Stop with the late, early thing. It does not work... Ees need a solution fair to those who lose them.

Posted by zorzii on 8/22/2016 4:41:00 PM (view original):
Stop with the late, early thing. It does not work... Ees need a solution fair to those who lose them.

Define fair. Is fair an expectation to replace an early entry with the same caliber player on the late scholarship? I'd say nah. If you are expecting to lose an elite player early, you should make your first priority to target a similar elite player in the early period. As everyone knows, if you lose more than a couple EEs, you're going to be hurting. Is that unfair because teams are used to a system where EEs don't hurt as much? I tend to think not. Losing an advantage can feel like a penalty if you're accustomed to the advantage. I suspect that's what's going on here.

Gameplay is going to adjust, and I suspect resourceful coaches are going to find ways to get quality, and mitigate damage of EEs pretty fast.

Posted by mamxet on 8/22/2016 4:34:00 PM (view original):
agree that one can play the early/late game to plan ahead and protect - and that seems to me to be reasonable where one has reasonably expected EEs and not too many of them

when a school has 3 or 4 EEs or when a guy who the big board suggests is unlikely to go EE, its very hard to imagine a successful strategy like that.

we'll see how it goes, but I expect some very unhappy participants whose teams will be gutted in a way that dooms the following season

But that's real life just like we want it. Like when Kentucky won the championship and their whole team almost went EE.
Remember how hard it was for them to get good players to replace them? ............................................................................................................................................................

Posted by pkoopman on 8/22/2016 4:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 8/22/2016 4:41:00 PM (view original):
Stop with the late, early thing. It does not work... Ees need a solution fair to those who lose them.

Define fair. Is fair an expectation to replace an early entry with the same caliber player on the late scholarship? I'd say nah. If you are expecting to lose an elite player early, you should make your first priority to target a similar elite player in the early period. As everyone knows, if you lose more than a couple EEs, you're going to be hurting. Is that unfair because teams are used to a system where EEs don't hurt as much? I tend to think not. Losing an advantage can feel like a penalty if you're accustomed to the advantage. I suspect that's what's going on here.

Gameplay is going to adjust, and I suspect resourceful coaches are going to find ways to get quality, and mitigate damage of EEs pretty fast.

In HD 2.0, EEs still squash team's championship aspirations (you are sent back to the drawing board).

In HD 3.0, they squash your championship hopes if your lucky and only get 1, make it difficult to stay even (i.e. keep your prestige) if you get 2 or 3, and more than 3, you will likely have to try and run with 9 if you're lucky, else you are completely screwed (especially if you still have seniors and will end up with having to recruit 8 or 9 the following season).

All this means is either elite coaches will game the development of their recruits (by slowing development right down) or putting a huge emphasis on battling for lesser recruits (like 2 or 3 stars) and we will avoid battling other A+ prestige schools for elite level talent (as they won't be worth the trouble).

Posted by buddhagamer on 8/22/2016 5:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 8/22/2016 4:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 8/22/2016 4:41:00 PM (view original):
Stop with the late, early thing. It does not work... Ees need a solution fair to those who lose them.

Define fair. Is fair an expectation to replace an early entry with the same caliber player on the late scholarship? I'd say nah. If you are expecting to lose an elite player early, you should make your first priority to target a similar elite player in the early period. As everyone knows, if you lose more than a couple EEs, you're going to be hurting. Is that unfair because teams are used to a system where EEs don't hurt as much? I tend to think not. Losing an advantage can feel like a penalty if you're accustomed to the advantage. I suspect that's what's going on here.

Gameplay is going to adjust, and I suspect resourceful coaches are going to find ways to get quality, and mitigate damage of EEs pretty fast.

In HD 2.0, EEs still squash team's championship aspirations (you are sent back to the drawing board).

In HD 3.0, they squash your championship hopes if your lucky and only get 1, make it difficult to stay even (i.e. keep your prestige) if you get 2 or 3, and more than 3, you will likely have to try and run with 9 if you're lucky, else you are completely screwed (especially if you still have seniors and will end up with having to recruit 8 or 9 the following season).

All this means is either elite coaches will game the development of their recruits (by slowing development right down) or putting a huge emphasis on battling for lesser recruits (like 2 or 3 stars) and we will avoid battling other A+ prestige schools for elite level talent (as they won't be worth the trouble).

The last paragraph. I'm telling you right now, overall recruiting is going to favor top programs more than ever before. Top schools won't want to coin flip against each other after learning their lesson after a season or two, and thus they'll cede top recruits to each other and instead gobble up the above average recruits as well that they can more easily beat lesser schools in coin flips on. Lesser schools will then have to aim even lower on recruits or risk coin flips and take lots of walk ons. Then schools with lots of walk ons will have lots of attention points which rewards open scholarships which is essentially the same as having a big budget now, which everyone seems to hate and erroneously think is changing.

No thanks.

the problem as I have seen it is not that you cant replace an unexpected EE or a large number of EEs with comparable players

the issue is that you will often be unable to replace such EEs with a player who belongs in DI

Posted by fd343ny on 8/22/2016 8:02:00 PM (view original):
the problem as I have seen it is not that you cant replace an unexpected EE or a large number of EEs with comparable players

the issue is that you will often be unable to replace such EEs with a player who belongs in DI

+1

Well said. Tried in ASU, took two walk-ons. There was nothing left worth it, or I was too late to attract interest.

Posted by pkoopman on 8/22/2016 4:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 8/22/2016 4:41:00 PM (view original):
Stop with the late, early thing. It does not work... Ees need a solution fair to those who lose them.

Define fair. Is fair an expectation to replace an early entry with the same caliber player on the late scholarship? I'd say nah. If you are expecting to lose an elite player early, you should make your first priority to target a similar elite player in the early period. As everyone knows, if you lose more than a couple EEs, you're going to be hurting. Is that unfair because teams are used to a system where EEs don't hurt as much? I tend to think not. Losing an advantage can feel like a penalty if you're accustomed to the advantage. I suspect that's what's going on here.

Gameplay is going to adjust, and I suspect resourceful coaches are going to find ways to get quality, and mitigate damage of EEs pretty fast.

How do you define fair? I don't understand your logic at all. You don't have the APs to recruit for all your openings + all the guys you expect to lose in EE. You can't just "target a similar elite player" because you're already targeting that guy to replace your seniors.

In the old system, EEs cost you your best players but you had a chance to recruit similar-quality guys who were less developed to replace them. You call that an "advantage?" And now it's fair because you lose your best players and have virtually no meaningful chance to replace them with similar-quality players?

I'm not sure you're 100% clear on what the word "advantage" means...

Posted by zorzii on 8/22/2016 11:09:00 PM (view original):
Well said. Tried in ASU, took two walk-ons. There was nothing left worth it, or I was too late to attract interest.

... and from that, we learn the need to have back-ups in place.

"And now it's fair because you lose your best players and have virtually no meaningful chance to replace them with similar-quality players?"
With all due respect, yes. I once said D1 coaches were asking to be indemnified for EE's, and for saying that I was crucified. Now let the same people crucify you for saying essentially the same thing.

Edited to say ... or as it turns out as the thread continues, jump on the "indemnify me" bandwagon with you. I don't think Seble is going to indemnify anyone for losing an EE, nor should he. What kind of game would it be if every roster slot that turns EE becomes an EE-quality slot in perpetuity, automatically?

backups in place for multiple possible unknown events

with resources that are inherently inadequate for the task

some think that is a fun game, others dont. I dont.

well i do think EEs will be less of an issue that people are making it out to be, because i don't think any teams are going to be able absolutely horde the best players the way it happens now. i've seen seasons where one team literally grabbed 5 top ten players. i don't think that's going to happen in the new system, so teams will probably only lose 1 or 2 guys each, since prestige is muted and there is no conference cash. so this may be much ado about an issue that could be far less prevalent once we're in the new system for a couple seasons.

(that said, there should be SOMETHING done to address this. no one liked my easy suggestion that the top 100 players all be set to only sign late? it's the same kind of nerf used to prevent D3 teams from signing a ton of D1 guys. very simple.)

Posted by bathtubhippo on 8/23/2016 7:21:00 AM (view original):
well i do think EEs will be less of an issue that people are making it out to be, because i don't think any teams are going to be able absolutely horde the best players the way it happens now. i've seen seasons where one team literally grabbed 5 top ten players. i don't think that's going to happen in the new system, so teams will probably only lose 1 or 2 guys each, since prestige is muted and there is no conference cash. so this may be much ado about an issue that could be far less prevalent once we're in the new system for a couple seasons.

(that said, there should be SOMETHING done to address this. no one liked my easy suggestion that the top 100 players all be set to only sign late? it's the same kind of nerf used to prevent D3 teams from signing a ton of D1 guys. very simple.)

I don't like your suggestion, late signings on 50/50 type deals (or 20-20-20-20-20 assuming 5 top teams fight for the top 100 recruits if they are all late signers) are the opposite direction I want to see. I'd sooner see the top 100 guys all sign early, so moves could be made to replace them if one misses.

IMO the fix is really easy, simply declare EE b4 recruiting starts. Someone posted that stats don't matter in EE logic anyhow, so the only thing would be wins and post season play. I see no reason why that can't be replaced by some sort of team rating, such that an all 800 level team (or some other measure), regardless of wins or losses, loses more than a worse team.

...Seble cant figure out how to program that...........

Everyone is playing by the same rules .. this impacts everyone in the same way.

Coaches will figure out a strategy (probably several) to deal with this.

One possible helper .. make the big board a bit more accurate. Maybe not 100% accurate, but closer than it is now.