Posted by kcsundevil on 9/26/2017 6:24:00 PM (view original):
3.0 was designed to punish teams that rely too much on EE talent. Whether that makes for a better game is a matter of personal taste.

Yes, "recruit crappier players" is the more sustainable strategy. Most schools don't want to be Kentucky.

Most schools don't want to be Kentucky? You sure about that?

This is going well.

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/26/2017 6:24:00 PM (view original):
3.0 was designed to punish teams that rely too much on EE talent. Whether that makes for a better game is a matter of personal taste.

Yes, "recruit crappier players" is the more sustainable strategy. Most schools don't want to be Kentucky.

You mean the Kentucky that is a threat to make the final 4 every year? I strongly disagree that "most schools don't want to be Kentucky."

But more importantly, though, the fact that you're even trying to make this argument demonstrates how deeply flawed the EE situation is (and 3.0 as a whole). Why on earth would you want to incentivize your coaches to seek mediocrity? And what if a coach just gets lucky and wins a few battles? Now you're getting screwed win or lose by the dice roll.

Posted by johnsensing on 9/26/2017 6:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/26/2017 6:24:00 PM (view original):
3.0 was designed to punish teams that rely too much on EE talent. Whether that makes for a better game is a matter of personal taste.

Yes, "recruit crappier players" is the more sustainable strategy. Most schools don't want to be Kentucky.

You mean the Kentucky that is a threat to make the final 4 every year? I strongly disagree that "most schools don't want to be Kentucky."

But more importantly, though, the fact that you're even trying to make this argument demonstrates how deeply flawed the EE situation is (and 3.0 as a whole). Why on earth would you want to incentivize your coaches to seek mediocrity? And what if a coach just gets lucky and wins a few battles? Now you're getting screwed win or lose by the dice roll.

This is quite clearly a waste of time for both of us. 3.0 solved an EE problem that you're clamoring to reintroduce. Good luck.

I favor the "recruit at least one player out of the top 15 players at their position for each class".

As has been said several times in the forums. The top 15 players at each position and top international players go EE.

Even Kentucky IRL picks up a few guys that won't leave the bench until maybe their senior year at best because of low WE, really low skill development at first, or the "good/great college player but not NBA caliber".

It is your choice. Others did the research to identify EEs so we have the information. The rest is each person's individual decision

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/26/2017 6:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 9/26/2017 6:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/26/2017 6:24:00 PM (view original):
3.0 was designed to punish teams that rely too much on EE talent. Whether that makes for a better game is a matter of personal taste.

Yes, "recruit crappier players" is the more sustainable strategy. Most schools don't want to be Kentucky.

You mean the Kentucky that is a threat to make the final 4 every year? I strongly disagree that "most schools don't want to be Kentucky."

But more importantly, though, the fact that you're even trying to make this argument demonstrates how deeply flawed the EE situation is (and 3.0 as a whole). Why on earth would you want to incentivize your coaches to seek mediocrity? And what if a coach just gets lucky and wins a few battles? Now you're getting screwed win or lose by the dice roll.

This is quite clearly a waste of time for both of us. 3.0 solved an EE problem that you're clamoring to reintroduce. Good luck.

Yes, I don't know why I engage with 3.0 apologists like you, spud, and mike (if for no other reason than none of you are willing/able to answer direct questions). Even if you think 3.0 is an improvement to 2.0 (I don't, but whatever), there are still improvements to be made -- but every time anyone suggests any sort of change, the peanut gallery starts to ***** and moan.

Posted by johnsensing on 9/26/2017 7:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/26/2017 6:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 9/26/2017 6:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/26/2017 6:24:00 PM (view original):
3.0 was designed to punish teams that rely too much on EE talent. Whether that makes for a better game is a matter of personal taste.

Yes, "recruit crappier players" is the more sustainable strategy. Most schools don't want to be Kentucky.

You mean the Kentucky that is a threat to make the final 4 every year? I strongly disagree that "most schools don't want to be Kentucky."

But more importantly, though, the fact that you're even trying to make this argument demonstrates how deeply flawed the EE situation is (and 3.0 as a whole). Why on earth would you want to incentivize your coaches to seek mediocrity? And what if a coach just gets lucky and wins a few battles? Now you're getting screwed win or lose by the dice roll.

This is quite clearly a waste of time for both of us. 3.0 solved an EE problem that you're clamoring to reintroduce. Good luck.

Yes, I don't know why I engage with 3.0 apologists like you, spud, and mike (if for no other reason than none of you are willing/able to answer direct questions). Even if you think 3.0 is an improvement to 2.0 (I don't, but whatever), there are still improvements to be made -- but every time anyone suggests any sort of change, the peanut gallery starts to ***** and moan.

2.0 was generally a far superior product. I generally hate the new recruiting system, but it was designed to do very specific things, dispersing EEs among them. This is a feature, like it or not.

I like John's suggestion of making it to where the APs are used to unlock more players. In the current system, if you don't amass your AP on just a few players you are not that likely to win them. I just can't bring myself to recruit crappier players. Even without the impossibility of replacing the EEs because of the way that the second session is set up, EEs still hurt a lot because many of them do not develop the high IQs needed. One other solution would be to let the second session run for maybe 3 cycles before they start signing, so that teams with EEs don't have to chase players that sign the cycle they finally get unlocked.

I used to stay out of EE debates. Now that I could have 3 this year with only 1 opening for Weber State, I really can forsee what a pain it is. I'd listen to the people with experience. How many EEs have you had in your career kcsundevil (honest question)? If you've had any I will shut up because different people will have different viewpoints.

Recruiting crappier players to avoid EEs is not the answer. All that happens is the teams that get "lucky" not to have their 5 star players leave for the NBA will reap the benefits and dominate. So if you decide hey I'll just aim lower doesn't get you any farther than S16 once you run into the juggernauts that didn't get decimated. Last I looked this is HD Dynasty and it shouldn't just apply to D2/D3 teams that don't worry about EEs.

The whole purpose of EEs was to level the playing field in D1 due to the fact that most Power 5 conferences were almost nearly full (not anymore), which resulted in huge playoff cash (gone) and snowballed into large rollover (gone). At least previously when an EE left, we got the resources to recruit a replacement (with crappier IQ) but now its likely we take a walk on in his place.

Then just add the feature to D2/D3 then...

Recruit above your level and your player will likely leave to the next level (make it fair across all divisions) and let see how everyone enjoys it.

Posted by buddhagamer on 9/26/2017 9:29:00 PM (view original):
Then just add the feature to D2/D3 then...

Recruit above your level and your player will likely leave to the next level (make it fair across all divisions) and let see how everyone enjoys it.

Been suggested a few times. I like it and would be pretty funny to see happen.

I don't know why you guys bother to answer these guys. To answer Chapel, I have always felt declaring early was the best idea. You get resources at the start of the recruiting session. But you could make it a math thing 1 EE, depends. 2-3 EES lose only one, 4-5, lose two, 6 and up 3. Getting six EES, Bath or Chapel, is a chance to progress til the finals, but it could be a tough awakening when three leaves but at least you would know.