I ran into an odd situation today and want to see if anyone else has had a similar experience. Last season in recruiting, instead of taking a walk on, I decided to grab a senior transfer to fill my last spot. I did a search for players with one year remaining, found a guy, and signed him. The guy sucked, but he was better than a walk on. He played something like 3 mpg last year.

When the season rolled over today, I was surprised to see him still on my roster. Turns out he had initially been a non qualifier at his old D2 school, and now he's listed as a Sr/5 for me. I don't want this bum, and I only signed him last year because he had one year remaining.

My position is: he was listed as a 1 year player, he played 1 year, he should be off my roster now. I didn't think this would be a big issue, but the person at customer support seems to think I should have known that he was labeled wrongly as a 1 year player and that he might stay an extra year. (if it matters, I only play D3 and thus have never dealt with a non qualifier)

Has anyone else run into this situation before?

You should have done your research. Live and learn.

Research being, not everyone who is listed as a one year player is actually a one year player? I have certainly learned, but I'm not sure I should have been expected to know that.

I thought it was pretty obvious how many years he had left when it said "Eligible Years: 1" next to his name. If there's a chance he's gonna stay two years, that has to read "Eligible Years: 2".

That is pretty lame, but I'm not sure how easy it'd be to code it so some Sr's are 1 year and some are 2 on the search.  I'd have made the same mistake you did though...if I'm recruiting a Sr transfer, wtf do I care about their prior stats?  Heck, I don't even do more than glance at their ratings since Sr transfers won't even play anyway.

U click on his collegiate profile and then go to his stats and u would have saw he was adacamdemic non qualifier we all make mistakes just learn from it.

I did make a mistake. I believed that "Eligible Years: 1" meant that player was only eligible for one year.

there is no assurance that a nonqualifier will stay for an SR5 season
 
He had one year of assured eligibility - which is what the number 1 meant.  If it said 2, folks would complain when some kids left after 1. 

THE correct way to check is - as stated - to look at his college record.  Before recruiting a player, it is wise to look at their college record.

By the way, another circumstance in which one really should look at college record is if you have any interest in redshirting a player.  If a kid transfers after having had a redshirt, he cannot have a second red shirt.  So, if there is a guy with 2 or 3 seasons left who one considers signing with a possible redshirt in mind, you must look at his college record

The general guidance is always look at college record - may learn something

Posted by mrg1037 on 6/16/2013 6:54:00 PM (view original):
I ran into an odd situation today and want to see if anyone else has had a similar experience. Last season in recruiting, instead of taking a walk on, I decided to grab a senior transfer to fill my last spot. I did a search for players with one year remaining, found a guy, and signed him. The guy sucked, but he was better than a walk on. He played something like 3 mpg last year.

When the season rolled over today, I was surprised to see him still on my roster. Turns out he had initially been a non qualifier at his old D2 school, and now he's listed as a Sr/5 for me. I don't want this bum, and I only signed him last year because he had one year remaining.

My position is: he was listed as a 1 year player, he played 1 year, he should be off my roster now. I didn't think this would be a big issue, but the person at customer support seems to think I should have known that he was labeled wrongly as a 1 year player and that he might stay an extra year. (if it matters, I only play D3 and thus have never dealt with a non qualifier)

Has anyone else run into this situation before?

This strikes me as an ultra-rare problem, but I'm with you that it is a flaw in the game.

If his eligible years said 1, it's common sense that he should be gone now. Requiring you to do research to verify that "1" is accurate strikes me as completely unreasonable.

Posted by mrg1037 on 6/16/2013 8:48:00 PM (view original):
I did make a mistake. I believed that "Eligible Years: 1" meant that player was only eligible for one year.

And technically, that's all he was eligible for UNTIL he finished his senior year and was granted an extra year of eligibility (and opted to take it).

If you want to blame anyone, blame your underwater basketweaving department for implementing that paper mache certification program and enticing him to stick around for a few more classes.

Posted by stinenavy on 6/16/2013 10:07:00 PM (view original):
I'd hate to see the amount of moronic tickets like this that get submitted.

Research? It's two damn clicks in the player card.

This is like saying everyone should make two extra clicks to verify a player is actually a power forward or that a campus visit will actually cost $984. 

"Eligible years: 1" seems pretty clear to me. The least they could do for potential Sr/5s is make them a 1* or something similar.

Posted by stinenavy on 6/16/2013 10:07:00 PM (view original):
I'd hate to see the amount of moronic tickets like this that get submitted.

Research? It's two damn clicks in the player card.

The issue isn't whether it would have been easy to research it.  The issue is that he didn't know there was a need to research.  He searched for players with 1 year of eligibility and got a player who stayed 2 years.  Try, just try, writing something that adds value to a conversation please.

Posted by stinenavy on 6/16/2013 10:07:00 PM (view original):
I'd hate to see the amount of moronic tickets like this that get submitted.

Research? It's two damn clicks in the player card.

First - moronic? You seem like a class act.

Second - nobody is claiming its difficult to find this information. The problem is that the only reason you'd look for that info is if you first ask yourself, I wonder if the Eligible Years listed next to the player is wrong? Which is an odd question to ask.

Posted by kcsundevil on 6/16/2013 10:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by stinenavy on 6/16/2013 10:07:00 PM (view original):
I'd hate to see the amount of moronic tickets like this that get submitted.

Research? It's two damn clicks in the player card.

This is like saying everyone should make two extra clicks to verify a player is actually a power forward or that a campus visit will actually cost $984. 

"Eligible years: 1" seems pretty clear to me. The least they could do for potential Sr/5s is make them a 1* or something similar.

The 1* is a good idea to prevent this in the future.

Posted by fd343ny on 6/16/2013 9:26:00 PM (view original):
there is no assurance that a nonqualifier will stay for an SR5 season
 
He had one year of assured eligibility - which is what the number 1 meant.  If it said 2, folks would complain when some kids left after 1. 

THE correct way to check is - as stated - to look at his college record.  Before recruiting a player, it is wise to look at their college record.

By the way, another circumstance in which one really should look at college record is if you have any interest in redshirting a player.  If a kid transfers after having had a redshirt, he cannot have a second red shirt.  So, if there is a guy with 2 or 3 seasons left who one considers signing with a possible redshirt in mind, you must look at his college record

The general guidance is always look at college record - may learn something

Exactly, although no one has addressed your post, despite it being the most on-point.

He is only eligible for one more year until he qualifies, by GPA, for a fifth. 

You should ALWAYS look at the collegiate record of a transfer player if you are recruiting a D1 or D2 player. 

Granted it sucks that you didn't know what to look for, but I don't think there is a problem. 1* solves it, I suppose, but at some point I really think the responsibility is on us, not on WIS to make it so easy that we have to do no research on the players we are recruiting. It's the same reason I don't favor an ability to search by potential.

And this is coming from someone who will always find a way to bash the developers for their failures to care even a little about this game.