I know everybody loves the idea of being able to dictate man-to-man matchups, but I think that they way things are structured right now that could pose some problems. I just had a PG leave early from my UCLA team, 99 ATH/100 SPD/100 DEF. He could shut down anyone he matches up against and I could put him on anyone's best scorer. The problem is two-fold; first, he's 5'10", so the thought he could shut down an elite 6'7"+ SF/PF/C in the post is absurd. The second problem is a much bigger, in that it puts too much power back on the defense. The offensive coach won't have the option to address a more favorable matchup during the game, since the programming won't allow it. I don't particularly want to return to the HD where 55-50 games were high scoring.
Also, I'll add the below suggestions regarding EEs, I've sent them in and gotten the standard CS response, but perhaps if more people see them and like them, they may get more traction:
Two suggestions to improve the early entry process at DI:
Currently it seems like evals for all of the top 100-120 recruits say that they will likely leave early for the NBA. I suggest reducing that to 25-35 (skewed towards 4-5 stars, but some 1-3 stars as well), but actually make it mean something. The kids who have that message will leave early, current logic can be used (or tweaked and improved) to determine if they leave after their FR, SO or JR seasons, but they will never see their SR season.
Also, I think there should be an extra email that comes at rollover, with the draft email, where your assistant coach can tell you who had a great summer and who might be tempted by the NBA if they have a good season. That way EEs can be better predicted (if they weren't on the email, they won't go) and it will allow coaches to mitigate their impact by adjusting recruitng targets.