even see the answer that is there? Ciao.

“So, with all this info in hand, how "unexpected" can they be? … Anyway, I understand have 4-5 is troublesome whether they're expected or not. But that should go away if talent is spread out better. And, even if you do manage a "super class", you know what you're getting into.”
Exactly!

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2016 11:44:00 AM (view original):
Regarding EE, several of you laid out examples of guys going who were on the fence or likely staying. And that a deep run in the NT makes it more likely.

So, with all this info in hand, how "unexpected" can they be? You know the parameters, more or less, for an EE. If I see "on the fence" and I made a run to the Sweet 16, I don't think his departure would be all that unexpected.

Anyway, I understand have 4-5 is troublesome whether they're expected or not. But that should go away if talent is spread out better. And, even if you do manage a "super class", you know what you're getting into.

the problem with your logic here --> by the time you've made that NT run, it's too late to have prepared for the unexpected, because recruiting session 1 is over before the NT starts.