They publish the Big Board still, correct? Why not simply giving a few AP bonus for any underclassmen listed as "going"?

Posted by zorzii on 11/2/2016 3:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 11/2/2016 3:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 11/2/2016 3:13:00 PM (view original):
Just have them declare in the first period... I mean, why are we even discussing this again. It's a logic solution to a problem that is easily fixed.

No, that's a terrible "solution", and it's a non-starter.

Why is it a terrible solution? It's fair. Do you think Calipari does not have the ressource right off the bat even before his kids declare?

UK's "resources" aren't relevant here. His resources aren't based on how many scholarships he has open. And elite players don't want to play for UK because he comes by to visit them all the time. And beyond that, there is one UK and one Calipari. I know every HD coach who gets an early entry thinks they're at an equivalent level, or should be for the purposes of this discussion. But even those (very few) that are can't logically argue that this set up makes for a competitive and fun game that people want to pay for. HD shouldn't be seeking to mirror real life in this way.

Giving teams those resources from the beginning annihilates the risk/reward analysis coaches have to make (in HD, and in real life) about whether to go all in on a guy who may jump in 2 years, or a guy who may take longer to develop, but who you can count on, and get full value from. That is a big part of what is making battles in 3.0 more fun. And besides all that, the long term implications go way too far for something that is intended to work itself out, through gameplay adaptation, and the idea that fewer schools will be landing multiple early entry candidates every year.

Give late signees one or two "protected" cycles, and generate more "late" preference among top 100 recruits. Recalibrate attention points for diminishing returns beyond unlocking recruiting actions (or even negative credit when preferences don't match well). There are small tweaks that can be explored to make sure the game is playable and competitive, as it is intended to exist. Eliminating EEs or having them declare early are over reactions that erase a good part of what has improved D1 in 3.0 - more competitive battling for elite commodities.

Just give every team 50 APs to use throughout recruiting, and let prestige and prefs and promises do the rest. It's an easy fix that has to be made eventually.

Unbalanced classes and taking EE candidates are strategic choices that have their own risks and rewards. No need for artificial resource additions that skew everything.

Again this is coming from the perspective of a coach who doesn't recruit EEs

"Eliminating EEs or having them declare early are over reactions that erase a good part of what has improved D1 in 3.0 - more competitive battling for elite commodities."

3.0 is an over-reaction for coaches who cant compete with teams skilled enough to recruit EEs.

Posted by mullycj on 11/2/2016 3:55:00 PM (view original):
Again this is coming from the perspective of a coach who doesn't recruit EEs

Guilty. I stand behind my note. There is no better solution.

Posted by kcsundevil on 11/2/2016 3:54:00 PM (view original):
Just give every team 50 APs to use throughout recruiting, and let prestige and prefs and promises do the rest. It's an easy fix that has to be made eventually.

Unbalanced classes and taking EE candidates are strategic choices that have their own risks and rewards. No need for artificial resource additions that skew everything.

+1

Posted by Benis on 11/2/2016 4:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 11/2/2016 3:54:00 PM (view original):
Just give every team 50 APs to use throughout recruiting, and let prestige and prefs and promises do the rest. It's an easy fix that has to be made eventually.

Unbalanced classes and taking EE candidates are strategic choices that have their own risks and rewards. No need for artificial resource additions that skew everything.

+1

Sure. This totally works for me. Give everyone the same APs no matter what. 50 sounds like a good #.

$$$ can stay as it is. EE issue fixed with that and a slight preference for top 100 players to sign late.

Everyone talks about risk/reward. The "Risk" portion is that the recruit doesn't stay all 4 years. Some coaches think that should be enough risk. Others think its not and that there should be additional risk inherit with recruiting elite quality talent (which in this case is being at a disadvantage at replacing that recruit). The reward part is the marginal increase in the quality of the player and the possibility that he stays all 4 seasons if you are LUCKY (which is RANDOM).

Most elite coaches feel that the LOSS of the player not staying for all FOUR years is sufficient.

I guess how punitive do you other coaches want. Why not just force us to just take a walk on (or lose scholarships for multiple seasons) while you at it.

Its not like we're gifted these recruits and zero risk. We had to battle (and win) those recruits just like any other recruit won by any other school.

Posted by buddhagamer on 11/2/2016 4:31:00 PM (view original):
Everyone talks about risk/reward. The "Risk" portion is that the recruit doesn't stay all 4 years. Some coaches think that should be enough risk. Others think its not and that there should be additional risk inherit with recruiting elite quality talent (which in this case is being at a disadvantage at replacing that recruit). The reward part is the marginal increase in the quality of the player and the possibility that he stays all 4 seasons if you are LUCKY (which is RANDOM).

Most elite coaches feel that the LOSS of the player not staying for all FOUR years is sufficient.

I guess how punitive do you other coaches want. Why not just force us to just take a walk on (or lose scholarships for multiple seasons) while you at it.

Its not like we're gifted these recruits and zero risk. We had to battle (and win) those recruits just like any other recruit won by any other school.

Not to be a jerk but I'm not sure what your point is.

Not to be a jerk but I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is that most counter argument of why not having EEs declare up front is due to the lack of risk they think elite schools would put up with getting their resources up front. In HD 2.0, elite schools had a huge # of advantages that have now been removed.

1. No conference cash.
2. No rollover cash.
3. Didn't have to deal with preferences (which make it easier to battle now).
4. Didn't have to battle with other elite programs at distance.

All of the above helped elite schools keep elite talent season after season.

So they removed all of those advantages *AND* now make it more difficult for us to fill in EEs. Seriously, just make it that either EEs declare early OR get rid of them completely and I still think mid-majors/low D1 would be more competitive than it was before in HD 2.0.

EEs the way they are is just overkill IMO (that or keep it this way but give us back everything else but this is just piling on but I guess other less-successful coaches can just keep asking WIS to tip the scales more and more).

Losing an elite player early isn't a "risk". Your program isn't harmed, or worse off than it would have been if he choose someone else (if you really think it is, you wouldn't recruit that player in the first place). You're just back to square one from a game standpoint. The nature of the commodity is that it's valuable, but volatile. Recruiting an elite player should be looked at like recruiting a juco, except there's a chance he stays all 4 years.

3.0 isn't punitive (though it is admittedly hard on teams right now who are facing 4 possible early entries - again, the idea is that by design, those kinds of classes will be very rare in 3.0). So the interim is rough, especially for teams that didn't know what was coming. But it isn't punishment to say that when an early entry leaves your team, you may struggle to replace him. It's removing an advantage that used to be enjoyed. I'd say the first iteration of beta - where you didn't get full resources for a walk-on - was actually punitive. But that only lasted one season of beta. I think the balance is almost where it needs to be right now. As I've said, I'd just increase the amount of top 100 players who want to sign late to about 40%, and add a couple no-sign cycles for those players at the start of 2nd session. Maybe recalibrate APs on top of that. Maybe. That's probably the sweet spot.

See my new proposed schedule: LINK

Let me put it this way, sure early entry decisions can hurt schools in real life.

However, it doesn't hurt their resources and it doesn't mean that if UCLA/Duke/Arizona want a player over say, San Jose State, that they are suddenly not going to get that player. When SJSU outrecruits an A+ prestige because they have "more open scholarships", that's something that needs an immediate fix.

Posted by grantduck on 11/3/2016 1:12:00 PM (view original):
Let me put it this way, sure early entry decisions can hurt schools in real life.

However, it doesn't hurt their resources and it doesn't mean that if UCLA/Duke/Arizona want a player over say, San Jose State, that they are suddenly not going to get that player. When SJSU outrecruits an A+ prestige because they have "more open scholarships", that's something that needs an immediate fix.

That is not new .. and this update fixes the previous issue.

I used to purposely take 3 walkons so I could spend all my cash on on really good player in Div-1 in 2.0.

In 3.0, now you can only put 20 HV and 1 CV on any one recruit. And any Div-1 team should be able to do that with several recruits. So there should be no reason that a high prestige team got beat by a low prestige team because of cash supply.

Posted by hughesjr on 11/3/2016 2:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by grantduck on 11/3/2016 1:12:00 PM (view original):
Let me put it this way, sure early entry decisions can hurt schools in real life.

However, it doesn't hurt their resources and it doesn't mean that if UCLA/Duke/Arizona want a player over say, San Jose State, that they are suddenly not going to get that player. When SJSU outrecruits an A+ prestige because they have "more open scholarships", that's something that needs an immediate fix.

That is not new .. and this update fixes the previous issue.

I used to purposely take 3 walkons so I could spend all my cash on on really good player in Div-1 in 2.0.

In 3.0, now you can only put 20 HV and 1 CV on any one recruit. And any Div-1 team should be able to do that with several recruits. So there should be no reason that a high prestige team got beat by a low prestige team because of cash supply.

Still have the AP advantage. 140 AP recruiting 3 players has advantage of 80 APs recruiting 3 players.