A Note on How EE Impacts Player Value in Recruitin Topic

Hey everyone, thought I'd share an idea on recruit value in regards to EEs, since every seems to be freaking out about them as the "worst" part of the new game.

In 2.0, the very best recruits were valued slightly less than their ratings and potential would indicate because most coaches recruiting those players knew they were leaving early. Essentially, the extremely top-end players (who nearly always left after their sophomore season, occasionally you could get them to stick around for a 3rd) were JUCO players without the IQ bonuses. Ultimately, the most valuable guy you would find would be a player with 70/80s starting ratings and potential to hit high 90s in his cores. These players would be good their sophomore year, peak their junior year, and potentially stick around for their senior year too--these are the players that would win you championships.

In the new game, with recruiting being so difficult in the second period, these ultra-recruits are now even less valuable. Lowering the value of a player because he's likely to go EE is not something new to 3.0, but the hit the ultra-recruits take to their value is just larger.

The coaches who end up succeeding in 3.0 will do two things in regards to EE:

1) Properly adjust for the risk of a player leaving early
2) Start targeting "Late" signers with significant APs so that when/if they do have EEs, they are ready to take advantage of the extra recruiting resources they have available to them right when the second period starts.

3.0 is fascinating because it does force you to change up your recruit evaluation models (even if they're simply mental models). You can't recruit the same way you recruited in 2.0 and I think that's a good thing.
1/8/2017 2:31 PM
Shhhh. ;)
1/8/2017 2:59 PM
Yeah, the recruiting game is a commodity game, like it's always been. I don't love that aspect of it, I think there are ways I would have rather seen them go with 3.0, but this is what we have. And it is interesting, in its own right, even if it's still not a very faithful representation of what convincing an elite 18 year old player to come play for you would be like.

I think the biggest difference now (for high level recruits) is how we predict other teams will evaluate guys. In the previous model, completely deterministic in that 51 always beat 49, the primary question was what your rival could do. Teams with high prestige and lots of scholarships *could* outgun you for any single recruit, so they were often unchallenged for any; the only time they were really vulnerable is if multiple teams took a leap of faith (all on their own, of course!) and decided to engage a risky battle. Now, the emphasis is more on what your rival *will* do. How much of his budgeted time and resources is he willing to devote to a guy. Challenging that team for a single recruit is less risky, so there are more battles, and less cherry-picking. That's an important change, and it makes the commodity game much more rational and competitive, which - as long as it has to be a commodity game - is much better for a competitive multi-player game.
1/8/2017 3:49 PM (edited)
Posted by tkimble on 1/8/2017 2:31:00 PM (view original):
Hey everyone, thought I'd share an idea on recruit value in regards to EEs, since every seems to be freaking out about them as the "worst" part of the new game.

In 2.0, the very best recruits were valued slightly less than their ratings and potential would indicate because most coaches recruiting those players knew they were leaving early. Essentially, the extremely top-end players (who nearly always left after their sophomore season, occasionally you could get them to stick around for a 3rd) were JUCO players without the IQ bonuses. Ultimately, the most valuable guy you would find would be a player with 70/80s starting ratings and potential to hit high 90s in his cores. These players would be good their sophomore year, peak their junior year, and potentially stick around for their senior year too--these are the players that would win you championships.

In the new game, with recruiting being so difficult in the second period, these ultra-recruits are now even less valuable. Lowering the value of a player because he's likely to go EE is not something new to 3.0, but the hit the ultra-recruits take to their value is just larger.

The coaches who end up succeeding in 3.0 will do two things in regards to EE:

1) Properly adjust for the risk of a player leaving early
2) Start targeting "Late" signers with significant APs so that when/if they do have EEs, they are ready to take advantage of the extra recruiting resources they have available to them right when the second period starts.

3.0 is fascinating because it does force you to change up your recruit evaluation models (even if they're simply mental models). You can't recruit the same way you recruited in 2.0 and I think that's a good thing.
You're correct on the fact that guys who are expected to leave early taking a value hit now, and recruiting plans should be adjusted to accommodate that. Still, the problem with this concept is you're asking someone to use the resources they're given to recruit guys who are already leaving as seniors to now spread even thinner to try and predict and recruit for possible EE and essentially recruit more with less. Regardless of what the guy's value is, that is just stupid to force someone to battle with less.
1/8/2017 3:05 PM
Posted by poncho0091 on 1/8/2017 3:05:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tkimble on 1/8/2017 2:31:00 PM (view original):
Hey everyone, thought I'd share an idea on recruit value in regards to EEs, since every seems to be freaking out about them as the "worst" part of the new game.

In 2.0, the very best recruits were valued slightly less than their ratings and potential would indicate because most coaches recruiting those players knew they were leaving early. Essentially, the extremely top-end players (who nearly always left after their sophomore season, occasionally you could get them to stick around for a 3rd) were JUCO players without the IQ bonuses. Ultimately, the most valuable guy you would find would be a player with 70/80s starting ratings and potential to hit high 90s in his cores. These players would be good their sophomore year, peak their junior year, and potentially stick around for their senior year too--these are the players that would win you championships.

In the new game, with recruiting being so difficult in the second period, these ultra-recruits are now even less valuable. Lowering the value of a player because he's likely to go EE is not something new to 3.0, but the hit the ultra-recruits take to their value is just larger.

The coaches who end up succeeding in 3.0 will do two things in regards to EE:

1) Properly adjust for the risk of a player leaving early
2) Start targeting "Late" signers with significant APs so that when/if they do have EEs, they are ready to take advantage of the extra recruiting resources they have available to them right when the second period starts.

3.0 is fascinating because it does force you to change up your recruit evaluation models (even if they're simply mental models). You can't recruit the same way you recruited in 2.0 and I think that's a good thing.
You're correct on the fact that guys who are expected to leave early taking a value hit now, and recruiting plans should be adjusted to accommodate that. Still, the problem with this concept is you're asking someone to use the resources they're given to recruit guys who are already leaving as seniors to now spread even thinner to try and predict and recruit for possible EE and essentially recruit more with less. Regardless of what the guy's value is, that is just stupid to force someone to battle with less.
I completely disagree that it's "just stupid" to have to recruit with the resources you have for outgoing seniors. There are a ton of benefits that come along with potential EEs--you are going to have a better year and you're going to get a bump in prestige when the player gets drafted. The downside is that you have to allocate your recruiting resources slightly differently, but having to change recruiting strategy because of potential EEs is not "just stupid".
1/8/2017 3:17 PM
EE whiners forget they had great players. They just want more great players.
1/8/2017 5:29 PM
Posted by tkimble on 1/8/2017 3:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by poncho0091 on 1/8/2017 3:05:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tkimble on 1/8/2017 2:31:00 PM (view original):
Hey everyone, thought I'd share an idea on recruit value in regards to EEs, since every seems to be freaking out about them as the "worst" part of the new game.

In 2.0, the very best recruits were valued slightly less than their ratings and potential would indicate because most coaches recruiting those players knew they were leaving early. Essentially, the extremely top-end players (who nearly always left after their sophomore season, occasionally you could get them to stick around for a 3rd) were JUCO players without the IQ bonuses. Ultimately, the most valuable guy you would find would be a player with 70/80s starting ratings and potential to hit high 90s in his cores. These players would be good their sophomore year, peak their junior year, and potentially stick around for their senior year too--these are the players that would win you championships.

In the new game, with recruiting being so difficult in the second period, these ultra-recruits are now even less valuable. Lowering the value of a player because he's likely to go EE is not something new to 3.0, but the hit the ultra-recruits take to their value is just larger.

The coaches who end up succeeding in 3.0 will do two things in regards to EE:

1) Properly adjust for the risk of a player leaving early
2) Start targeting "Late" signers with significant APs so that when/if they do have EEs, they are ready to take advantage of the extra recruiting resources they have available to them right when the second period starts.

3.0 is fascinating because it does force you to change up your recruit evaluation models (even if they're simply mental models). You can't recruit the same way you recruited in 2.0 and I think that's a good thing.
You're correct on the fact that guys who are expected to leave early taking a value hit now, and recruiting plans should be adjusted to accommodate that. Still, the problem with this concept is you're asking someone to use the resources they're given to recruit guys who are already leaving as seniors to now spread even thinner to try and predict and recruit for possible EE and essentially recruit more with less. Regardless of what the guy's value is, that is just stupid to force someone to battle with less.
I completely disagree that it's "just stupid" to have to recruit with the resources you have for outgoing seniors. There are a ton of benefits that come along with potential EEs--you are going to have a better year and you're going to get a bump in prestige when the player gets drafted. The downside is that you have to allocate your recruiting resources slightly differently, but having to change recruiting strategy because of potential EEs is not "just stupid".
But you're recruiting for more than just the outgoing seniors. I don't understand how people think it's logical to have to recruit for 4 recruits for example with the resources of 2. Sure you're going to get some additional resources later, but it's right before the end and hoping that the 4 guys you're trying to recruit with the resources of 2 don't sign before you're ever given resources to actually recruit them. You are literally recruiting just to prevent a guy from signing in period 1.

If you get $10 per recruit, and you currently have 2 recruits leaving as seniors and 2 leaving as EE, and another school is recruiting for 4 seniors, then all else equal (prestige, distance, conference, etc), you have now given school 2 a recruiting advantage. In the event that school 2 sucks at recruiting or the player is a late signing preference and school 2 doesn't sign these guys before period 2 starts, then maybe you have a chance, if you can overcome the uphill battle to just catch up first. This is all assuming you are only in battles against one school

You all keep saying that an elite is just trying to keep the small schools down, but what about just staying on par with those at your level? You guys keep saying adjust your strategy, but really what you mean is just take the hit, or settle for someone that can't contribute.
1/8/2017 6:23 PM
Are those on "your level" playing a different game? Or do they have the same problems?
1/8/2017 6:26 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/8/2017 5:29:00 PM (view original):
EE whiners forget they had great players. They just want more great players.
Mike you can come up with a worthwhile response on occasion, but more often than not you comment just to troll. You took your ball home originally, because you didn't like that the rules didn't make it easy for you to put minimal effort and still win, and it's easy to call everyone whiners when you don't deal with the issue they describe. This is not an issue that is even effecting me at this point, so there is nothing for me to forget. Trolls just like it to be handed to them.
1/8/2017 6:29 PM
I have always "recruited to 10" as a rule of thumb. I'll fill if I can but usually it's best to not try to fill every opening. The one thing I do enjoy about 3.0 is how much easier it is to understand how to recruit certain guys, I will be interested to see how high level d1 works when I'm able to get back up there but I highly doubt I'll get rid of that rule considering it's worked great for a solid decade...
1/8/2017 6:47 PM
That's fair point Zhawks, and I can see it becoming much more common place than it was before, even considering how many coaches did use this rule.
1/8/2017 9:48 PM
A Note on How EE Impacts Player Value in Recruitin 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.