Posted by CoachSpud on 9/7/2016 5:00:00 PM (view original):
" High-end comes with risk. "

True, that is how it should be. But a lot of people evidently argue that it should come with near-certainty of replacement instead of risk, and thus the top programs can be almost assured of being on top. Anything less is seen as "punishment," as "socialistic," as catering to incompetent coaches. I wish some of those people would take a critical look at their own arguments, and see how inappropriate they are. I also wish someone at the top would explain his fear of competition. Pkoopman's Monopoly analogy is apt -- the argument being made is for nearly assured replacement of players lost to EE -- in other words, if you win at Monopoly you should start the next season with at least most of your hotels.

And a good point was made that from a business point of view WIS has to consider that "it's not in their interest to let the game get to the point where the same 12-15 schools are getting all the top recruits every year, getting to the Sweet 16 and beyond most years, and end up paying very little for the game." Paying customers are not dog meat.

"If there is a problem, it is a problem of expectation. The most simple and straightforward "fix" is for the coach to plan ahead and tailor his/her recruiting strategy to taste for risk." That shouldn't be seen as setting the bar too high. Isn't that exactly the recruiting skill that got a top coach to the top in the first place?

"I could make the same case that you have some expectation that excellence should carry some punitive consequences." When you have to make up something that no one said, it is a clear sign that your argument lacks merit.

"I could make the same case that you have some expectation that excellence should carry some punitive consequences." When you have to make up something that no one said, it is a clear sign that your argument lacks merit.

Spud - sorry if I made something up, that was not my intention, if my pov and statement did not reflect the intent of this topic, then I was wrong. To be clear, I do not have to make anything up to cogently or coherantly make my case on this EE issue. I suggest you play your trolling and baiting games with someone else, I am not the user here to do that with .

Posted by oldresorter on 9/7/2016 4:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 9/7/2016 4:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by oldresorter on 9/7/2016 4:27:00 PM (view original):
there is nothing 'perpetuating' about declaring b4 recruiting starts, and letting every team fill openings and get recruiting resources in an equal system. It is the most simple and straightforward fix to this problem.

That is perpetuating, because it is removing the recruiting consequence of an early entry. If they declare early, I get the prestige bump and the ultra-valuable scholarship for both sessions.

If there is a problem, it is a problem of expectation. The most simple and straightforward "fix" is for the coach to plan ahead and tailor his/her recruiting strategy to taste for risk.

we simply do not agree on this, I could make the same case that you have some expectation that excellence should carry some punitive consequences, which seems misguided, vs those who simply want all openings to be treated the same. A ?, do you feel the game should be real life? I mean, we agree that Kentucky is able to recruit into EE's pretty well, Duke too, most schools can, without having to fear Mt St Mary might be 'courtting' the top ranked PG since he was in 8th grade. Right?

Again, it is completely straightforward, let the EE's declare b4 recruiting starts, and place everyone on an even playing field, for the level of achievement the particular team has attained.

Anyhow, I am amazed that the game has come to this, it almost is funny, if not actually taking place, in an the inmates are running the asylum sort of way:

If there is a problem, it is a problem of expectation. The most simple and straightforward "fix" is for the coach to plan ahead and tailor his/her recruiting strategy to taste for risk.

I enjoy and seek realism to a point - but I wouldn't sacrifice gameplay for it. The most important thing about a sports simulation is not whether or not the same schools, or the same number of schools as in real life are getting the same number of elite prospects every year, etc. I mean it's pretty easy to ride realism past the point of game enjoyability. And from a developer standpoint, it is just not in their interest to create a game where a few handfuls of guys per world play for free, and everyone else is frustrated. If it was my job, I certainly wouldn't be interested in a game devolving into that.

And no, I'm not talking about "punitive consequences". You're putting words on my keyboard. Just consequences, as long as they're rational, and realistic, and affect everyone the same. And I certainly do think it should affect everyone the same - as you say, there will likely be low and mid-majors dealing with EEs. (Tarvolon has 2 EEs on the pre_season board in Allen at Oral Roberts, and we're not even in 3.0 yet!). The consequence is attached to the commodity, not the program. And anyway, "Excellence" should be determined in planning, creativity, and some amount of luck; and it should take all 3 to maintain.

"To be clear, I do not have to make anything up to cogently or coherantly make my case on this EE issue. I suggest you play your trolling and baiting games with someone else, I am not the user here to do that with."

Excellent. Then we will all stick to discussing the matters on their merits, not putting words in someone else's mouth or resorting to veiled threats. I'm fine with that.

I'll stand behind this statement by another poster in an earlier post: "If there is a problem, it is a problem of expectation. The most simple and straightforward "fix" is for the coach to plan ahead and tailor his/her recruiting strategy to taste for risk." I couldn't have said it more succinctly myself. It is the mindset that losing an EE deserves a replacement EE that will have to evolve.

Posted by buddhagamer on 9/7/2016 5:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 9/7/2016 4:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 9/7/2016 4:44:00 PM (view original):
I think the assumption that the same few schools that have tons of EEs are going to continue to have tons of EEs is off base. I can't see how this is possible with the changes in 3.0 that have already been called out.

Meaning, I don't see how this is a "elite schools need to be knocked down so others can compete" argument. That has already happened with all the changes. So this is not an elite school problem, it's a total D1 problem. Mid Majors are probably going to commonly have EEs now. Heck, low D1 could have EEs if they get a perfect storm of a situation. (maybe I'm off here but I guess we don't know yet).

So in my (unexperienced at EE) opinion, this should be about what makes the most sense for the game and what is fun. Okay so you got an EE which means you also had a great player. Good for you. The drawback is that you now lose that EE that you had to get probably a little lucky/fortunate to get in recruiting. That's the 'penalty'. He's gone. Why the additional 'penalty' of not having an equal opportunity to replace him? I don't see it as asking for a leg up, just that you get the resources to replace a player you lose.

1 or even 2 EEs aren't that hard to deal with, from what I've seen in beta. You can use baseline APs and cash to get late guys interested without offering a scholarship. It's a matter of prioritizing. Can you directly replace 4 or 5 early entries with those scholarships in the late period? Not equivalent commodities, no; and that is the point, I think. As you say, moving forward, it's going to be a stretch to get more than 2 of that quality player in a given year. You have to get really lucky and win all your dice rolls.

It isn't even replacing with equivalent commodities, its getting a usable D1 player at all. The only reason I replaced even 1 of my 3 EEs in BETA was due to the fact that Dartmouth had a extra recruit considering him and he didn't have an opening (and I still took 2 walk ons).

Try planning ahead with 40 AP and try and line up 3 to 6 openings before the 2nd period (never mind trying to fill that 1 opening I had to start which I lucked out on).

As I've said *multiple times* the idea is not to recruit more early entry caliber players than you are willing to lose. If you gamble and win and bring in a monster class, why should the game cater to your desire to replace them with equivalent talent if they leave early?

You can get usable talent. If you don't like the risk of having to scramble for it, you should balance your classes, and look for role players and/or projects in each class.

Posted by CoachSpud on 9/7/2016 5:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 9/7/2016 4:55:00 PM (view original):
" I wish some of those people would take a critical look at their own arguments, and see how inappropriate they are."

EASILY the most ironic statement of the week.

Or does that distinction go to your post, making a charge without any supporting citation?

Or does that distinction go to this post: "The point is, this whole thing is incredibly complex and time consuming for the top programs." Does this poster believe that recruiting will not be complex for all programs? Or is he arguing that top programs should not be asked to deal with anything complex? Hmm, it is not clear ...

spud - HUH? Really? AM I going to be subject to your BS now? I gave a very clear example of what is required to maintain a A+ program, based on my beta experience. I outlined the whole beta experience, 6 openings, 2 EE's, to show what it is like. It applies to the discussion here, don't you agree. Clearly, if you aren't a top program, you won't have the 2 EE's to worry about. You cherry picked one line and then made up a bunch of stuff? Why do you have to be this way, when others are trying to discuss the game?

And yes, he time consuming part, is going to be true for everyone, more than likely. I can only speak to how time consuming it was for my beta program. Does that make sense? And I posted this because Many here have posted that the new system is not time consuming. Which my first hand experience, says it is, esp when one anticipates EE's, which I did in this case.

Posted by CoachSpud on 9/7/2016 5:21:00 PM (view original):
"To be clear, I do not have to make anything up to cogently or coherantly make my case on this EE issue. I suggest you play your trolling and baiting games with someone else, I am not the user here to do that with."

Excellent. Then we will all stick to discussing the matters on their merits, not putting words in someone else's mouth or resorting to veiled threats. I'm fine with that.

I'll stand behind this statement by another poster in an earlier post: "If there is a problem, it is a problem of expectation. The most simple and straightforward "fix" is for the coach to plan ahead and tailor his/her recruiting strategy to taste for risk." I couldn't have said it more succinctly myself. It is the mindset that losing an EE deserves a replacement EE that will have to evolve.

Veiled threats it is not, seble and I have exchanged comments about your posting style, before today. He is quite aware of the problem you create for others, there is nothing veiled about it. Again, please leave me alone, I am not the person for you to be pulling this BS on.

Why not just have WIS mark the players who will leave and when? Then I can buy your argument and access the risk properly if I want to recruit someone or not. But as long as it is random and this is how EEs are treated, then I guess we might as well just get rid of prestige and hey we can all start every season on an even playing field like you want.

Posted by oldresorter on 9/7/2016 5:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 9/7/2016 5:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 9/7/2016 4:55:00 PM (view original):
" I wish some of those people would take a critical look at their own arguments, and see how inappropriate they are."

EASILY the most ironic statement of the week.

Or does that distinction go to your post, making a charge without any supporting citation?

Or does that distinction go to this post: "The point is, this whole thing is incredibly complex and time consuming for the top programs." Does this poster believe that recruiting will not be complex for all programs? Or is he arguing that top programs should not be asked to deal with anything complex? Hmm, it is not clear ...

spud - HUH? Really? AM I going to be subject to your BS now? I gave a very clear example of what is required to maintain a A+ program, based on my beta experience. I outlined the whole beta experience, 6 openings, 2 EE's, to show what it is like. It applies to the discussion here, don't you agree. Clearly, if you aren't a top program, you won't have the 2 EE's to worry about. You cherry picked one line and then made up a bunch of stuff? Why do you have to be this way, when others are trying to discuss the game?

And yes, he time consuming part, is going to be true for everyone, more than likely. I can only speak to how time consuming it was for my beta program. Does that make sense? And I posted this because Many here have posted that the new system is not time consuming. Which my first hand experience, says it is, esp when one anticipates EE's, which I did in this case.

Fair enough, I can accept that you "gave a very clear example of what is required to maintain a A+ program, based on my beta experience" and your expectations. I stand corrected. I see your example: "I made a few mistakes, but ended up with 3 top 20 type guys, 2 or 3 bad but servicable juco's, and 2-3 marginal freshmen. It was pretty brutal." What you see as brutal would delight most coaches, many of whom have never had a single top-20 player let alone three in one class. I think in the future it will be harder for a top team to continue indefinitely at the top, and will require recruiting skill and planning ahead.

I can also fully believe that you complained to Seble, and I will be happy for both of us to drop the personal barbs right now.

Posted by buddhagamer on 9/7/2016 5:23:00 PM (view original):
Why not just have WIS mark the players who will leave and when? Then I can buy your argument and access the risk properly if I want to recruit someone or not. But as long as it is random and this is how EEs are treated, then I guess we might as well just get rid of prestige and hey we can all start every season on an even playing field like you want.

It's not random. As I said earlier, of the 60 EE candidates on the board in Allen, all but 4 were in the top 15 at their position when they were recruited. I know this isn't exactly the assessment you're looking for, because we can't view HS ratings post-draft, but it's not going to be a big discrepancy. Top 10 in class is a pretty decent risk he'll consider. Top 11-20 much smaller, but still a risk. We're not flying blind here.

Posted by pkoopman on 9/7/2016 5:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by buddhagamer on 9/7/2016 5:23:00 PM (view original):
Why not just have WIS mark the players who will leave and when? Then I can buy your argument and access the risk properly if I want to recruit someone or not. But as long as it is random and this is how EEs are treated, then I guess we might as well just get rid of prestige and hey we can all start every season on an even playing field like you want.

It's not random. As I said earlier, of the 60 EE candidates on the board in Allen, all but 4 were in the top 15 at their position when they were recruited. I know this isn't exactly the assessment you're looking for, because we can't view HS ratings post-draft, but it's not going to be a big discrepancy. Top 10 in class is a pretty decent risk he'll consider. Top 11-20 much smaller, but still a risk. We're not flying blind here.

but it is unfair, EE schools and players, even if it was 100% known who would declare (which I agree, I feel like I have a pretty good idea if I'm losing someone or not), don't get all the resources every one else does in the first cycle. It is punitive in that sense, my words now - punitive because I'm recruiting for players that I don't have resources given to me that other schools have. Why not simply let them declare b4 recruiting starts and let's all move on to the next issue, rather than let this one fester and create for want of a better pair of words, bad blood. Obviously, there is enough of that already, isn't there? Bad blood, like punitive, again, my words.

Posted by CoachSpud on 9/7/2016 5:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 9/7/2016 4:55:00 PM (view original):
" I wish some of those people would take a critical look at their own arguments, and see how inappropriate they are."

EASILY the most ironic statement of the week.

Or does that distinction go to your post, making a charge without any supporting citation?

Or does that distinction go to this post: "The point is, this whole thing is incredibly complex and time consuming for the top programs." Does this poster believe that recruiting will not be complex for all programs? Or is he arguing that top programs should not be asked to deal with anything complex? Hmm, it is not clear ...

Spud your entire post history is the citation.

C'mon man. Stop messing with us. You know that you're the biggest joke on the forums right? I'm not even trying to insult you when I tell you this. Its just the reality. No one takes you seriously. You have to realize this, right??

Posted by pkoopman on 9/7/2016 5:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by buddhagamer on 9/7/2016 5:23:00 PM (view original):
Why not just have WIS mark the players who will leave and when? Then I can buy your argument and access the risk properly if I want to recruit someone or not. But as long as it is random and this is how EEs are treated, then I guess we might as well just get rid of prestige and hey we can all start every season on an even playing field like you want.

It's not random. As I said earlier, of the 60 EE candidates on the board in Allen, all but 4 were in the top 15 at their position when they were recruited. I know this isn't exactly the assessment you're looking for, because we can't view HS ratings post-draft, but it's not going to be a big discrepancy. Top 10 in class is a pretty decent risk he'll consider. Top 11-20 much smaller, but still a risk. We're not flying blind here.

It is *random* in that who goes and who doesn't is not within my control (nor can I find out which recruit will leave and who won't). While I can possible anticipate who might have a higher chance of leaving, there are no guarantees that Player A is going to leave nor is there any guarantee that Player B is going to stay all 4 years (I've had what you would call "role" players leave in their JR season while they were sitting on the bench).

While you can say that almost every EE is in the top 10 of their positions, not *ALL* players in the top of their positions will go EE (some will participate all 4 eligible years). And I've had an EE that was NOT in the top 10 of their positions while at a D- D1 school in my *first* recruiting season.

And the punishment for one school who recruits role player A who goes EE versus an identical school who recruits role player B through no fault of their own other than the coach for player A actually is a better coach, goes onto a deep run and is rewarded with his player leaving is laughable.

If this is how you would want us to handle EEs, then I would petition seble to code in that post season success has ZERO effect on whether a player leaves or not or even player development. Why should the successful coach be punished by making a deep run (if two teams have identical players)? Why would even being better at player development be a factor then? Why not just decide when you recruit that 5 star, that he's going in SO/JR season, regardless of how the team performs or how his rating develop?

Posted by Benis on 9/7/2016 5:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 9/7/2016 5:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 9/7/2016 4:55:00 PM (view original):
" I wish some of those people would take a critical look at their own arguments, and see how inappropriate they are."

EASILY the most ironic statement of the week.

Or does that distinction go to your post, making a charge without any supporting citation?

Or does that distinction go to this post: "The point is, this whole thing is incredibly complex and time consuming for the top programs." Does this poster believe that recruiting will not be complex for all programs? Or is he arguing that top programs should not be asked to deal with anything complex? Hmm, it is not clear ...

Spud your entire post history is the citation.

C'mon man. Stop messing with us. You know that you're the biggest joke on the forums right? I'm not even trying to insult you when I tell you this. Its just the reality. No one takes you seriously. You have to realize this, right??

No one likes it when I challenge some of the BS thrown around the forums by the demigods of HD instead of kissing anyone's lower lower back, that's for sure. Evidently it has long gone unchallenged.

But let's return to the very good discussion of EE's and drop the personalities.

Posted by CoachSpud on 9/7/2016 5:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 9/7/2016 5:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 9/7/2016 5:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 9/7/2016 4:55:00 PM (view original):
" I wish some of those people would take a critical look at their own arguments, and see how inappropriate they are."

EASILY the most ironic statement of the week.

Or does that distinction go to your post, making a charge without any supporting citation?

Or does that distinction go to this post: "The point is, this whole thing is incredibly complex and time consuming for the top programs." Does this poster believe that recruiting will not be complex for all programs? Or is he arguing that top programs should not be asked to deal with anything complex? Hmm, it is not clear ...

Spud your entire post history is the citation.

C'mon man. Stop messing with us. You know that you're the biggest joke on the forums right? I'm not even trying to insult you when I tell you this. Its just the reality. No one takes you seriously. You have to realize this, right??

No one likes it when I challenge some of the BS thrown around the forums by the demigods of HD instead of kissing anyone's lower lower back, that's for sure. Evidently it has long gone unchallenged.

But let's return to the very good discussion of EE's and drop the personalities.

Sure. That's the reason. Whatever helps you sleep better at night.

But let's return to the very good discussion of EE's and drop the personalities.