Posted by girt25 on 4/26/2012 7:16:00 AM (view original):
Well, I don't really agree with that last sentence. Some people are commenting that essentially that they want more predictability and less randomness, and yes, your suggestion would result in predictability. Maybe not 100% predictability, but if the 20 EE's come from just a pool of the top 25-30 rated players, then yes, that's predictability. It may also feel more logical to you, but that doesn't mean it's not also predictable.

And I know in the past you've felt it should be harder for teams to lose numerous EE's -- do you still feel that way, and if so, would you want to see a safeguard in place so a handful of teams aren't losing 3-4 EE's? That would be as bad or worse than what happens currently.

The best guys should get drafted.  If I know the game reasonable well, I should have a reasonable idea who goes EE..  In that sense, I guess I want it predictable. 

I would gladly forfeit the max drafted rule to see an honest attempt to have the best players go EE, the reason for the max guy rule proposal, was teams lose 4, while conf mates with BETTER post season records were keeping 4 BETTER players.  I don't see that as often as I used to, do any of you guys? 

So if the best ten underclassmen all play for me, draft them all, I just want to see the system take the best guys early.  But, if the system remains UNPREDICTABLE, then I'd like to see a max rule, as it is unfair that some school loses 4, while his superior competitors keep everyone.

And it is really, really unfair, that mid majors are losing mid 700 to low 800 level players, who they might be lucky enough to recruit once every other year, while ACC or Big east schools have rosters with 12 guys better than that every year.

Again, this is child's play, I'll go one step further, just take the twenty best guys every year, make it 100% predictable.  I think other than a handful of coaches who get those top twenty players EVERY season, nobody else would complain at all.

If you want to limit the instances where one team loses four EE's and another team keeps his four comparable underclassmen (and I agree with this sentiment), there are a number of easy ways to do it that would be much better than the 5-man cap. The 5-man cap carries negative repercussions that outweigh the limited benefits (we still have lots of randmoness, but the big boys are spared and lesser teams have become more victimized).

I view the "take the 20 best players" approach as too predictable and kind of dumbing things down.

I think the oft-mentioned suggestion of making the scouting trip messages mean something when it comes to who might/might not leave early is a great one. It not only adds some actual reason and logic to the selection process, but it also provides an additional layer of strategy/decision making, and we need more of that.

Agree with OR on the lower level players. IMO, no player rated under 800 (or some other predetermined number) should ever go early, regardless of cores. There are so many underclassmen with much higher ratings that under 800 EEs make no sense. For example, in Crum this year, there are 29 underclassmen rated 900 or above. I had an 842 center go pro, and a 936 SG stay in school. I'm okay with the 842 C going, but if any sub-800 players went pro and my 936 SG stayed in school, I'd be really baffled.

Posted by treyomo on 4/27/2012 11:34:00 AM (view original):
Agree with OR on the lower level players. IMO, no player rated under 800 (or some other predetermined number) should ever go early, regardless of cores. There are so many underclassmen with much higher ratings that under 800 EEs make no sense. For example, in Crum this year, there are 29 underclassmen rated 900 or above. I had an 842 center go pro, and a 936 SG stay in school. I'm okay with the 842 C going, but if any sub-800 players went pro and my 936 SG stayed in school, I'd be really baffled.

I had 737 overall C leave early.  Non-qualifier too, so he only played 2 seasons.

Perhaps this is why the draft itself is so biased against guards - if the majority of EEs tend to be C/PF/SF, that could explain why only 10-14 guards ever get taken through the 2 rounds (Note: I have done no actual analysis to back this up, just throwing out ideas).

Posted by treyomo on 4/27/2012 11:34:00 AM (view original):
Agree with OR on the lower level players. IMO, no player rated under 800 (or some other predetermined number) should ever go early, regardless of cores. There are so many underclassmen with much higher ratings that under 800 EEs make no sense. For example, in Crum this year, there are 29 underclassmen rated 900 or above. I had an 842 center go pro, and a 936 SG stay in school. I'm okay with the 842 C going, but if any sub-800 players went pro and my 936 SG stayed in school, I'd be really baffled.

Dac's Marquette and my Alcorn State both had our 710 rated C leave early. Imagine how we feel with 30 or so BCS conf bigs rated in the 800-1000 range staying. EE system as it stands is simply stupid. 

My EE was a 712 rated C... who I drafted @ 554 and was told was best suited for a mid to mid major school when I drafted him.  He had won zero awards in his 3 seasons (and had not even played in the post season for his first two seasons).

Posted by buddhagamer on 4/27/2012 1:20:00 PM (view original):
My EE was a 712 rated C... who I drafted @ 554 and was told was best suited for a mid to mid major school when I drafted him.  He had won zero awards in his 3 seasons (and had not even played in the post season for his first two seasons).

Honestly, none of that stuff really matters. Things like comments re: mid major are window dressing based purely on his ratings at the time, and conference awards don't factor at all.

The bottom line is that you had a center with 94 ath, 99 reb, 94 def, 100 bl and 95 lp, and the team made the S16. He was a stud in every big man category that matters. I don't think you can be shocked or indignant about his departure.

Read through a few pages here and there and I just want to chime in what a disaster the 5 limit rule on EE is. I (and others) told seble that it was a giveaway to the elites to make them even better, and he didn't give a crap and downplayed it. Now we're seeing the elite's team ratings higher than ever, and everyone falling farther and farther behind.

I wish there was a developer that cared about the game.

http://www.wisjournal.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=7104&pid=2021080

How the hell did this guy stay for his senior season?


And if you want to cap it at 2 EEs per team, do that, but the 5 man rule is stupid.

Posted by stinenavy on 4/27/2012 2:46:00 PM (view original):
Read through a few pages here and there and I just want to chime in what a disaster the 5 limit rule on EE is. I (and others) told seble that it was a giveaway to the elites to make them even better, and he didn't give a crap and downplayed it. Now we're seeing the elite's team ratings higher than ever, and everyone falling farther and farther behind.

I wish there was a developer that cared about the game.

I actually think he cares, but he's misguided. And doesn't necessarily listen to the right people.

You should definitely reach out to seble again re: the 5-man limit. He will make changes if he hears from enough people on something. But if he doesn't hear about it, he resumes it's OK ...

Posted by reinsel on 4/27/2012 4:16:00 PM (view original):
http://www.wisjournal.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=7104&pid=2021080

How the hell did this guy stay for his senior season?


And if you want to cap it at 2 EEs per team, do that, but the 5 man rule is stupid.

BC had two seniors and then lost three more EE's other than that guy.

Yes, they were that stacked.

Posted by girt25 on 4/27/2012 5:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by stinenavy on 4/27/2012 2:46:00 PM (view original):
Read through a few pages here and there and I just want to chime in what a disaster the 5 limit rule on EE is. I (and others) told seble that it was a giveaway to the elites to make them even better, and he didn't give a crap and downplayed it. Now we're seeing the elite's team ratings higher than ever, and everyone falling farther and farther behind.

I wish there was a developer that cared about the game.

I actually think he cares, but he's misguided. And doesn't necessarily listen to the right people.

You should definitely reach out to seble again re: the 5-man limit. He will make changes if he hears from enough people on something. But if he doesn't hear about it, he resumes it's OK ...

I've just gotta ask Daalt.  Who are the "right" people (although I have a feeling I already know what the answer will be)?

That's not a loaded question at all.

But I'll step into it regardless. He does need to listen more to people that have been around the game for a long time and know what they're talking about a bit more than new people who don't quite yet. If someone like OR is suggesting something, I'm sorry, but that deserves more consideration than a comment from a guy who's been coaching for three seasons.

And if a bunch of savvy veterans are all pretty much expressing the same thing -- that to me is a huge red flag and his ears need to start perking up.

Yeah, there is a list of the people that seble should listen to. (I am not on it) but OR certainly is. Anyone with 1000 wins in a world is probably on that list.

Don't have much experience with EE ... but ... would raising that limit to six ameliorate things to any significant degree, or not have much effect?