Posted by jpmills3 on 11/11/2016 7:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 11/11/2016 6:11:00 PM (view original):
If you are getting 4 early entries 4-5 seasons from now, it is because you have chosen to take the risk of multiple early entries, and you've gotten very lucky rolls. In 4-5 seasons, the early entry scenario most people will be navigating is where they have 2 maybe 3 possible early entries, and they need to be flexible and have some good depth already in place to securely avoid a down season.

This sounds like a comment from a person who has not had many players go EE. Take the risk with multiple EE's? I have had guys stay that have had no business staying. I have had guys leave that had no business leaving. It can be quite random, and there is no way to know for sure how long a kid will stay.

No, it's not random. You know when you're recruiting a player who could go early. Players in the top 20 at their positions are a risk to leave early. Beyond 20, it's possible, but pretty rare, unless they're big potential guys. But again, coaches astute as you know when you're recruiting a great player.

Those commodities are meant to be volatile.

Posted by pkoopman on 11/11/2016 6:11:00 PM (view original):
If you are getting 4 early entries 4-5 seasons from now, it is because you have chosen to take the risk of multiple early entries, and you've gotten very lucky rolls. In 4-5 seasons, the early entry scenario most people will be navigating is where they have 2 maybe 3 possible early entries, and they need to be flexible and have some good depth already in place to securely avoid a down season.

But we knew this would be an issue before the launch... why not fix it? Why use injustice to "even the playing field" when every other change naturally will do this? I lost five last season. Have 5 of the top 25 players this season as well. Why do we need an artificial punishment in addition to the natural ones?

Posted by pkoopman on 11/11/2016 9:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jpmills3 on 11/11/2016 7:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 11/11/2016 6:11:00 PM (view original):
If you are getting 4 early entries 4-5 seasons from now, it is because you have chosen to take the risk of multiple early entries, and you've gotten very lucky rolls. In 4-5 seasons, the early entry scenario most people will be navigating is where they have 2 maybe 3 possible early entries, and they need to be flexible and have some good depth already in place to securely avoid a down season.

This sounds like a comment from a person who has not had many players go EE. Take the risk with multiple EE's? I have had guys stay that have had no business staying. I have had guys leave that had no business leaving. It can be quite random, and there is no way to know for sure how long a kid will stay.

No, it's not random. You know when you're recruiting a player who could go early. Players in the top 20 at their positions are a risk to leave early. Beyond 20, it's possible, but pretty rare, unless they're big potential guys. But again, coaches astute as you know when you're recruiting a great player.

Those commodities are meant to be volatile.

And in the real life market there are schools who are basically immune to the effects of the volatility in that they can get equal replacements.

Posted by vandydave on 11/11/2016 10:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 11/11/2016 9:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jpmills3 on 11/11/2016 7:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 11/11/2016 6:11:00 PM (view original):
If you are getting 4 early entries 4-5 seasons from now, it is because you have chosen to take the risk of multiple early entries, and you've gotten very lucky rolls. In 4-5 seasons, the early entry scenario most people will be navigating is where they have 2 maybe 3 possible early entries, and they need to be flexible and have some good depth already in place to securely avoid a down season.

This sounds like a comment from a person who has not had many players go EE. Take the risk with multiple EE's? I have had guys stay that have had no business staying. I have had guys leave that had no business leaving. It can be quite random, and there is no way to know for sure how long a kid will stay.

No, it's not random. You know when you're recruiting a player who could go early. Players in the top 20 at their positions are a risk to leave early. Beyond 20, it's possible, but pretty rare, unless they're big potential guys. But again, coaches astute as you know when you're recruiting a great player.

Those commodities are meant to be volatile.

And in the real life market there are schools who are basically immune to the effects of the volatility in that they can get equal replacements.

This. Right now I have two very strong teams (Texas in Naismith, LSU in Knight) where I have no seniors and I am likely to get multiple EEs. There's really not much in the way of "planning" I can do -- with 20 APs, I'm going to be at huge deficits in battles for even decent players in the 2nd session, even if/when I unlock multiple players in the 1st session using my meager allotment. Are we looking for realism here or not? If not, why have EEs at all? If so, the elite, multiple EE teams need to have an equal (or at least not crippled) chance.

Posted by vandydave on 11/11/2016 10:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 11/11/2016 9:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jpmills3 on 11/11/2016 7:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 11/11/2016 6:11:00 PM (view original):
If you are getting 4 early entries 4-5 seasons from now, it is because you have chosen to take the risk of multiple early entries, and you've gotten very lucky rolls. In 4-5 seasons, the early entry scenario most people will be navigating is where they have 2 maybe 3 possible early entries, and they need to be flexible and have some good depth already in place to securely avoid a down season.

This sounds like a comment from a person who has not had many players go EE. Take the risk with multiple EE's? I have had guys stay that have had no business staying. I have had guys leave that had no business leaving. It can be quite random, and there is no way to know for sure how long a kid will stay.

No, it's not random. You know when you're recruiting a player who could go early. Players in the top 20 at their positions are a risk to leave early. Beyond 20, it's possible, but pretty rare, unless they're big potential guys. But again, coaches astute as you know when you're recruiting a great player.

Those commodities are meant to be volatile.

And in the real life market there are schools who are basically immune to the effects of the volatility in that they can get equal replacements.

How many? Right now, UK. Maybe one or two others in a given year, but not without struggle. Immune wouldn't be the right word for anyone but maybe UK, and that's right now, because in the real world, teams fight for that spot on the perch. If you want to go to a system where the 1-3 top programs in the world get their pick of recruits every year and everybody else fights for the rest like we do now in 3.0, for the sake of realism, I can go along with that. I don't know how you achieve it, but fine if you can code it. That's not what happened in the old version, though, where a dozen to twenty schools split all or most of the early entry caliber players. They're not all UKs.

From a gameplay standpoint in a multi-player universe, no one being "immune" to commodity volatility is an acceptable break from "reality".

At any given time in real life college hoops there is an upper crust of schools - I can only assume you dislike Duke to list UK but not Duke. There's another 6-8 or so schools who belong in the discussion of schools who every single year are in the mix for the top talent in the nation, and sometimes schools come and go from that list decade by decade. HD has no reason to not reflect that other than forced parity, whether it be regular recruiting or with EEs.

i am not convinced that the good of the game calls for the ability to replace EEs with elite players consistently

I do believe tha the good of the game calls for the realistic ability to get DI useful players when you lose EEs

not feasible now when unepxected or large number of EEs

Posted by vandydave on 11/12/2016 12:53:00 AM (view original):
At any given time in real life college hoops there is an upper crust of schools - I can only assume you dislike Duke to list UK but not Duke. There's another 6-8 or so schools who belong in the discussion of schools who every single year are in the mix for the top talent in the nation, and sometimes schools come and go from that list decade by decade. HD has no reason to not reflect that other than forced parity, whether it be regular recruiting or with EEs.

I wouldn't say Duke is "immune" from early entry volatility. They had a good team last year, but depth was a concern, and hurt them at various points. They'll have a great team this year, probably a top 3-4 team if they stay healthy. They've been an elite team as long as coach K has been there, but they still fight for elite talent, and guys tell them no sometimes. Sure, you could add Syracuse, UNC, KU, Villanova, Michigan State, maybe a couple others depending on the year, but none of them are immune to early entry pain, and they all fight hard for most elite recruits; if they land a top level guy with no real fight, it's a gift.

And even if we grant your premise, if the choice is between having 15 schools be "immune" to the volatility of elite commodities (as with 2.0), having 8 such schools, or having none, I think for the sake of gameplay, the best choice is none. That isn't forced parity, it's forced competitiveness.

The game changes will make it much harder, if not Impossible, to have the types of teams year in, year out, some elites have.
Dont think this needs to be discussed. Good changes, some.
But Duke, KS, KY, UNC, UCLA, UCONN, SYR, Mich St. etc. Would never hope for a D2 caliber player to replace NBA players year in, year out.

This has to change.

Have them declare prior to first recruiting cycle and it's fixed.
And it isn't still really hard to replace players with no conference cash, less distance barriers, random choices (I still hate this), and C- Horizon school having the same recruiting resources as Duke.

That helps the good of the game.
We are not asking for the other changes to go away, just a fighting chance instead of no resources until 90% of B or above players are gone & 8% of the others already have their minds made up,

Posted by stewdog on 11/12/2016 8:36:00 AM (view original):
The game changes will make it much harder, if not Impossible, to have the types of teams year in, year out, some elites have.
Dont think this needs to be discussed. Good changes, some.
But Duke, KS, KY, UNC, UCLA, UCONN, SYR, Mich St. etc. Would never hope for a D2 caliber player to replace NBA players year in, year out.

This has to change.

Have them declare prior to first recruiting cycle and it's fixed.
And it isn't still really hard to replace players with no conference cash, less distance barriers, random choices (I still hate this), and C- Horizon school having the same recruiting resources as Duke.

That helps the good of the game.
We are not asking for the other changes to go away, just a fighting chance instead of no resources until 90% of B or above players are gone & 8% of the others already have their minds made up,

Do you agree that moving forward, after this transition phase of classes that were recruited in the old system, teams dealing with more than 2 EEs in a given year will be uncommon? I start with that premise, and the tweaks I want are based there, because that's the game we're going to be playing. In that game, I think the best way to improve the EE issue is to ensure that a rational number of elite players - 3 star and up - wait until the 2nd period. Under the current system, it's supposed to be about 25% late, and 25% whenever. If we assume half the whenever guys go first period, that's 37% available for late signings. I think that should be about 60%. And I also think there should be one or two signing free cycles for late recruits, so coaches changing teams, and dealing with out-of-the-blue EEs can get their intended effort considered by late players.

Posted by pkoopman on 11/12/2016 8:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 11/12/2016 12:53:00 AM (view original):
At any given time in real life college hoops there is an upper crust of schools - I can only assume you dislike Duke to list UK but not Duke. There's another 6-8 or so schools who belong in the discussion of schools who every single year are in the mix for the top talent in the nation, and sometimes schools come and go from that list decade by decade. HD has no reason to not reflect that other than forced parity, whether it be regular recruiting or with EEs.

I wouldn't say Duke is "immune" from early entry volatility. They had a good team last year, but depth was a concern, and hurt them at various points. They'll have a great team this year, probably a top 3-4 team if they stay healthy. They've been an elite team as long as coach K has been there, but they still fight for elite talent, and guys tell them no sometimes. Sure, you could add Syracuse, UNC, KU, Villanova, Michigan State, maybe a couple others depending on the year, but none of them are immune to early entry pain, and they all fight hard for most elite recruits; if they land a top level guy with no real fight, it's a gift.

And even if we grant your premise, if the choice is between having 15 schools be "immune" to the volatility of elite commodities (as with 2.0), having 8 such schools, or having none, I think for the sake of gameplay, the best choice is none. That isn't forced parity, it's forced competitiveness.

To your last sentence, no one, and I mean no one, is arguing for a return to the lack of competitiveness at the top in 2.0 recruiting, they are arguing that elite schools should still have options for EEs which recognize their prestige and accomplishments and create reasonable pathways. Seble couldn't seem to either see that point or reconcile that point with the new recruiting design.

They need to do something for jobs changing, it's impossible to get good players. I took three projects, all have same position, sf, and won't be ready until junior year... It means a wasted recruiting 2nd session for d1 teams. Imagine if we had over 150 teams in d1. All the problems need dast fixing. The lottery vh-h needs aomething done too.

Posted by vandydave on 11/12/2016 9:23:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 11/12/2016 8:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 11/12/2016 12:53:00 AM (view original):
At any given time in real life college hoops there is an upper crust of schools - I can only assume you dislike Duke to list UK but not Duke. There's another 6-8 or so schools who belong in the discussion of schools who every single year are in the mix for the top talent in the nation, and sometimes schools come and go from that list decade by decade. HD has no reason to not reflect that other than forced parity, whether it be regular recruiting or with EEs.

I wouldn't say Duke is "immune" from early entry volatility. They had a good team last year, but depth was a concern, and hurt them at various points. They'll have a great team this year, probably a top 3-4 team if they stay healthy. They've been an elite team as long as coach K has been there, but they still fight for elite talent, and guys tell them no sometimes. Sure, you could add Syracuse, UNC, KU, Villanova, Michigan State, maybe a couple others depending on the year, but none of them are immune to early entry pain, and they all fight hard for most elite recruits; if they land a top level guy with no real fight, it's a gift.

And even if we grant your premise, if the choice is between having 15 schools be "immune" to the volatility of elite commodities (as with 2.0), having 8 such schools, or having none, I think for the sake of gameplay, the best choice is none. That isn't forced parity, it's forced competitiveness.

To your last sentence, no one, and I mean no one, is arguing for a return to the lack of competitiveness at the top in 2.0 recruiting, they are arguing that elite schools should still have options for EEs which recognize their prestige and accomplishments and create reasonable pathways. Seble couldn't seem to either see that point or reconcile that point with the new recruiting design.

Elite schools do have options, it just requires an adaptation in gameplay which many who post here (though not all) seem unwilling to try. Prestige is still a large factor, though not as large as we are used to. Number of scholarships are still a large factor, though not as large as we are used to. Your past accomplishments are still recognized - but they don't determine your future accomplishments to the extent they used to. It does take more work and long term planning (and luck) to stay at the top. That makes a better game, in my opinion. You don't have to agree with this assessment, or my preferences. But regardless of what we individuals prefer - and we've both made our preferences very clear - 3.0 is the game that exists. There are good ways to play the game that exists, and that's what the OP in this thread is about.

Posted by pkoopman on 11/12/2016 9:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 11/12/2016 9:23:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 11/12/2016 8:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 11/12/2016 12:53:00 AM (view original):
At any given time in real life college hoops there is an upper crust of schools - I can only assume you dislike Duke to list UK but not Duke. There's another 6-8 or so schools who belong in the discussion of schools who every single year are in the mix for the top talent in the nation, and sometimes schools come and go from that list decade by decade. HD has no reason to not reflect that other than forced parity, whether it be regular recruiting or with EEs.

I wouldn't say Duke is "immune" from early entry volatility. They had a good team last year, but depth was a concern, and hurt them at various points. They'll have a great team this year, probably a top 3-4 team if they stay healthy. They've been an elite team as long as coach K has been there, but they still fight for elite talent, and guys tell them no sometimes. Sure, you could add Syracuse, UNC, KU, Villanova, Michigan State, maybe a couple others depending on the year, but none of them are immune to early entry pain, and they all fight hard for most elite recruits; if they land a top level guy with no real fight, it's a gift.

And even if we grant your premise, if the choice is between having 15 schools be "immune" to the volatility of elite commodities (as with 2.0), having 8 such schools, or having none, I think for the sake of gameplay, the best choice is none. That isn't forced parity, it's forced competitiveness.

To your last sentence, no one, and I mean no one, is arguing for a return to the lack of competitiveness at the top in 2.0 recruiting, they are arguing that elite schools should still have options for EEs which recognize their prestige and accomplishments and create reasonable pathways. Seble couldn't seem to either see that point or reconcile that point with the new recruiting design.

Elite schools do have options, it just requires an adaptation in gameplay which many who post here (though not all) seem unwilling to try. Prestige is still a large factor, though not as large as we are used to. Number of scholarships are still a large factor, though not as large as we are used to. Your past accomplishments are still recognized - but they don't determine your future accomplishments to the extent they used to. It does take more work and long term planning (and luck) to stay at the top. That makes a better game, in my opinion. You don't have to agree with this assessment, or my preferences. But regardless of what we individuals prefer - and we've both made our preferences very clear - 3.0 is the game that exists. There are good ways to play the game that exists, and that's what the OP in this thread is about.

Pk : try it. If luck is the deciding factor, why play? If you want a top D2 school in session 2, then yes, the game can work... Now, thought, at D1, it's a mess.

Ees
lottery
job changing
d2 coming on top of big six schools because of the way it is desugned


It needs changes. No skills are required really.

Posted by zorzii on 11/12/2016 10:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 11/12/2016 9:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 11/12/2016 9:23:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 11/12/2016 8:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 11/12/2016 12:53:00 AM (view original):
At any given time in real life college hoops there is an upper crust of schools - I can only assume you dislike Duke to list UK but not Duke. There's another 6-8 or so schools who belong in the discussion of schools who every single year are in the mix for the top talent in the nation, and sometimes schools come and go from that list decade by decade. HD has no reason to not reflect that other than forced parity, whether it be regular recruiting or with EEs.

I wouldn't say Duke is "immune" from early entry volatility. They had a good team last year, but depth was a concern, and hurt them at various points. They'll have a great team this year, probably a top 3-4 team if they stay healthy. They've been an elite team as long as coach K has been there, but they still fight for elite talent, and guys tell them no sometimes. Sure, you could add Syracuse, UNC, KU, Villanova, Michigan State, maybe a couple others depending on the year, but none of them are immune to early entry pain, and they all fight hard for most elite recruits; if they land a top level guy with no real fight, it's a gift.

And even if we grant your premise, if the choice is between having 15 schools be "immune" to the volatility of elite commodities (as with 2.0), having 8 such schools, or having none, I think for the sake of gameplay, the best choice is none. That isn't forced parity, it's forced competitiveness.

To your last sentence, no one, and I mean no one, is arguing for a return to the lack of competitiveness at the top in 2.0 recruiting, they are arguing that elite schools should still have options for EEs which recognize their prestige and accomplishments and create reasonable pathways. Seble couldn't seem to either see that point or reconcile that point with the new recruiting design.

Elite schools do have options, it just requires an adaptation in gameplay which many who post here (though not all) seem unwilling to try. Prestige is still a large factor, though not as large as we are used to. Number of scholarships are still a large factor, though not as large as we are used to. Your past accomplishments are still recognized - but they don't determine your future accomplishments to the extent they used to. It does take more work and long term planning (and luck) to stay at the top. That makes a better game, in my opinion. You don't have to agree with this assessment, or my preferences. But regardless of what we individuals prefer - and we've both made our preferences very clear - 3.0 is the game that exists. There are good ways to play the game that exists, and that's what the OP in this thread is about.

Pk : try it. If luck is the deciding factor, why play? If you want a top D2 school in session 2, then yes, the game can work... Now, thought, at D1, it's a mess.

Ees
lottery
job changing
d2 coming on top of big six schools because of the way it is desugned


It needs changes. No skills are required really.

Someone is landing elite recruits, and it's not because of luck.

Lots of players are adapting, and developing strong strategies for 3.0. Others aren't able to, or don't want to. Calling "luck the deciding factor", or "no skills required really" is nonsense. Figure it out or ask for help, or stop playing if you just don't like it.