for those not on the beta forum, seble today announced that no fix is planned for the problem of EEs. In short summary, since EEs dont happen until after the first cycle, it is very hard to get even mediocre replacements.

Many participants think this is bad for game play since surprising EEs or large numbers of EEs will cripple their teams.

Many participants think this is unrealistic since teams with lots of EEs in real life seem able to recruit good replacements.

Seble said they will monitor and consider adjustments in the future.

Enjoy! anyone with lots of elite talent can expect to get hammered

In real life, programs that are attractive to EE talent have more resources to commit to recruiting than other programs. LSU has more resources than Coppin State, for example.

In HD, prestige is the only differentiator between LSU and Coppin State. Unless something recently changed, HD 3.0 gives each D1 program the same financial and attention point resources every year, based on their current # of openings. So there's no more way for LSU to plan for early entries than there is for Coppin State to plan for them. Of course, only one would ever actually have to worry about it.

Good luck.

Awaiting Spud's obligatory anti-D1 wiseass comment...

its ok tho, once it happens the first couple times it won't happen again since you won't have top players anymore

Among the promising solutions that have been discussed are:

1. having no signings in the first cycle of the second recruiting period - to give people with EEs a chance to catch up
2. announce EE's at the start of the season, so one can recruit for them regular way
3. give a team that has EE's more attention points than normally awarded for an open slot (since they need to play catchup and since having an EE gets the school extra attention from recruits)

Posted by metsmax on 8/21/2016 3:47:00 PM (view original):
Among the promising solutions that have been discussed are:

1. having no signings in the first cycle of the second recruiting period - to give people with EEs a chance to catch up
2. announce EE's at the start of the season, so one can recruit for them regular way
3. give a team that has EE's more attention points than normally awarded for an open slot (since they need to play catchup and since having an EE gets the school extra attention from recruits)

discussed by coaches, declined by seble.

Random thought with EE's. If the top talent is going to be more spread out in 3.0 I think EE's should have a stats based component to them in addition to ratings (it's basically 99% ratings based now, right?). Ben Simmons is a good example here-if a 5-star is going to go to a mediocre or small school then he's probably going to score 20+ ppg, meaning his draft stock is through the roof and he'd declare early. If one of the points of 3.0 recruiting is to make it more realistic then I think this is a logical step to follow.

To be clear, the pain is mostly going to be felt in the first season or two of 3.0. After that, it will likely be rare for teams to be able to recruit more than 2 EE candidates in a single season anyway, so in the long run, most teams won't run into this problem. And planning for one or two isn't much of a problem in beta, unless you don't have any scholarships to work with (in that case, you really are sh!t out of luck).

For some, this is a deal-breaker. For me, I think it's a fun and realistic challenge. Early entries are all reward in 2.0, there's not much risk of having to scramble, and that risk makes the game better, IMO. I do think it would make sense to have the first cycle of the late period be signing free so programs with EEs can "catch-up", especially for players with a late signing preference. I don't think that idea is off the table.

This a problem that has no relation to real life recruiting ... which I think was a major objective of the overhaul.

don't forget about the 5 CV limit - most attractive EE replacement targets will already have used their total allotment of 5 CVs before EEs declare - that is if they haven't flat out already signed during the first period...

someone had a vision for how recruiting might work in the update without thinking through all the variables, enjoy paying for it.

Posted by shoe3 on 8/21/2016 4:44:00 PM (view original):
To be clear, the pain is mostly going to be felt in the first season or two of 3.0. After that, it will likely be rare for teams to be able to recruit more than 2 EE candidates in a single season anyway, so in the long run, most teams won't run into this problem. And planning for one or two isn't much of a problem in beta, unless you don't have any scholarships to work with (in that case, you really are sh!t out of luck).

For some, this is a deal-breaker. For me, I think it's a fun and realistic challenge. Early entries are all reward in 2.0, there's not much risk of having to scramble, and that risk makes the game better, IMO. I do think it would make sense to have the first cycle of the late period be signing free so programs with EEs can "catch-up", especially for players with a late signing preference. I don't think that idea is off the table.

early entries are all reward in 2.0? no way. people sit around praying for a lucky EE roll (as in not having any) so they have a championship caliber team the next season. people sit around after the EE roll cursing their average-to-terrible luck that preventing them from having a very good/great/insane team. definitely not all reward. but, you are correct that there aren't additional massive penalties on top of those inherent in losing key players early.

if you really want a recruiting bloodbath, seble could just have the top 100 recruits always set to not sign until the 2nd period. i can't post in beta forums, but that seems like a simple enough idea and maybe not completely unrealistic since one should expect greater competition for better recruits.

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/21/2016 7:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 8/21/2016 4:44:00 PM (view original):
To be clear, the pain is mostly going to be felt in the first season or two of 3.0. After that, it will likely be rare for teams to be able to recruit more than 2 EE candidates in a single season anyway, so in the long run, most teams won't run into this problem. And planning for one or two isn't much of a problem in beta, unless you don't have any scholarships to work with (in that case, you really are sh!t out of luck).

For some, this is a deal-breaker. For me, I think it's a fun and realistic challenge. Early entries are all reward in 2.0, there's not much risk of having to scramble, and that risk makes the game better, IMO. I do think it would make sense to have the first cycle of the late period be signing free so programs with EEs can "catch-up", especially for players with a late signing preference. I don't think that idea is off the table.

early entries are all reward in 2.0? no way. people sit around praying for a lucky EE roll (as in not having any) so they have a championship caliber team the next season. people sit around after the EE roll cursing their average-to-terrible luck that preventing them from having a very good/great/insane team. definitely not all reward. but, you are correct that there aren't additional massive penalties on top of those inherent in losing key players early.

All reward, in that there is no downside to going after them. In real life, there is absolutely a risk of needing to scramble to re-assemble a top-tier team if multiple players leave early. The new two-period setup is not a "massive penalty". It's a removal of a specific privilege that only very top-level teams benefitted from. It's the recruiting equivalent of moving from a game of winner's ball - where the team who made the shot gets the ball - to a game of regular basketball. There's a simple way to avoid EEs, if you can't tolerate that risk. Just don't recruit players who look like they"ll be EE's.

I can can understand reluctance to "fix" the "problem" from a developers standpoint, because it only affects the very top prestige programs, and will only affect them for a season or two (not to mention that a number of these guys are already very vocal that they hate 3.0 and intend to leave). 5 or 6 seasons from now, the players who remain will have adjusted, and any "fix" that affects gameplay will run the risk of skewing the balance back toward winner's ball.

Love when coaches who haven't sniffed an EE think they know the effects of losing them. Your post is quite Spudlike.