I disagree that it doesn't resemble real life.  Would half of Kentucky's roster have gone pro if they hadn't won the tournament a couple weeks ago?  I'm not sure they all would have. 

I also think postseason success doesn't have quite enough to do with it.  And I really can't be convinced based on the evidence that aside from the national champion, postseason success really has anyting at all to do with EE's.  If it did, Gonzaga and Marist wouldn't be losing EE's while lots of other top teams skate by with stacked rosters. 

Posted by acn24 on 4/20/2012 9:12:00 AM (view original):
I've said it before, but:

Two suggestions to improve the early entry process at DI:

Currently it seems like evals for all of the top 100-120 recruits say that they will likely leave early for the NBA.  I suggest reducing that to 25-35 (skewed towards 4-5 stars, but some 1-3 stars as well), but actually make it mean something.  The kids who have that message will leave early, current logic can be used (or tweaked and improved) to determine if they leave after their FR, SO or JR seasons, but they will never see their SR season.

Also, I think there should be an extra email that comes at rollover, with the draft email, where your assistant coach can tell you who had a great summer and who might be tempted by the NBA if they have a good season.  That way EEs can be better predicted (if they weren't on the email, they won't go) and it will allow coaches to mitigate their impact by adjusting recruitng targets.

This is an important point.  Currently I don't even look at the eval message regarding the NBA.  They all say about the same thing, and seem to have little correlation to what actually happens.  (This could just be due to my poor coaching they don't leave early.)  But a better way to predict who will go would be a good thing.  There are always a few surprises, but in HD there are way too many.

Also, in keeping with real life, if you win the NT you should loose all of your freshmen.

Posted by jslotman on 4/20/2012 11:46:00 AM (view original):
I disagree that it doesn't resemble real life.  Would half of Kentucky's roster have gone pro if they hadn't won the tournament a couple weeks ago?  I'm not sure they all would have. 

I also think postseason success doesn't have quite enough to do with it.  And I really can't be convinced based on the evidence that aside from the national champion, postseason success really has anyting at all to do with EE's.  If it did, Gonzaga and Marist wouldn't be losing EE's while lots of other top teams skate by with stacked rosters. 

Yes. They were gone.

In real life, the postseason stuff is not consistent and can work any number of ways. Sometimes guys think they'll have a great team the next season and stay. Sometimes they have a great team run and leave. Sometimes they have a great team run and stay. There is no "norm" or standard there.

But the reality is that in real life, the main impact of postseason is how the individual performs, not the team. If a guy tears it up in the NT, he's more likely to leave. If he gets exposed and looks terrible and that hurts his stock, he's more likely to stay. Team performance is incidental.

The last 2-3 years I have looked at mock drafts before and after the NT ... there has been almost no change (and subsequently almost no surprises) pre- and post-NT. The reality is that for most players, what happens in the NT has almost no bearing on whether or not they leave.

Posted by cburton23 on 4/20/2012 11:43:00 AM (view original):

Posted by acn24 on 4/20/2012 9:12:00 AM (view original):
I've said it before, but:

Two suggestions to improve the early entry process at DI:

Currently it seems like evals for all of the top 100-120 recruits say that they will likely leave early for the NBA.  I suggest reducing that to 25-35 (skewed towards 4-5 stars, but some 1-3 stars as well), but actually make it mean something.  The kids who have that message will leave early, current logic can be used (or tweaked and improved) to determine if they leave after their FR, SO or JR seasons, but they will never see their SR season.

Also, I think there should be an extra email that comes at rollover, with the draft email, where your assistant coach can tell you who had a great summer and who might be tempted by the NBA if they have a good season.  That way EEs can be better predicted (if they weren't on the email, they won't go) and it will allow coaches to mitigate their impact by adjusting recruitng targets.

This is an important point.  Currently I don't even look at the eval message regarding the NBA.  They all say about the same thing, and seem to have little correlation to what actually happens.  (This could just be due to my poor coaching they don't leave early.)  But a better way to predict who will go would be a good thing.  There are always a few surprises, but in HD there are way too many.

Also, in keeping with real life, if you win the NT you should loose all of your freshmen.

Couldn't agree more, acn and cburton. IMHO, this is the way to go. Make the evals meaningful. That way you know what you're gettng into, can make strategic decisions, people won't get blindsided as much, etc.

And js, as for your Zaga/Marist point -- team success is a component, but only one component. If you make the NT and have a really strong player, there's a chance he'll leave early.

If anything, I would make the argument that Marist losing that guy is a sign that team success has too much impact -- if Marist misses the NT, I'm quite positive their guy stays.

My frustration with EEs is with recruiting cash. If an A+ team loses 2 EEs, that gives them more recruiting cash and more openings, making them even more difficult to battle for top recruits. This leads to a cycle where the top programs always have an even greater advantage in recruiting and can almost always score any recruit they want. If the A+ program did not have EEs, there might be a season where they have only 1-2 openings and may not have the cash to recruit the top player in the area.

I have no idea how to prevent this, but IMO early entries allow the top programs to stay at the top by giving them the xtra cash and openings to acquire the best talent. Yes, this mirrors reality, but it does make recruiting with an A-/B+ program that doesn't lose EEs much more difficult.

I only skimmed, so if this has been said already, I apologize, or +1, but to me this is a case where CS got too creative.  

All EE systems will frustrate someone, but if CS simply used ratings, and made sure that most of the time, the highest rated player got picked, I think this would go away.  What kills the current system, is when mid majors lose a 780 guy, and a single top end school keeps four or five players in the mid 900's.  Fixing that is VERY easy, make the best players go pro, ignore what really happens in college, which I am not convinced the current system mimics all that much better than my easy fix would.

If CS wants to adjust ratings somehow fine, but let us all know the formula, then let the best guys go EE per that formula.

By the way, this will harm the schools winning it all as much as any system, and has fewer ways to harm the lower end schools, who seldom really compete for those 825 rated frosh anyhow.

Posted by oldresorter on 4/20/2012 2:33:00 PM (view original):
I only skimmed, so if this has been said already, I apologize, or +1, but to me this is a case where CS got too creative.  

All EE systems will frustrate someone, but if CS simply used ratings, and made sure that most of the time, the highest rated player got picked, I think this would go away.  What kills the current system, is when mid majors lose a 780 guy, and a single top end school keeps four or five players in the mid 900's.  Fixing that is VERY easy, make the best players go pro, ignore what really happens in college, which I am not convinced the current system mimics all that much better than my easy fix would.

If CS wants to adjust ratings somehow fine, but let us all know the formula, then let the best guys go EE per that formula.

By the way, this will harm the schools winning it all as much as any system, and has fewer ways to harm the lower end schools, who seldom really compete for those 825 rated frosh anyhow.

Very reasonable.

This or acn's suggestion that evals that say a guy will leave early actually mean he will leave early would work for me.

Posted by cburton23 on 4/20/2012 11:43:00 AM (view original):

Posted by acn24 on 4/20/2012 9:12:00 AM (view original):
I've said it before, but:

Two suggestions to improve the early entry process at DI:

Currently it seems like evals for all of the top 100-120 recruits say that they will likely leave early for the NBA.  I suggest reducing that to 25-35 (skewed towards 4-5 stars, but some 1-3 stars as well), but actually make it mean something.  The kids who have that message will leave early, current logic can be used (or tweaked and improved) to determine if they leave after their FR, SO or JR seasons, but they will never see their SR season.

Also, I think there should be an extra email that comes at rollover, with the draft email, where your assistant coach can tell you who had a great summer and who might be tempted by the NBA if they have a good season.  That way EEs can be better predicted (if they weren't on the email, they won't go) and it will allow coaches to mitigate their impact by adjusting recruitng targets.

This is an important point.  Currently I don't even look at the eval message regarding the NBA.  They all say about the same thing, and seem to have little correlation to what actually happens.  (This could just be due to my poor coaching they don't leave early.)  But a better way to predict who will go would be a good thing.  There are always a few surprises, but in HD there are way too many.

Also, in keeping with real life, if you win the NT you should loose all of your freshmen.

CB, in "keeping with real life you should lose all your freshmen", isn't very real life.  Could you please provide examples where the National Champion in "real life" has lost ALL their freshmen?  Don't include this year's UK squad because they didn't (Kyle Wiltjer).  I'm just too lazy to fact check that statement, but I've got a feeling that you won't find more than one or two teams that ever had this happen, if that.  Most of their freshmen, okay, I could go for that (see the aforementioned UK team from this season, obviously).  But ALL their freshmen?  I just don't see it, although I could be wrong.

Posted by girt25 on 4/20/2012 2:21:00 PM (view original):
The logic is backwards. There's no question it hurts top teams much more overall to lose EE's and have some more recruiting cash. If they didnt't lose EE's, no one else would ever have a chance.

Even if under your scenario there were a few teams each season that only had 1-2 openings, there are still going to be more than enough top tier schools with openings to snap up the limited number of studs.

treyomo has a point, though, girt, and it's one I've made before. I use my MSU team in Phelan as my first-hand basis for this, over 25+ seasons of observation. It's an elite A+ program. I always try to plan for at least 2-3 openings a season, taking likely EE's into consideration, because I don't want my geographic rivals to be able to "steal" away a local 5-star guy from in-state. The plan has worked. I almost always have 1-3 EE's and always have enough openings/cash to prevent anyone from snagging top talent from within the state of Michigan.

Now granted, my losing EE's hurts my chances of winning a national title or making the Final 4, but I'm still always going to be a Top 25, NT-caliber team, regardless. My quantity of EE's does hurt teams like Michigan, because they are *never* able to get the elite in-state recruits, because I always get them. If I didn't have EE's, then Michigan, and other teams, would occasionally land some of those elite recruits, because I wouldn't have the openings. Would they be on the same level as me? Probably not, at least not at first. But they'd be better than they are now, relative to everyone else, and that could get their prestige up to where they could get there.

+1

Nice to see my misery generate good discussion, but I have a question to all the EE defenders out there. This is from CS about EE's:

"All players are ranked based on ratings, national awards (e.g. All-American team), team wins, division, and prestige. Underclassmen then make their decision based on where they project combined with their current class. So a sophomore would require a higher projection than a junior in order for them to leave for the draft."

There are 18 JRs rated higher than 905, and 18 just in the SEC rated higher than 811.  All of which have more National awards, more team wins, most have same or higher prestige.  So the 19th best JR in the country opted for the NBA.  My second player going EE is about the 50th best JR in the country.

Can you give me an example of the 19th best JR in the country and the 50th best JR in the country going pro?

All of this when the 2nd, 3rd and 4th best overall players in the country opted to come back to school. Rated 990, 990, and 987.  All Juniors.

Can you give me an example of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th best players in the country all opting to come back for their Senior years? (and don't say Florida, those guys went 3, 7, 9)

The system is broke, you need to embrace that.

aggregate points is imprecise 

Posted by emy1013 on 4/20/2012 3:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cburton23 on 4/20/2012 11:43:00 AM (view original):

Posted by acn24 on 4/20/2012 9:12:00 AM (view original):
I've said it before, but:

Two suggestions to improve the early entry process at DI:

Currently it seems like evals for all of the top 100-120 recruits say that they will likely leave early for the NBA.  I suggest reducing that to 25-35 (skewed towards 4-5 stars, but some 1-3 stars as well), but actually make it mean something.  The kids who have that message will leave early, current logic can be used (or tweaked and improved) to determine if they leave after their FR, SO or JR seasons, but they will never see their SR season.

Also, I think there should be an extra email that comes at rollover, with the draft email, where your assistant coach can tell you who had a great summer and who might be tempted by the NBA if they have a good season.  That way EEs can be better predicted (if they weren't on the email, they won't go) and it will allow coaches to mitigate their impact by adjusting recruitng targets.

This is an important point.  Currently I don't even look at the eval message regarding the NBA.  They all say about the same thing, and seem to have little correlation to what actually happens.  (This could just be due to my poor coaching they don't leave early.)  But a better way to predict who will go would be a good thing.  There are always a few surprises, but in HD there are way too many.

Also, in keeping with real life, if you win the NT you should loose all of your freshmen.

CB, in "keeping with real life you should lose all your freshmen", isn't very real life.  Could you please provide examples where the National Champion in "real life" has lost ALL their freshmen?  Don't include this year's UK squad because they didn't (Kyle Wiltjer).  I'm just too lazy to fact check that statement, but I've got a feeling that you won't find more than one or two teams that ever had this happen, if that.  Most of their freshmen, okay, I could go for that (see the aforementioned UK team from this season, obviously).  But ALL their freshmen?  I just don't see it, although I could be wrong.

It was a joke