5/31 development blog Topic

seble
Posts: 880 (0)
Hall of Famer
24 44 35 306 121 185
Prospect
I've looked at the senior transfer issue and it's not a clear cut thing.  It looks like at least half of those guys are in the rotation for their team, in which case it doesn't make sense to punish them.  So if I were to remove senior transfers from the 5-max rule, I would have to attach some other checks to it, most likely a minimum minutes played or something.  When you look at it more closely, it doesn't look like it's really happening that much anyway.  I'll think about it some more and make a decision.

I don't expect to change anything else about that rule at this time.  I don't think it's unfair to have underclassmen stay if the roster is being decimated by departures.  I'll run some more tests to see if I can get a good idea of how often that's even coming into play, but I have a feeling it's not as often as some of you think.
6/1/2012 11:45 AM
grecianfox
Posts: 131 (0)
Hall of Famer
760 5 72 11
Rookie

I think teams should be limited to one senior transfer and that the five rule should be scrapped. This is coming from someone that has recently benefited from the five rule.

6/1/2012 12:07 PM
reinsel
Posts: 927 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 130
Rookie
I think a rule of 6 would be better.  I see no reason why you can say someone is getting decimated by losing 6 players.  Maybe a second rule that limits teams to 2 EEs, but 5 is too low.
6/1/2012 2:27 PM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 667 3
Pro

Oh, its happening QUITE frequently.  As soon as it was instituted the marked for any senior transfers from low d1 to high d2 dried up right away.

6/1/2012 2:40 PM
mamxet
Posts: 1154 (0)
Hall of Famer
215 48 26 2 436 11
Rookie
Posted by a_in_the_b on 6/1/2012 2:40:00 PM (view original):

Oh, its happening QUITE frequently.  As soon as it was instituted the marked for any senior transfers from low d1 to high d2 dried up right away.

this is for sure correct - they are now in demand

on the other hand, there are in fact very few of them, so it is not happening all that often
6/1/2012 3:20 PM
rogelio
Posts: 1122 (0)
Hall of Famer
26 355 18 20
Pro
Two thoughts:
1.     D1 coaches are definitely scavenging senior transfers in an attempt to game the new EE system.  A variety of relatively minor tweaks could alleviate the problem: those mentioned above, using player personality to demand PT be guaranteed, or moving the 5 EE cap to 6.
2.     Why is the so called "greed" rating being dropped?  I'll grant that it should count for very little, but I assume that it exists to give some indication during recruiting on the likelihood of EE or transfer and the effectiveness of booster gifts.  [Correct me if I'm wrong.]  That gives the game depth and the players a bit of personality.  A coach could even attempt to target high-end recruits that are unlikely to go EE on one end of the spectrum and another coach could target kids that won't report him for all the throwback jerseys, but will be one-and-done, on the other end.   

IMHO, the better path is to clean up the recruiting messages that no longer mean anything (to keep noobs from getting confused), but leave some personality rating in effect to have some impact once the coach is at the D1 level.  Certainly, recruiting functions like the Psych Opinion should be unavailable at D3 and the Personality Test probably only at D1.  If the "greed" rating, or hidden ratings like it, have no relevance, then why not get rid of those two functions altogether and drain the game of any color?
6/1/2012 3:51 PM
girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
Posted by seble on 6/1/2012 11:45:00 AM (view original):
I've looked at the senior transfer issue and it's not a clear cut thing.  It looks like at least half of those guys are in the rotation for their team, in which case it doesn't make sense to punish them.  So if I were to remove senior transfers from the 5-max rule, I would have to attach some other checks to it, most likely a minimum minutes played or something.  When you look at it more closely, it doesn't look like it's really happening that much anyway.  I'll think about it some more and make a decision.

I don't expect to change anything else about that rule at this time.  I don't think it's unfair to have underclassmen stay if the roster is being decimated by departures.  I'll run some more tests to see if I can get a good idea of how often that's even coming into play, but I have a feeling it's not as often as some of you think.
It's not that tons and tons of teams use it -- they're aren't enough senior transfers for that to ever be the case. But the teams that are benefitting from it are a handful of elite teams, and that's wrong and bad for the game.

And it's not a fair measure to see if the guy's in the rotation. Most teams play 10 guys, so basically in order to not be in the rotation as a senior they'd have to be absolutely horrible.

Let's look at the spirit of the rule -- almost all of the BCS teams signing senior transfers are doing so as a loophole to the 5-man rule. That's just a fact.
6/1/2012 5:18 PM
girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
And as for the 5-man rule in general, there are a lot of bad consequences. Most obviously, it helps the elite teams and hurts everyone else.

Beyond that, all we needed was a small tweak to address the issue that was initially at hand here (teams occasionally being gutted by early entries), and this was a sledgehammer.

It's even rich-get-richer among the top teams: If you get lucky one season and don't lose any EE's, you're going to be able to cash in the following season because you'll likely have a good # of seniors. And if you get unlucky and lose a couple EE's, you're screwed the next season, too, because you've got little-to-nothing in the way of seniors to protect you. It's a bad system.

Either cap it at two EE's per team, or just make each subsequent EE after the first one less likely. But the 5-man rule is bad.
6/1/2012 5:38 PM
seble
Posts: 880 (0)
Hall of Famer
24 44 35 306 121 185
Prospect
Posted by girt25 on 6/1/2012 5:38:00 PM (view original):
And as for the 5-man rule in general, there are a lot of bad consequences. Most obviously, it helps the elite teams and hurts everyone else.

Beyond that, all we needed was a small tweak to address the issue that was initially at hand here (teams occasionally being gutted by early entries), and this was a sledgehammer.

It's even rich-get-richer among the top teams: If you get lucky one season and don't lose any EE's, you're going to be able to cash in the following season because you'll likely have a good # of seniors. And if you get unlucky and lose a couple EE's, you're screwed the next season, too, because you've got little-to-nothing in the way of seniors to protect you. It's a bad system.

Either cap it at two EE's per team, or just make each subsequent EE after the first one less likely. But the 5-man rule is bad.
Saying it helps elite teams doesn't really mean much.  Of course it mostly helps elite teams, because those are teams getting hit hard.  If a team is already losing 5 players, then they're being hurt pretty significantly.  I might consider changing the number to 6, but I'm not sure that would even come into play much.

I don't see how limiting to 2 EE's per team is a better system.  That would unfairly benefit someone with fewer seniors.  So a team with no seniors only loses two guys (even if they had several more studs), while a team with 5 seniors could still lose two more guys and be devastated. 
6/1/2012 7:18 PM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10043 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 293 18
Pro
I don't play in D1, but I don't necessarily see the logic in that argument.  If a team has 5 seniors at any level they're knowingly opening themselves up to a bad season or 2 during the rebuild.  I recognize this is by far the least true at high D1 where incoming freshmen can sometimes be meaningful players quickly, but I don't necessarily see why it's bad to have a potential downside to building superclasses...  Furthermore, if the suggestion of increasing the role of PT into the decision to leave early (which makes sense; only a very few players ever have strong enough reputations to declare early for the NBA draft after playing minimally in college) is implemented in some way, teams with 5 seniors would already have a built-in check which would reduce their probability of having a bunch of EEs.
6/1/2012 7:33 PM
ike1024
Posts: 410 (0)
Hall of Famer
59
Prospect
Yeah, I don't see how a 2 EE rule would be better.  I would actually think that would be worse.

But the five-man rule is bad.  Is there a way that players who have played only one or two years for that team wouldn't count against the five-man rule?  I think that at least solves some of the problem.

But I think scrapping the rule altogether is the way to go.
6/1/2012 7:34 PM
arssanguinus
Posts: 1120 (0)
Hall of Famer
283 1
Pro
Posted by mamxet on 6/1/2012 3:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by a_in_the_b on 6/1/2012 2:40:00 PM (view original):

Oh, its happening QUITE frequently.  As soon as it was instituted the marked for any senior transfers from low d1 to high d2 dried up right away.

this is for sure correct - they are now in demand

on the other hand, there are in fact very few of them, so it is not happening all that often
True - seems like more because I used several.
6/1/2012 8:05 PM
slicknick777
Posts: 305 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 402 43 116 2
Prospect
Senior transfers will always be in demand from D1 schools.  If I need one more spot and there's no one worth fighting for I'm going to look for a senior transfer for the extra carryover effect.
6/1/2012 10:11 PM
rogelio
Posts: 1122 (0)
Hall of Famer
26 355 18 20
Pro
Posted by slicknick777 on 6/1/2012 10:11:00 PM (view original):
Senior transfers will always be in demand from D1 schools.  If I need one more spot and there's no one worth fighting for I'm going to look for a senior transfer for the extra carryover effect.
That is unquestionably true, but it brings me back to the point that I've been making for some time.  The real fix is to make senior transfers demand promises of PT and have reputation penalties enforced on teams that breaking those promises to upperclassmen.  A real kicker would be to have a one season 1/3 of a point prestige penalty for any broken promise of PT to a junior or senior recruit.   With that in place, the issue would self regulate.  

That change would also dampen the excess cash that a team can receive by using this tactic; both getting the extra scholarship's cash and retaining carryover for taking a player that will never rise off the bench for the season.  I don't blame anyone for doing it - it's the smart move.  I just think that it creates recruiting market distortions that are much greater than might seem at first glance and isn't good for the game.
6/1/2012 10:29 PM
girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
Posted by dahsdebater on 6/1/2012 7:33:00 PM (view original):
I don't play in D1, but I don't necessarily see the logic in that argument.  If a team has 5 seniors at any level they're knowingly opening themselves up to a bad season or 2 during the rebuild.  I recognize this is by far the least true at high D1 where incoming freshmen can sometimes be meaningful players quickly, but I don't necessarily see why it's bad to have a potential downside to building superclasses...  Furthermore, if the suggestion of increasing the role of PT into the decision to leave early (which makes sense; only a very few players ever have strong enough reputations to declare early for the NBA draft after playing minimally in college) is implemented in some way, teams with 5 seniors would already have a built-in check which would reduce their probability of having a bunch of EEs.
This.
6/1/2012 10:51 PM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4|5...7 Next ▸
5/31 development blog Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.