Posted by Benis on 11/3/2016 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 11/3/2016 2:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by grantduck on 11/3/2016 1:12:00 PM (view original):
Let me put it this way, sure early entry decisions can hurt schools in real life.

However, it doesn't hurt their resources and it doesn't mean that if UCLA/Duke/Arizona want a player over say, San Jose State, that they are suddenly not going to get that player. When SJSU outrecruits an A+ prestige because they have "more open scholarships", that's something that needs an immediate fix.

That is not new .. and this update fixes the previous issue.

I used to purposely take 3 walkons so I could spend all my cash on on really good player in Div-1 in 2.0.

In 3.0, now you can only put 20 HV and 1 CV on any one recruit. And any Div-1 team should be able to do that with several recruits. So there should be no reason that a high prestige team got beat by a low prestige team because of cash supply.

Still have the AP advantage. 140 AP recruiting 3 players has advantage of 80 APs recruiting 3 players.

And APs get modified by Prestige and preferences. I don't see Duke losing a lot of players they want in the worlds I am in.

Posted by zorzii on 11/2/2016 3:13:00 PM (view original):
Just have them declare in the first period... I mean, why are we even discussing this again. It's a logic solution to a problem that is easily fixed.

+1

Posted by hughesjr on 11/3/2016 2:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 11/3/2016 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 11/3/2016 2:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by grantduck on 11/3/2016 1:12:00 PM (view original):
Let me put it this way, sure early entry decisions can hurt schools in real life.

However, it doesn't hurt their resources and it doesn't mean that if UCLA/Duke/Arizona want a player over say, San Jose State, that they are suddenly not going to get that player. When SJSU outrecruits an A+ prestige because they have "more open scholarships", that's something that needs an immediate fix.

That is not new .. and this update fixes the previous issue.

I used to purposely take 3 walkons so I could spend all my cash on on really good player in Div-1 in 2.0.

In 3.0, now you can only put 20 HV and 1 CV on any one recruit. And any Div-1 team should be able to do that with several recruits. So there should be no reason that a high prestige team got beat by a low prestige team because of cash supply.

Still have the AP advantage. 140 AP recruiting 3 players has advantage of 80 APs recruiting 3 players.

And APs get modified by Prestige and preferences. I don't see Duke losing a lot of players they want in the worlds I am in.

Unless of course we circle back around to the EE issue...

And with favorable preferences, a lower prestige team could beat Duke if they put in way more APs.

One – they are doing exactly what they want to do. They are going to do nothing about it until they kill the grade teams. Then they might address it slightly. It is clear and it has always been clear that they want to punish the good teams.
No arguing that as they knew this would be a problem and they did nothing about it intentionally

two- I just lost five early entries! Ouch. Addition to my two seniors, I am done. Nice job, HD, you did what you wanted. Now there is about 20% of the recruit pool left for me to try to fill at least a few of those slots from. Awesome

It's clearly punitive when you lose people with zero resources or opportunity to replace them until 90% of good players are gone. And then, you don't have time to gain attention because you didn't have the attention points initially. And I lost five.

Posted by stewdog on 11/3/2016 3:52:00 PM (view original):
It's clearly punitive when you lose people with zero resources or opportunity to replace them until 90% of good players are gone. And then, you don't have time to gain attention because you didn't have the attention points initially. And I lost five.

If you can't see that, you obviously choose blindness in this issue.

He's not choosing to be blind to this issue. He's HAPPY this is happening to you. He's flat out giddy about it.

After reading through suggestions and thinking about it, my suggestions are twofold.

1. Every team gets a baseline amount of Attention Points + X amount for open scholarships. Something like 50 base points for all +20 for each open. This will mean more open still has an edge, but not a massive and unfair edge.

2. Having at least 1/3(maybe 50% even) of the recruit pool not even available until cycle 2.

Posted by Benis on 11/3/2016 3:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by stewdog on 11/3/2016 3:52:00 PM (view original):
It's clearly punitive when you lose people with zero resources or opportunity to replace them until 90% of good players are gone. And then, you don't have time to gain attention because you didn't have the attention points initially. And I lost five.

If you can't see that, you obviously choose blindness in this issue.

He's not choosing to be blind to this issue. He's HAPPY this is happening to you. He's flat out giddy about it.

who is he :)

It is clear that there is a big problem getting even a DI serviceable player for teams with large numbers of EEs or surprising/uncertain EEs

In the long term, this may become less of a problem depending on the dynamic results of recruiting and team composition.

As a transition matter, WIS considered the issue and decided not to attempt a fix. This shafts numbers of teams in the short term

Posted by CoachSpud on 11/3/2016 5:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 11/3/2016 5:00:00 PM (view original):
It is clear that there is a big problem getting even a DI serviceable player for teams with large numbers of EEs or surprising/uncertain EEs

In the long term, this may become less of a problem depending on the dynamic results of recruiting and team composition.

As a transition matter, WIS considered the issue and decided not to attempt a fix. This shafts numbers of teams in the short term

I suspect WIS thought that the coaches most affected by EE's would be bright enough to figure out 3.0. In most cases they'll be right.

yup, and for large numbers of EEs or uncertain/unexpected EEs those bright folks understand there is no solution. IF there is a solution, plse describe it. Not talking about preparing when one has one or two rather likely EEs. What's the smart play for the team that has say just one senior but 4 or 5 possible EEs at different positions. What general approach would a bright guy like Spud take in that situation?

I'm guessing Spud would say something like, "don't recruit early entires."

The problem with that, is the current engine has so few players that "develop" to become top level guys over 4 years. Low start value guys with lots of vh potential. Very tough to find at D-I because of how they've changed recruit generation about what 40 seasons ago now.

I'm happy to learn a new system quickly, just like I did the old system. The problem is 1. a lack of transparency about the new system and in fact WRONG information being on their own website, just flat incorrect statements int he updated recruiting "guide" they made. This after they said it would make it "more transparent." 2. The system REALLY needs a hotfix for an aspect that is not realistic and doesn't have a good solution. I'm inclined to just to stop playing until they fix it.

I recommended THIS schedule in another thread for people to discuss .. no one has discussed it. One of the things it fixes is EEs.