Posted by seble on 6/1/2012 7:18:00 PM (view original):

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. 

Seble, this is a change that has been almost universally derided. Your heart was in the right place, but the application ended up missing the mark. It needs to be fixed.

My suggestion is simply to make each subsequent EE after the first one less likely.

(And my point re: elite teams is that, quite simply, they don't need any more help. DI is already crazy stacked in their favor.)

(And my last point from above is another problem that wasn't even addressed. Bottom line, it's just a hugely flawed change that needs to be fixed. No big deal. It happens. Let's just get it right and move on ...)

rogelio:

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.  

Bingo.  I have a strong suspicion that this would also be easy to implement.

Two suggestions to improve the early entry process at DI:

Currently it seems like evals for all of the top 100-120 recruits say that they will likely leave early for the NBA.  I suggest reducing that to 25-35 (skewed towards 4-5 stars, but some 1-3 stars as well), but actually make it mean something.  The kids who have that message will leave early, current logic can be used (or tweaked and improved) to determine if they leave after their FR, SO or JR seasons, but they will never see their SR season.

Also, I think there should be an extra email that comes at rollover, with the draft email, where your assistant coach can tell you who had a great summer and who might be tempted by the NBA if they have a good season.  That way EEs can be better predicted (if they weren't on the email, they won't go) and it will allow coaches to mitigate their impact by adjusting recruitng targets.

Go look at the EE's from Allen last night. Great examples all around of how broken the EE process is and how teams are gaming the five seniors rule, including the national champion.

UConn lost four (!!!!) PF/C.

js, this is one that you and I definitely agree on.

seble, this season in Allen is a perfect example of why the 5-man rule doesn't even work as intended. The point is to limit terrible damage from losing a bunch of EE's. All it does is protect teams already losing seniors -- it doesn't protect from losing a bunch of underclassmen. UConn lost four underclassmen, and while they were all solid, none of them were even close to being amazing, or as good as some of the guys who stayed in the ACC and elsewhere.

As dahs said, if a team has 5 seniors at any level they're knowingly opening themselves to having to recruit a big class. The 5-man rule is essentially protecting teams that are already fortunate to sign a really strong, big class and be lucky enough to have that class make it to their senior year. That's not a team that needs protecting. What needs protecting is a team like UConn from losing 4 ee's. 

Please fix the 5-man rule. It doesn't work (and gets abused/gamed to boot).

the 5 man rule is really a bad one. not much to say that hasn't already been said. i am REALLY ****** i don't have an a+ d1 team, i dropped them both just before this change. i firmly believe - but have yet to prove - that you can exploit the hell out of this rule. and i would thoroughly enjoy doing so. if only i had a team who was in a position to lose players early in the first place :)

Posted by jslotman on 6/4/2012 6:34:00 AM (view original):
UConn lost four (!!!!) PF/C.

he did say it had not been implemented yet.

Miami in Allen is a perfect example of exploiting the five man rule in exactly the fashion gillispie described above. 

can you link them?

found em. EXACTLY. seble - that coach signed 2 1 year transfers that nobody wants because they are terrible, to go with 2 stud freshman, and to line up with his 3 star seniors. now, he is guaranteed to lose 0 players early, and he is only *really* losing 3. you have to take this rule out. i know you are thinking, not many transfers, it cant be that bad. but i also don't think you have ever experienced high level d1, and with all due respect, do not fully understand the dynamics at that level. it IS that bad. every high end d1 coach i have spoke with thinks it is a terrible rule. no offense, thats just how it is.

if you implement your theory well, the theory you laid out, this 5 man rule will be totally unnecessary. i am firmly in the camp of, making having more than 2 early entries less and less likely. not impossible, but maybe the first early entry has a coefficient of 1 to leave, the second is .75, third is .5, fourth and on are .25. that would make it pretty reasonable to have 2 but pretty damn hard to have more than 3 early entries. you can even work non transfer seniors in if you like. for every non transfer senior over 2, maybe take .1 off those coefficients i listed. something like that. you can make it better but that would get you pretty close, and much much closer than the 5 man rule.

NC State in the same conference has a 609 OVR senior transfer from Duquesne, who I am sure was brought in with the most honest of intentions. 

I want a time line on fixing the EE's and it needs to be NOW. If not take my seasons and teams, stick em up your *** and give me my money back.

^^^^  victim of the "total wins = success" glitch. 

Posted by girt25 on 6/4/2012 7:29:00 AM (view original):
js, this is one that you and I definitely agree on.

seble, this season in Allen is a perfect example of why the 5-man rule doesn't even work as intended. The point is to limit terrible damage from losing a bunch of EE's. All it does is protect teams already losing seniors -- it doesn't protect from losing a bunch of underclassmen. UConn lost four underclassmen, and while they were all solid, none of them were even close to being amazing, or as good as some of the guys who stayed in the ACC and elsewhere.

As dahs said, if a team has 5 seniors at any level they're knowingly opening themselves to having to recruit a big class. The 5-man rule is essentially protecting teams that are already fortunate to sign a really strong, big class and be lucky enough to have that class make it to their senior year. That's not a team that needs protecting. What needs protecting is a team like UConn from losing 4 ee's. 

Please fix the 5-man rule. It doesn't work (and gets abused/gamed to boot).

Exactly.  This rule has to go.  If you have 5+ seniors and an awesome junior that would go EE, you don't really need help from a special rule.  

Also:  Gonzaga lost 2 EEs (856, 818) and Toledo lost an EE while Boston College kept a guy rated over 1000 overall.