Phelan just announced EE's last night/this morning. There were 17 players who declared early: 

9 PF's
4 C's
4 SF's
0 PG or SG

Either the change in EE logic does not get applied until next season, after the roll-over, or something went very wrong!

Can anyone confirm whether the new EE changes should have been applied to last night's early entry decisions? 

I wish we could run the players ratings through the new 'PRR' tool with some other players that 'could have left' and see if the PRR is used at all to make these decisions... maybe bigs are getting more 'points' based on how it is coded than guards are.

Bigs always did get more "points", but that was exactly one of the items that was supposed to be fixed with this update.

Posted by professor17 on 6/27/2012 11:42:00 AM (view original):
Bigs always did get more "points", but that was exactly one of the items that was supposed to be fixed with this update.

I meant still getting more 'points' with the PRR formula's (those 'defaults' had to come from somewhere right?). I know they typically did in the past.

Sounds like the new logic is not working as intended. Ticket has been sent.

I believe sample size is going to make analysis difficult on draft rankings.  There were no early entry PGs, but there are 8 seniors that will be drafted.  The talent by position is going to vary from season to season and world to world.

It's more helpful to me if you can point out specific examples of players that you think should or should not have declared.  I can check to see the status on those players.

Posted by seble on 6/27/2012 12:40:00 PM (view original):
I believe sample size is going to make analysis difficult on draft rankings.  There were no early entry PGs, but there are 8 seniors that will be drafted.  The talent by position is going to vary from season to season and world to world.

It's more helpful to me if you can point out specific examples of players that you think should or should not have declared.  I can check to see the status on those players.

Good point seble -

I think this is another good example of how having a user base that helps in beta testing can help, in a case like that there would have been plenty of season's of data that coaches would have seen it before and know the single season sample size is the underlying issue, not the EE logic code.

Can you provide the numbers for Naismith since you said they used the same logic?

Posted by wronoj on 6/27/2012 11:57:00 AM (view original):

6/27/2012 9:59 AM

 

 

 

seble

 

Posts: 344 (5)

     

Add this user to favorites

...  Naismith and Phelan ended this morning, so their early entry process did use the new logic.

...

did anyone look at Naismith's numbers??  how did it break down there.  if Naismith worked as intended, then this is an anomaly, if Naismith had similar results, then it's an issue

I lost a SG as did Kansas just to name two in Naismith...More alarming is that USC who went 11-17 lost three players. Im horrified at the impact these changes are going to have on the game. How the hell is an 11-17 team supposed to build when they lose three players early?????

Naismith will have 8 PGs, 7 seniors and 1 junior.

Seble, please comment on the 11-17 team losing 3 EEs...that couldnt have been the intended consequence of the changes, could it?

Posted by mmt0315 on 6/27/2012 12:48:00 PM (view original):
I lost a SG as did Kansas just to name two in Naismith...More alarming is that USC who went 11-17 lost three players. Im horrified at the impact these changes are going to have on the game. How the hell is an 11-17 team supposed to build when they lose three players early?????

Which world are you referring to with USC?

I think the USC players transferred due to playing time. They apparently split 22.1 mpg based on returning player minutes.

Naismith, Pac-10 (Sorry).