5/31 development blog Topic

reinsel
Posts: 927 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 130
Rookie
Posted by teamrc on 6/4/2012 9:35:00 AM (view original):
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.

Coach of Gonzaga in allen who has been brutalized by EE's.  1 or more every year.  And most have been in the 800-830 range.  Good, not great and this just kills the mid-majors chances when NT money, conference prestige and baselines are all stacked against them.

6/4/2012 9:52 AM
reinsel
Posts: 927 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 130
Rookie
Posted by jslotman on 6/4/2012 9:11:00 AM (view original):
Miami in Allen is a perfect example of exploiting the five man rule in exactly the fashion gillispie described above. 
http://www.wisjournal.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=6983

Here is the link.

Noonan and Beal were 1 year transfers that made senior #4 and #5 and were #10 and #11 on the depth chart.
This allowed the national champion to retain a 946 PG, a 902 SG and a 874 PF. 
6/4/2012 9:59 AM
teamrc
Posts: 70 (0)
Hall of Famer
77
Prospect
9 EE's in 7 seasons at a mid major who barely makes the NT each season. I can't imagine any team in any world with a longer, stronger case to hate the current  EE process,
6/4/2012 10:06 AM
reinsel
Posts: 927 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 130
Rookie
http://www.wisjournal.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=7013

Here is another one from Allen.  THanks to a 1 year transfer a 898 C was saved off a A+ prestige Sweet 16 team.
Seble, protecting the A/A+ teams isn't going to make anyone happy.

Only the high power teams can have 5 seniors plus juniors that are EE-worthy. 
6/4/2012 10:42 AM (edited)
stinenavy
Posts: 4004 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 330 1
All Star
Thankfully this foolish rule is gaining more opposition. I wish seble would actually take charge and own up to this failure and replace it with something workable immediately instead of his current support of it.
6/4/2012 10:09 AM
jslotman
Posts: 303 (0)
Hall of Famer
126 9
Prospect
To be fair, reinsel, there are probably a dozen players as good as or better than that 898 guy who stayed.  But hey, Toledo, Gonzaga, and UConn combined have as many early entries in Allen as the entire ACC.  (Not that Big 12 coaches should be complaining as we had three Sweet 16 teams and lost a combined one guy.) 
6/4/2012 10:57 AM
reinsel
Posts: 927 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 130
Rookie
Posted by jslotman on 6/4/2012 10:57:00 AM (view original):
To be fair, reinsel, there are probably a dozen players as good as or better than that 898 guy who stayed.  But hey, Toledo, Gonzaga, and UConn combined have as many early entries in Allen as the entire ACC.  (Not that Big 12 coaches should be complaining as we had three Sweet 16 teams and lost a combined one guy.) 
True.  But I thought it was valid to show another example of a senior transfer being signed to protect against EEs.
6/4/2012 12:32 PM
girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
So there are two issues here.

One is the part of the rule where signing a senior transfer helps you game the system. I think everyone (but seble) agrees that is ludicrous and needs to be banned.

The other part is the simple fact that the 5-man rule on its own does not work. Not only is it helping a handful of elite teams that don't need any help, but it's not even doing what some people wanted, which is protect teams from being brutalized from losing a bunch of EE's.

Seble, let's get this fixed.
6/4/2012 2:08 PM
ike1024
Posts: 410 (0)
Hall of Famer
59
Prospect
I just assume you have all seen the development thread from today.  We now have a new 6-man rule.  Not perfect, but better.
6/4/2012 2:15 PM
jslotman
Posts: 303 (0)
Hall of Famer
126 9
Prospect
I'm not sure the six man rule works unless there's something that goes along with it that gets at the senior transfer issue. 
6/4/2012 2:26 PM
dacj501
Posts: 4779 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 305
Pro
is this in effect now? Or when the new changes come out?
6/4/2012 2:32 PM
reinsel
Posts: 927 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 130
Rookie
Well its better than 5 at least. 

Senior transfers were always good for keeping carryover.  Now they are even a tad bit better. 
6/4/2012 2:32 PM
Iguana1
Posts: 369 (0)
Hall of Famer
69 65
Rookie

from the development thread:

Just a quick update: I've been doing some further testing on the rule that prevents early entries once a team has lost 5 players already.  After my testing, and the forum feedback, I've decided to bump up the number to 6.  That change should lead to more underclassmen leaving.

I've decided to exclude all senior transfers from the count of leaving players with regards to the previous post.
 

6/4/2012 3:44 PM (edited)
girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
Thanks, seble. Hopefully next time it won't take a near riot ...

Next we just have to fix the 5/6-man rule itself so that it actually protects teams from being decimated by EE's.

As evidenced by UConn losing four good-but-not-great EE's this morning, it currently does not.

Again, let's just make each subsequent EE less likely to leave once you've lost one (i.e. the second would be harder, the third even harder, etc.) That actually helps protects teams from being decimated by EE's, as opposed to protecting teams that are already lucky enough to have held on to a bunch of seniors.
6/4/2012 3:11 PM
reinsel
Posts: 927 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 130
Rookie
Girt ~ I think that the 6 rule and the idea that ratings will be the key determination of leaving/staying will do the trick.
6/4/2012 3:34 PM
◂ Prev 1...3|4|5|6|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.