I agree with you here jsk, If it worked right I think it would add a good aspect to the game, as it is all it does is upset customers.

I am hoping that the new recruit generation can address this problem, although I do not feel it can really be fixed until postseason performance is drastically reduced.

I think that they should only have the message that a recruit is likely to go to the NBA early on the top 35-40 recruits in a given class. However, the kids who do have that message WILL leave early. They can use the current criteria (maybe tweaked some) to determine if the kids leaves after his FR, SO or JR seasons.

resorter made a good point earlier in the thread. I think why we see some guys stay although they have fantastic ratings is because of their attitude that you find out doing psych evals.

I never spend any money on them during recruiting but maybe I should. If you can sign a stud recruit that you know will stay 4 years that makes his far more valueable.

acn, I like the direction there. In RL, lots of players leave early, for a combination of different reasons, many of which are beyond the current scope of HD. The problem I see with HD's version of EE logic is that it disregards the fact that many of those factors are not in the game and has players "decide" on a basis very similar to RL. I believe this causes most of our frustrations.

HD should quit pretending those other factors are included, and only concentrate of those within the game's scope (ratings first, ratings second, ratings third, then performance, then postseason success). Then run a mock draft of all available players. Then assign a percentage chance of leaving based on draft position. For instance, the #1 mock pick would have a 100% chance, the #2-5 pick a 99% chance, the rest of the lottery a 95% chance, the rest of the 1st round a roughly 80% chance, the 2nd round a 40% chance, etc. This would be different for each pick (the 13th pick would have a slightly higher chance than the 14th). With such a system, no longer would a SG with 70 SPD and 75 BH and 80 PE, who played for the national champ scoring 10 a game, leave early, because he wouldn't get drafted in the mock draft (so why would he leave early?). In RL, he might leave early because he was tired of school, wanted to be on his own, hated his coach, didn't care if he had to play in Europe, etc. In HD, these reason don't exist, so if EE simply must be included, limit it to a purely "where will I be drafted?" factor.

jsk I agree with what you said there and most importantly that ratings should be the first three things looked at, if not more. Stats and postseason performance should be a very limited 4 and 5. For all those "I want this as real life as possible" guys, how often do you see a kid go from completely off the radar to "I'm goin' pro baby!" because his team made the Sweet 16 or Elite 8 +?

Agree, z. The only RL players who leave early even though they're not likely to be drafted high (or at all) are those who leave for issues OUTSIDE the scope of HD.

Quote: Originally Posted By jskenner on 11/09/2009

He's the one, zhawks. EE is broken. And IMO, even if it was perfectly executed, why have it? Ok, I know that it's in RL. But why not remove it entirely from the simulation. I imagine there are at least 99 customers significantly frustrated by EEs for every 1 that likes it (if such a person does exist).

js, I had a conversation with this recently w. seble after my redshirt soph pf early from Montana. There were plenty of jr pf's from BCS schools that were better. (A year after I had a pg leave who would've been an average ACC pg.)

seble admitted that the system could be improved. He admitted that many more people disliked early entries than liked them. He basically said that they're in place to artificially even out the playing field, which I've long known but was very dismayed to hear confirmed.

The current early entry system is the worst part of DI.

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 11/09/2009
I agree with you here jsk, If it worked right I think it would add a good aspect to the game, as it is all it does is upset customers.

I am hoping that the new recruit generation can address this problem, although I do not feel it can really be fixed until postseason performance is drastically reduced.

Just wait until DUR matters and you randomly lose your stud scorer for a season!

amen

Quote: Originally Posted By mlatsko1 on 11/09/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 11/09/2009

I agree with you here jsk, If it worked right I think it would add a good aspect to the game, as it is all it does is upset customers.

I am hoping that the new recruit generation can address this problem, although I do not feel it can really be fixed until postseason performance is drastically reduced.

Just wait until DUR matters and you randomly lose your stud scorer for a season

Yeah I know... I feel the same way. Injuries are one of the RL things that just shouldn't be a part of HD.

daalter, I hear you on the reason EEs are around is to "even out the playing field." The wierd thing is, they don't even do that, since the best way to do it is to take the X best players (ratings wise) and remove them each year. But it's hit or miss with the HD system, with very little reason. The very best teams will often keep many players who are absolute, total studs. So once again, WIS takes refuge behind an unimportant function (which it doesn't do well anyway) to argue for not correcting a problem that IS important to fix. WIS leadership logic is simply stuffed with ostensible reasoning. It's as if they will argue whatever first comes to mind in order to get the customer to just stop bothering them.

I think that in their attempt to even out the playing field they are over-emphasizing NT success. They take the best players from the teams that had the most success currently, instead of just taking the overall best players.

Quote: Originally Posted By berm on 11/09/2009I think that in their attempt to even out the playing field they are over-emphasizing NT success. They take the best players from the teams that had the most success currently, instead of just taking the overall best players.

I couldn't agree more berm. This is the one time the 'window' of success might actually make sense. IE a player that has won two titles as a fr/so and then loses in round 1 is less likely to leave then a player with two no post seasons his first two years and a Final Four his junior year.

Actually, their intent is to even out the playing field by yanking players from the best teams. This prevents those teams from dominating year after year and gives more schools a better chance.

I don't agree with this -- I think it's ridiculous, in fact -- but that is their MO.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.