Posted by buddhagamer on 9/7/2016 4:00:00 PM (view original):
And for you guys that say we're taking risks by recruiting elite D1 players, can you show me where there's some way I can tell who will go EE and who will not? Because I just had the #1 overall PF in Phelan decide to stay when he was #4 on the overall board while the #53 guy decided to leave on my team. That is random. If WIS wants it this way, then I suggest they just get rid of EEs by just marking new recruits as 1 year eligible (i.e. I'm leaving as a FR) or 2 year eligible and giving us the info to recruit them or not.

At least then you can claim I knew about what I'm getting into when I recruited him. Right now, I could have a 1 star D1 guy with high WE and starting out at 500 still go EE.

Of course there's no definitive hard and fast rule. But you know who is high-end. High-end comes with risk. I can't see what the recent draftees were rated in hs, but on the pre-season big board in Allen, there are currently 40 Jr. And 20 sophs. All but 11 of those early entry candidates were rated in the top10 at their position when recruited. All but 4 were in the top 14.

Posted by pkoopman on 9/7/2016 4:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 9/7/2016 3:56:00 PM (view original):
Really PK...Winners ball??

So lets use your monopoly example.
Considering its so unfair that I am able to build hotels on my properties because I managed to acquire enough to make sets, you/Seble would argue I should sell those back to the bank to give the other player a chance to catch up?

I am not saying the current system isn't flawed. Just arguing the extent/magnitude of these changes

Not at all. I'm arguing against perpetuating advantages. For example, say we play a game of monopoly and you win. Good for you! I don't want to start the next game if you got to keep all the properties from the last game. I like the WIS rewards system: but it"she not in their interest to let the game get to the point where the same 12-15 schools are getting all the top recruits every year, getting to the Sweet 16 and beyond most years, and end up paying very little for the game... *especially* because that situation is so frustrating to players who are paying.

But isn't that realistic? Most elite recruits do sign with the same 12-15 schools.

Ultimately it's only a huge issue because of the recruit generation update seble made a while back. Now the best recruits are significantly better than the rest of the recruits, and potential and scouting define and display exactly what every recruit can become. This is a direct result to changes seble made to the game, not the standard that HD has always worked under.

There was a time when mid majors and even entry level DI schools could compete nationally, and we had the same recruiting system and conference bonus money.

Posted by grillmaster on 9/7/2016 3:43:00 PM (view original):
I don't get why people want EE's eliminated on one hand, yet strive for realism on the other. If a player is a lock in the NBA lottery he is not coming back to school. College ranks are filled with one and done players. And many players listen to greedy agents and leave school way too early. You want realism, there it is.

Can someone in the beta trials explain how the attention points would work for the schools that lost players as an early entry? I've seen people say they should get a full roster spot worth of points in the second signing period (I apologize if I am not wording this right), would this be fair, unfair, or not make a difference? Wouldn't most top guys normally be targeted by then anyways?

Because in real life a coach can and does recruit "over" his one-and-dones. The AD lets the coach spend the money to recruit, and then sign, players with the knowledge that the program will fill out.

The most elegant solution is to let us bet on EEs and plan accordingly (and if necessary, yank scholies). But that seems a bit much.

The simplest solution, and the one I would favor, is to have the EE decision previewed pre-season so that you get the AP and scholie slots that you will actually be filling.

Right now the result of a talented team and a great recruiting class is a near certain death season a few years down the road. And I'm confident it will only take one of those for me (and others) to walk away.

Posted by oldresorter on 9/7/2016 4:27:00 PM (view original):
there is nothing 'perpetuating' about declaring b4 recruiting starts, and letting every team fill openings and get recruiting resources in an equal system. It is the most simple and straightforward fix to this problem.

That is perpetuating, because it is removing the recruiting consequence of an early entry. If they declare early, I get the prestige bump and the ultra-valuable scholarship for both sessions.

If there is a problem, it is a problem of expectation. The most simple and straightforward "fix" is for the coach to plan ahead and tailor his/her recruiting strategy to taste for risk.

I think the assumption that the same few schools that have tons of EEs are going to continue to have tons of EEs is off base. I can't see how this is possible with the changes in 3.0 that have already been called out.

Meaning, I don't see how this is a "elite schools need to be knocked down so others can compete" argument. That has already happened with all the changes. So this is not an elite school problem, it's a total D1 problem. Mid Majors are probably going to commonly have EEs now. Heck, low D1 could have EEs if they get a perfect storm of a situation. (maybe I'm off here but I guess we don't know yet).

So in my (unexperienced at EE) opinion, this should be about what makes the most sense for the game and what is fun. Okay so you got an EE which means you also had a great player. Good for you. The drawback is that you now lose that EE that you had to get probably a little lucky/fortunate to get in recruiting. That's the 'penalty'. He's gone. Why the additional 'penalty' of not having an equal opportunity to replace him? I don't see it as asking for a leg up, just that you get the resources to replace a player you lose.

Posted by acn24 on 9/7/2016 4:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 9/7/2016 4:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 9/7/2016 3:56:00 PM (view original):
Really PK...Winners ball??

So lets use your monopoly example.
Considering its so unfair that I am able to build hotels on my properties because I managed to acquire enough to make sets, you/Seble would argue I should sell those back to the bank to give the other player a chance to catch up?

I am not saying the current system isn't flawed. Just arguing the extent/magnitude of these changes

Not at all. I'm arguing against perpetuating advantages. For example, say we play a game of monopoly and you win. Good for you! I don't want to start the next game if you got to keep all the properties from the last game. I like the WIS rewards system: but it"she not in their interest to let the game get to the point where the same 12-15 schools are getting all the top recruits every year, getting to the Sweet 16 and beyond most years, and end up paying very little for the game... *especially* because that situation is so frustrating to players who are paying.

But isn't that realistic? Most elite recruits do sign with the same 12-15 schools.

Ultimately it's only a huge issue because of the recruit generation update seble made a while back. Now the best recruits are significantly better than the rest of the recruits, and potential and scouting define and display exactly what every recruit can become. This is a direct result to changes seble made to the game, not the standard that HD has always worked under.

There was a time when mid majors and even entry level DI schools could compete nationally, and we had the same recruiting system and conference bonus money.

I don't know that it's true that the same 12-15 teams get most of the elite recruits in real life; it's certainly not true if you look at a sample of more than a few years. Who comprises the top 12-15 teams now is a lot different than it was in 1996, for example.

Even if I accepted that premise, that doesn't make it good for *this* game.

Posted by pkoopman on 9/7/2016 4:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by oldresorter on 9/7/2016 4:27:00 PM (view original):
there is nothing 'perpetuating' about declaring b4 recruiting starts, and letting every team fill openings and get recruiting resources in an equal system. It is the most simple and straightforward fix to this problem.

That is perpetuating, because it is removing the recruiting consequence of an early entry. If they declare early, I get the prestige bump and the ultra-valuable scholarship for both sessions.

If there is a problem, it is a problem of expectation. The most simple and straightforward "fix" is for the coach to plan ahead and tailor his/her recruiting strategy to taste for risk.

we simply do not agree on this, I could make the same case that you have some expectation that excellence should carry some punitive consequences, which seems misguided, vs those who simply want all openings to be treated the same. A ?, do you feel the game should be real life? I mean, we agree that Kentucky is able to recruit into EE's pretty well, Duke too, most schools can, without having to fear Mt St Mary might be 'courtting' the top ranked PG since he was in 8th grade. Right?

Again, it is completely straightforward, let the EE's declare b4 recruiting starts, and place everyone on an even playing field, for the level of achievement the particular team has attained.

Anyhow, I am amazed that the game has come to this, it almost is funny, if not actually taking place, in an the inmates are running the asylum sort of way:

If there is a problem, it is a problem of expectation. The most simple and straightforward "fix" is for the coach to plan ahead and tailor his/her recruiting strategy to taste for risk.

Posted by Benis on 9/7/2016 4:44:00 PM (view original):
I think the assumption that the same few schools that have tons of EEs are going to continue to have tons of EEs is off base. I can't see how this is possible with the changes in 3.0 that have already been called out.

Meaning, I don't see how this is a "elite schools need to be knocked down so others can compete" argument. That has already happened with all the changes. So this is not an elite school problem, it's a total D1 problem. Mid Majors are probably going to commonly have EEs now. Heck, low D1 could have EEs if they get a perfect storm of a situation. (maybe I'm off here but I guess we don't know yet).

So in my (unexperienced at EE) opinion, this should be about what makes the most sense for the game and what is fun. Okay so you got an EE which means you also had a great player. Good for you. The drawback is that you now lose that EE that you had to get probably a little lucky/fortunate to get in recruiting. That's the 'penalty'. He's gone. Why the additional 'penalty' of not having an equal opportunity to replace him? I don't see it as asking for a leg up, just that you get the resources to replace a player you lose.

yep. Some of the largest, most unfair, EE's I ever had were at Hawaii and at UWGB, both low prestige schools, that lucked into top notch recruits, then lost them. I once recruited the #1 player in the country from UWGB, then lost him after his frosh year - LOL. Oh well?

The fix is so simple to me, the longer I think about it, simply let players declare b4 AP pts start accumulating and budgets are set, and the EE part of the game has no issues at all. Problem solved, case closed.

As I think about it, I think we will see a Low D1 team get an EE. If a D prestige school has great perference matches, maxes out on HVs and promises, pumps in all of his AP (on 6 openings let's say he goes 100 AP per cycle), that's going to be tough to beat. Even a school with an A prestige will have a hard time beating that since the only thing they would have to compete with is the prestige multiplier which is now balanced with the preferences. Throw in the variable signing, even if that A prestige DID get more recruiting credit, that D prestige is still going to have probably a 30-40% shot of signing (totally making that number of but you get the idea).

Posted by Benis on 9/7/2016 4:44:00 PM (view original):
I think the assumption that the same few schools that have tons of EEs are going to continue to have tons of EEs is off base. I can't see how this is possible with the changes in 3.0 that have already been called out.

Meaning, I don't see how this is a "elite schools need to be knocked down so others can compete" argument. That has already happened with all the changes. So this is not an elite school problem, it's a total D1 problem. Mid Majors are probably going to commonly have EEs now. Heck, low D1 could have EEs if they get a perfect storm of a situation. (maybe I'm off here but I guess we don't know yet).

So in my (unexperienced at EE) opinion, this should be about what makes the most sense for the game and what is fun. Okay so you got an EE which means you also had a great player. Good for you. The drawback is that you now lose that EE that you had to get probably a little lucky/fortunate to get in recruiting. That's the 'penalty'. He's gone. Why the additional 'penalty' of not having an equal opportunity to replace him? I don't see it as asking for a leg up, just that you get the resources to replace a player you lose.

1 or even 2 EEs aren't that hard to deal with, from what I've seen in beta. You can use baseline APs and cash to get late guys interested without offering a scholarship. It's a matter of prioritizing. Can you directly replace 4 or 5 early entries with those scholarships in the late period? Not equivalent commodities, no; and that is the point, I think. As you say, moving forward, it's going to be a stretch to get more than 2 of that quality player in a given year. You have to get really lucky and win all your dice rolls.

" High-end comes with risk. "

True, that is how it should be. But a lot of people evidently argue that it should come with near-certainty of replacement instead of risk, and thus the top programs can be almost assured of being on top. Anything less is seen as "punishment," as "socialistic," as catering to incompetent coaches. Pkoopman's Monopoly analogy is apt -- the argument being made is for nearly assured replacement of players lost to EE -- in other words, if you win at Monopoly you should start the next season with at least most of your hotels.

And a good point was made that from a business point of view WIS has to consider that "it's not in their interest to let the game get to the point where the same 12-15 schools are getting all the top recruits every year, getting to the Sweet 16 and beyond most years, and end up paying very little for the game." Paying customers are not dog meat.

"If there is a problem, it is a problem of expectation. The most simple and straightforward "fix" is for the coach to plan ahead and tailor his/her recruiting strategy to taste for risk." That shouldn't be seen as setting the bar too high. Isn't that exactly the recruiting skill that got a top coach to the top in the first place?

"I could make the same case that you have some expectation that excellence should carry some punitive consequences." When you have to make up something that no one said, it is a clear sign that your argument lacks merit.

" I wish some of those people would take a critical look at their own arguments, and see how inappropriate they are."

EASILY the most ironic statement of the week.

Posted by Benis on 9/7/2016 4:52:00 PM (view original):
As I think about it, I think we will see a Low D1 team get an EE. If a D prestige school has great perference matches, maxes out on HVs and promises, pumps in all of his AP (on 6 openings let's say he goes 100 AP per cycle), that's going to be tough to beat. Even a school with an A prestige will have a hard time beating that since the only thing they would have to compete with is the prestige multiplier which is now balanced with the preferences. Throw in the variable signing, even if that A prestige DID get more recruiting credit, that D prestige is still going to have probably a 30-40% shot of signing (totally making that number of but you get the idea).

yep, and if they miss, it seems like at the end, all kinds of D school like players will be laying around, such as they can fill their roster out for near free. IMO if I'm a D, I target one or two 5 stars every cycle, and take my chances.

I just got done recruiting in the beta with 6 openings, and had 2 EE's follow it up. I made a few mistakes, but ended up with 3 top 20 type guys, 2 or 3 bad but servicable juco's, and 2-3 marginal freshmen. It was pretty brutal. I lost I think three 5 star battles, where I was very high and A+ vs B and C type schools, and my preference profile was exceptional.

The point is, this whole thing is incredibly complex and time consuming for the top programs. Kind of like being a championship golfer, and being forced to play left handed in the club championship, cause you won too often in the prior years - LOL. Oh well?

Posted by Benis on 9/7/2016 4:55:00 PM (view original):
" I wish some of those people would take a critical look at their own arguments, and see how inappropriate they are."

EASILY the most ironic statement of the week.

Or does that distinction go to your post, making a charge without any supporting citation?

Or does that distinction go to this post: "The point is, this whole thing is incredibly complex and time consuming for the top programs." Does this poster believe that recruiting will not be complex for all programs? Or is he arguing that top programs should not be asked to deal with anything complex? Hmm, it is not clear ...

Posted by pkoopman on 9/7/2016 4:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 9/7/2016 4:44:00 PM (view original):
I think the assumption that the same few schools that have tons of EEs are going to continue to have tons of EEs is off base. I can't see how this is possible with the changes in 3.0 that have already been called out.

Meaning, I don't see how this is a "elite schools need to be knocked down so others can compete" argument. That has already happened with all the changes. So this is not an elite school problem, it's a total D1 problem. Mid Majors are probably going to commonly have EEs now. Heck, low D1 could have EEs if they get a perfect storm of a situation. (maybe I'm off here but I guess we don't know yet).

So in my (unexperienced at EE) opinion, this should be about what makes the most sense for the game and what is fun. Okay so you got an EE which means you also had a great player. Good for you. The drawback is that you now lose that EE that you had to get probably a little lucky/fortunate to get in recruiting. That's the 'penalty'. He's gone. Why the additional 'penalty' of not having an equal opportunity to replace him? I don't see it as asking for a leg up, just that you get the resources to replace a player you lose.

1 or even 2 EEs aren't that hard to deal with, from what I've seen in beta. You can use baseline APs and cash to get late guys interested without offering a scholarship. It's a matter of prioritizing. Can you directly replace 4 or 5 early entries with those scholarships in the late period? Not equivalent commodities, no; and that is the point, I think. As you say, moving forward, it's going to be a stretch to get more than 2 of that quality player in a given year. You have to get really lucky and win all your dice rolls.

It isn't even replacing with equivalent commodities, its getting a usable D1 player at all. The only reason I replaced even 1 of my 3 EEs in BETA was due to the fact that Dartmouth had a extra recruit considering him and he didn't have an opening (and I still took 2 walk ons).

Try planning ahead with 40 AP and try and line up 3 to 6 openings before the 2nd period (never mind trying to fill that 1 opening I had to start which I lucked out on).