At the top 10-15 programs EVERY recruit should be on the big board by the end of their junior year. This system not only makes that impossible but forces you to self-sabotage to make sure you have some 4-year guys. In 2.0 (and an ideal 3.0) a coach could trade Big 6 athleticism against the ability to develop A level IQs. Now we have made those levels of athletes a negative. And I, for one, reject it worse that the used toilet paper that comes out of Spudhole's fingers.

Posted by lakevin on 11/12/2016 5:30:00 PM (view original):
At the top 10-15 programs EVERY recruit should be on the big board by the end of their junior year. This system not only makes that impossible but forces you to self-sabotage to make sure you have some 4-year guys. In 2.0 (and an ideal 3.0) a coach could trade Big 6 athleticism against the ability to develop A level IQs. Now we have made those levels of athletes a negative. And I, for one, reject it worse that the used toilet paper that comes out of Spudhole's fingers.

but why is that any kind of realism for EVERY recruit to be on the big board, not many nba caliber players come off the bench in college at any grade, heck most freshman are the best players, then they leave every year, so this complete rant of a post is completely false and is no way like real life or should mimic real life .. MOST schools develop players over 4 years ..... the rare school duke and kentucky in real life do this because of 1 and done system thats in no way shape of form the same as here.

If we REALLY wanted to mimic real life then we need to ramp up transferring. Awesome players transfer out of mid majors and up to B6 schools. Heck, great players transfer out of schools like UK and Duke (Wiltjer and Gbinjie come to mind immediately).

Posted by Benis on 11/13/2016 2:21:00 PM (view original):
If we REALLY wanted to mimic real life then we need to ramp up transferring. Awesome players transfer out of mid majors and up to B6 schools. Heck, great players transfer out of schools like UK and Duke (Wiltjer and Gbinjie come to mind immediately).

Transferring, and 1-and-dones.

I had a one-and-done two seasons ago (Michael Johnson, NBA #1 pick, season 84). They are possible.

Posted by lakevin on 11/14/2016 10:52:00 AM (view original):
I had a one-and-done two seasons ago (Michael Johnson, NBA #1 pick, season 84). They are possible.

Yeah, they're possible. But if we really wanted it to mimic real life, they'd be ramped up. Almost half the projected first round for 2017 are freshmen. In real life, those elite players are almost entirely rentals. 1 year, maybe 2. 3 if you're lucky.

Posted by pkoopman on 11/12/2016 9:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 11/12/2016 9:23:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 11/12/2016 8:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 11/12/2016 12:53:00 AM (view original):
At any given time in real life college hoops there is an upper crust of schools - I can only assume you dislike Duke to list UK but not Duke. There's another 6-8 or so schools who belong in the discussion of schools who every single year are in the mix for the top talent in the nation, and sometimes schools come and go from that list decade by decade. HD has no reason to not reflect that other than forced parity, whether it be regular recruiting or with EEs.

I wouldn't say Duke is "immune" from early entry volatility. They had a good team last year, but depth was a concern, and hurt them at various points. They'll have a great team this year, probably a top 3-4 team if they stay healthy. They've been an elite team as long as coach K has been there, but they still fight for elite talent, and guys tell them no sometimes. Sure, you could add Syracuse, UNC, KU, Villanova, Michigan State, maybe a couple others depending on the year, but none of them are immune to early entry pain, and they all fight hard for most elite recruits; if they land a top level guy with no real fight, it's a gift.

And even if we grant your premise, if the choice is between having 15 schools be "immune" to the volatility of elite commodities (as with 2.0), having 8 such schools, or having none, I think for the sake of gameplay, the best choice is none. That isn't forced parity, it's forced competitiveness.

To your last sentence, no one, and I mean no one, is arguing for a return to the lack of competitiveness at the top in 2.0 recruiting, they are arguing that elite schools should still have options for EEs which recognize their prestige and accomplishments and create reasonable pathways. Seble couldn't seem to either see that point or reconcile that point with the new recruiting design.

Elite schools do have options, it just requires an adaptation in gameplay which many who post here (though not all) seem unwilling to try. Prestige is still a large factor, though not as large as we are used to. Number of scholarships are still a large factor, though not as large as we are used to. Your past accomplishments are still recognized - but they don't determine your future accomplishments to the extent they used to. It does take more work and long term planning (and luck) to stay at the top. That makes a better game, in my opinion. You don't have to agree with this assessment, or my preferences. But regardless of what we individuals prefer - and we've both made our preferences very clear - 3.0 is the game that exists. There are good ways to play the game that exists, and that's what the OP in this thread is about.

But when you have ee's, which is what this post is about, there are not options left.
You clearly haven't taken the time to try to understand and I don't care to re-state the previous facts already stated.

When you have zero seniors and 3-4 ee's you can't recover or recruit decent players at all.

And I don't care about after 3-4 seasons when the good schools have been sufficiently maimed due to injustice. We have always known this would be an issue and did nothing, which sucks.

I understand your position, stewdog. I just don't agree entirely with your assessment. It's not injustice. We're customers, not shareholders, we don't own any piece of the game. The game can change at any time. We all have to make our own assessments on whether or not we want to continue to be customers.

The game has changed considerably at high D1. As you say, you've been aware of how these changes might affect your teams for a while; I believe we were having this discussion over a year ago, in fact. You could have adjusted your approach to position your team for the transition, but you chose not to. I don't blame you, but now that decision is paying off. I do empathize with guys who don't pay attention to the forums and didn't do beta.

Posted by pkoopman on 11/14/2016 11:31:00 AM (view original):
I understand your position, stewdog. I just don't agree entirely with your assessment. It's not injustice. We're customers, not shareholders, we don't own any piece of the game. The game can change at any time. We all have to make our own assessments on whether or not we want to continue to be customers.

The game has changed considerably at high D1. As you say, you've been aware of how these changes might affect your teams for a while; I believe we were having this discussion over a year ago, in fact. You could have adjusted your approach to position your team for the transition, but you chose not to. I don't blame you, but now that decision is paying off. I do empathize with guys who don't pay attention to the forums and didn't do beta.

He couldn't Pk. I think people who haven't played d1 for a while choose to not see what isn't working. Ees is one of the many problems

I skimmed through the latter part of this thread, but initially it seems that the problem raised is- what about a plan for when you have 3-4 EE's? I think that's an issue that is largely going to go away very soon. There is no denying that it sucks for the initial season or two in 3.0, but do we really think this question is going to be relevant in a few months, after we've had multiple seasons played?

Recruiting is a much more level field now, so I suspect the days of 3-4 EE's are going to see a serious decline, if not nearly disappear. If that's the case, then Chapel's plan appears to be a valid one that offers a decent chance for success.

Posted by zorzii on 11/14/2016 11:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 11/14/2016 11:31:00 AM (view original):
I understand your position, stewdog. I just don't agree entirely with your assessment. It's not injustice. We're customers, not shareholders, we don't own any piece of the game. The game can change at any time. We all have to make our own assessments on whether or not we want to continue to be customers.

The game has changed considerably at high D1. As you say, you've been aware of how these changes might affect your teams for a while; I believe we were having this discussion over a year ago, in fact. You could have adjusted your approach to position your team for the transition, but you chose not to. I don't blame you, but now that decision is paying off. I do empathize with guys who don't pay attention to the forums and didn't do beta.

He couldn't Pk. I think people who haven't played d1 for a while choose to not see what isn't working. Ees is one of the many problems

False. He could have (adjusted his approach), he chose not to. Instead of only recruiting early entry candidates for the past 4 seasons, he could have started a more balanced approach, targeted more 4 year players. Stewdog is a great coach. I have tons of respect for him. If he cared to adapt to this system, he could have done so, and would have been (could still be) a great coach in 3.0.

Posted by pkoopman on 11/14/2016 12:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 11/14/2016 11:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 11/14/2016 11:31:00 AM (view original):
I understand your position, stewdog. I just don't agree entirely with your assessment. It's not injustice. We're customers, not shareholders, we don't own any piece of the game. The game can change at any time. We all have to make our own assessments on whether or not we want to continue to be customers.

The game has changed considerably at high D1. As you say, you've been aware of how these changes might affect your teams for a while; I believe we were having this discussion over a year ago, in fact. You could have adjusted your approach to position your team for the transition, but you chose not to. I don't blame you, but now that decision is paying off. I do empathize with guys who don't pay attention to the forums and didn't do beta.

He couldn't Pk. I think people who haven't played d1 for a while choose to not see what isn't working. Ees is one of the many problems

False. He could have (adjusted his approach), he chose not to. Instead of only recruiting early entry candidates for the past 4 seasons, he could have started a more balanced approach, targeted more 4 year players. Stewdog is a great coach. I have tons of respect for him. If he cared to adapt to this system, he could have done so, and would have been (could still be) a great coach in 3.0.

Read: "Under the 2.0 rules, prior to the implementation of 3.0, stewdog should have deliberately made his team worse." This may be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on this board -- and that is really saying something. If you're trying to convince people you're right about things, koop, maybe don't start by advocating self-sabotage?

Posted by johnsensing on 11/14/2016 1:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 11/14/2016 12:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 11/14/2016 11:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 11/14/2016 11:31:00 AM (view original):
I understand your position, stewdog. I just don't agree entirely with your assessment. It's not injustice. We're customers, not shareholders, we don't own any piece of the game. The game can change at any time. We all have to make our own assessments on whether or not we want to continue to be customers.

The game has changed considerably at high D1. As you say, you've been aware of how these changes might affect your teams for a while; I believe we were having this discussion over a year ago, in fact. You could have adjusted your approach to position your team for the transition, but you chose not to. I don't blame you, but now that decision is paying off. I do empathize with guys who don't pay attention to the forums and didn't do beta.

He couldn't Pk. I think people who haven't played d1 for a while choose to not see what isn't working. Ees is one of the many problems

False. He could have (adjusted his approach), he chose not to. Instead of only recruiting early entry candidates for the past 4 seasons, he could have started a more balanced approach, targeted more 4 year players. Stewdog is a great coach. I have tons of respect for him. If he cared to adapt to this system, he could have done so, and would have been (could still be) a great coach in 3.0.

Read: "Under the 2.0 rules, prior to the implementation of 3.0, stewdog should have deliberately made his team worse." This may be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on this board -- and that is really saying something. If you're trying to convince people you're right about things, koop, maybe don't start by advocating self-sabotage?

I didn't say he "should have". I said he "could have" in response to being told he couldn't have. He saw what was on the horizon, and he made a choice. I may have made the same choice.

It's not self sabotage to plan for changes that you see coming. You can gamble on the prospect of those changes being nixed before they affect you, but that probably wasn't a very good bet. And it hasn't panned out.

I could easily have signed three guys this cycle who would all EE. As is I signed three and two are likely EEs. The problem will only go away when I start dumbing down the class.

Fortunately, I don't care. I don't plan on being here when they leave.

Fix Ees, I have no idea why people are defending something bad for the game, even with only one ee.