what does NMSU vs Duke have to do with the second session being problematic for D1 in general? how did we get there from specifically talking about the topic at hand? I mean, I have the same problem with the beginning of session 2 at Cornell that I do at Arizona. it's a different scale, but the problem is still there. new coaches have this problem everywhere they go, from the smallest D1 conf to the big six.

Threads seldom stay on topic.

Nonetheless, I wouldn't expect a "fix" that makes the unhappy suddenly happy. Pretty sure EE and RS2 are designed to be problematic for the fortunate.

I'm sure EE level players will be less concentrated in the future and replacing them will be more of a challenge than in 2.0 for the long term

I wonder what the HD staff meant when the said a few weeks ago that they were working on:

"earlier early entry decision making and announcements"

many possible meanings......could be that it would be a reasonable adjustment to the balance for EEs.....just cant yet know.

It could be as simple as a mid-RS1 announcement. Would give users an extra 2-4 cycles to make adjustments.

But I still think the idea is to prevent replacing current EE players with future EE-level players.

I hope the idea is to make it very hard to replace EEs with future EEs. It should be hard.

Mid RS1 would be an interesting and perhaps useful approach.

One question HD needs to answer is whether it is just an announcement (hey this WILL be happening) or does it also at the time of the announcement get you the resources that go with the EE. I'd like to get the resources then - but I bet others would say just announce.

Analytically, announcing (esp announcing and at the same time providing resources) is a lot like giving EE teams the benefit of a couple of cycles in RS2 without signings. BUT, it reduces the other side effects of such a change - on DII and lower DI teams. They still can hunt early in RS2.

Might be a good answer.

Posted by bathtubhippo on 12/14/2016 5:07:00 PM (view original):
what does NMSU vs Duke have to do with the second session being problematic for D1 in general? how did we get there from specifically talking about the topic at hand? I mean, I have the same problem with the beginning of session 2 at Cornell that I do at Arizona. it's a different scale, but the problem is still there. new coaches have this problem everywhere they go, from the smallest D1 conf to the big six.

Yeah that's my fault. I was trying to address the perception of some that EEs just fall into people's laps so easily. Basically the reason I think it's an issue that needs to be fixed is because EEs are simply harder to get in itself (harder for B6, easier for everyone else). So if you get an EE, congrats, you got a good player because you are a good recruiter. And when you lose that player early, that's the penalty. No reason to double penalize... in my opinion.

If the intention is to handicap(i.e. make it difficult to replace EE with future EE) top teams, it would just be an announcement. That will NOT make the unhappy happy but it's a pretty solid compromise. You're good at the game, you know what is coming, you make plans to limit the damage. IOW, there is no surprise. If you have 2 openings and 2 EE, you'd know to stay on those two top 25 guys and possibly get stuck with 2 "unplayable" players or if you'd be better off chasing 3 top 75 and 1 top 100 guy. You'd also know what sort of resources you're getting in RS2.

this is the kind of thing people keep griping about with session 2 signings in the first cycle.

Fausto Rossi
Eligible
6'10" | 245 lbs.
Benedetto Amateur Basketball Club | Benedetto, Italy
This recruit has signed with CSU, Dominguez Hills

CSU, Dominguez Hills phalla DII A+ Very High Yes
Arizona bathtubhippo DI A+ Very Low No
Louisiana State alockwood86 DI A- Very Low No
Union snivells DIII A+ Very Low Yes

2 high-level D1 programs put AP into this player in the first cycle of session 2, probably both replacing EE, and yet he signs with the D2 team in the first cycle, before we can open up recruiting actions. i mean, kudos to phalla, he's gonna be a banger in D2, but this just doesn't seem right.

would it have been possible for Zona or LSU to toss some AP his way in the first cycle to unlock effort? I think there are issues that need fixing in EE, but to frame the question one needs more context - was it not possible to predict the EE need?

Since there are names attached, I'll repeat why I don't see it as a problem.

phalla put a lot of effort(resources) into Mr. Rossi.
bathtubhippo and alockwood86 came in late. We'll assume EE problem.

Now, this sucks for BTH and ALW86 but would it suck less for phalla to have dumped hundreds of AP and thousands of $$$ into him only to have BTH or ALW86 snatch him away in the 4th-5th cycle? Two users are left holding the bag. Is it better that one of them used a bunch of resources only to miss out? Or should two of them looked at the card, saw CSU as very high, offering a scholarship and moved on?

Posted by bathtubhippo on 12/16/2016 5:21:00 PM (view original):
this is the kind of thing people keep griping about with session 2 signings in the first cycle.

Fausto Rossi
Eligible
6'10" | 245 lbs.
Benedetto Amateur Basketball Club | Benedetto, Italy
This recruit has signed with CSU, Dominguez Hills

CSU, Dominguez Hills phalla DII A+ Very High Yes
Arizona bathtubhippo DI A+ Very Low No
Louisiana State alockwood86 DI A- Very Low No
Union snivells DIII A+ Very Low Yes

2 high-level D1 programs put AP into this player in the first cycle of session 2, probably both replacing EE, and yet he signs with the D2 team in the first cycle, before we can open up recruiting actions. i mean, kudos to phalla, he's gonna be a banger in D2, but this just doesn't seem right.

Yeah, the new system was intended to get us to battle and get rid of the previous system where "the first team on the guy gets him". But stuff like that seems to contradict Seble's stated goal.

yeah, i mean...context...for me, this guy was going to be the backup option to the backup option i am also pursuing, so this was indeed the first AP i put into him. a D1-caliber player, the guy slipped through the cracks as an international, and phalla did a good job scouting to find the guy early and played it well to get way ahead and sign him before a D1 team could come in. based on how HD3 operates, he played it well and deserves the player.

nevertheless, I just don't think it makes much sense for a guy to sign with a D2 team in cycle 1 of session 2 when 2 big-time D1 programs come calling. you're rewarding the D2 team for being on the player early and consistently. i will say, if that's the goal, okay, then it's working. but if the goal is realism or encouraging battles (as benis points out), it doesn't make any sense.

one fix for EE issue specifically, would be move EEs up to somewhere during the first phase - maybe three or four cycles before it ends. That would be the opportunity to take steps to unlock backup options where EEs were uncertain or surprising

as an EE fix, that would be a smaller change - I think - than having a cycle or two without signings in recruiting part two.

But, one or two cycles without signings could encourage more battling - if thats the goal.

It isn't designed to encourage battles between D2, showing much interest, and D1, showing no interest until their better options are no longer there, users.

I think that's what people fail to understand.

why shouldnt it encourage such battles?