Posted by Benis on 9/26/2017 9:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by buddhagamer on 9/26/2017 9:29:00 PM (view original):
Then just add the feature to D2/D3 then...

Recruit above your level and your player will likely leave to the next level (make it fair across all divisions) and let see how everyone enjoys it.

Been suggested a few times. I like it and would be pretty funny to see happen.

I would support this 100%. It remains mind-boggling to me that seble designed 3.0 with absolutely no understanding of -- or respect for -- how the 2.0 Juco system worked and why it was necessary.

Posted by cubcub113 on 9/26/2017 9:10:00 PM (view original):
I used to stay out of EE debates. Now that I could have 3 this year with only 1 opening for Weber State, I really can forsee what a pain it is. I'd listen to the people with experience. How many EEs have you had in your career kcsundevil (honest question)? If you've had any I will shut up because different people will have different viewpoints.

I'll freely admit I've had zero. I purposefully avoid recruiting likely EEs. It's a strategic choice.

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/26/2017 9:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 9/26/2017 9:10:00 PM (view original):
I used to stay out of EE debates. Now that I could have 3 this year with only 1 opening for Weber State, I really can forsee what a pain it is. I'd listen to the people with experience. How many EEs have you had in your career kcsundevil (honest question)? If you've had any I will shut up because different people will have different viewpoints.

I'll freely admit I've had zero. I purposefully avoid recruiting likely EEs. It's a strategic choice.

Sounds good. I'm genuinely interested to hear what you think about the results.

The Juco system is sooo messed up.

Posted by cubcub113 on 9/26/2017 9:10:00 PM (view original):
I used to stay out of EE debates. Now that I could have 3 this year with only 1 opening for Weber State, I really can forsee what a pain it is. I'd listen to the people with experience. How many EEs have you had in your career kcsundevil (honest question)? If you've had any I will shut up because different people will have different viewpoints.

Personally, I've had EEs and think they stink when they happen, but I don't think they should change a thing about them. From a 2.0 vs. 3.0 standpoint, I think 2.0 was a deeply flawed game that they replaced with an equally deeply flawed game. However, EEs aren't the issue IMO.

The EE "penalty" or "feature" serves a purpose, it makes the EE a "crappier" option than it used to be and puts them more on par with the "crappier" player who will stick around for four years and develop into a good or great player. It means teams now have more options for building competitive teams, it means you can build a competitive team without having to focus solely on the EE caliber players. Role players now have some legitimate use and viability.

I respect chapel a great deal, he's a great competitor and a great ambassador for the game, but the argument that EEs should change because he can't bring himself to recruit "crappier" players is tired. It is one based on the belief that the game should be set up to play the way he thinks it should, with only one path to success and fielding a competitive team.

The reality of the game appears to be that HD intentionally made EE's a crappier option so that you would have to make the choice between "crappy option A" or "crappy option B". It opens the game up and makes it more competitive across the board for all teams by creating a real downside no matter which option you choose. For option A the downside occurs 2 or 3 seasons down the road when they leave early and for option B the downside is in the first season or two when they haven't developed their cores high enough to make an impact.

One last argument against changing EEs and an honest question, I opened up johnsensing's profile after reading his posts and see four very competitive teams built almost entirely from EE caliber players. All four teams are ranked including one that just made a Final Four. In looking at each of his teams, it doesn't appear he is having any trouble in fielding these kind of teams in 3.0. So why do we need to change the rules? Does it really need to be even easier to build these type of teams because it certainly doesn't look all that problematic as it is.

Thanks possum - I guess for me the idea is as much realism as possible. So, with that as my filter, I don't think that a top team would intentionally bypass a superstar because they would be afraid they would leave early, and they would have to take a walk-on. And if a player or two left, a Kentucky type team should not lose a battle for a good player to a lower level D1 or a D2 team on the cycle that a scholarship is accepted and the player is saying they would love a campus visit. I lost a 4 star player like that one year with an A+ U. Conn to a Division 2 team. I think even if something was done to correct the problem, it would still be way easier for the lower level teams to land top talent than in 2.0, and I like this aspect of 3.0 a lot. It's nice to know if you go all in on a player you have a shot at them even if you are going up against a higher prestige team.

Case studies of my two teams built differently from an EE standpoint.

My San Diego State team recruits only EE caliber players and then might pick up a player here and there to fill out a roster to around 10 players when the flips are lost. Current #13 ranked

With Southern Mississippi I try to recruit 1 EE caliber player a season because the press requires more signed players. Currently Southern Mississippi has no player on the team I would consider a certain EE contender. Ranked #6 and lost only to cubcub's Weber State team by two on the road on a last second basket.

Yeah, my New Mexico team is kind of like that too. I didn't have the prestige or money (because of distance) to compete for the elite guys. We are 23-1 and were #1 until that loss. However, we also have 6 seniors, and I suspect that is a big part of the reason for the success for me. How many seniors do you have? Mine is a pressing team too. I am trying for some EE quality players this time with my A- prestige, but it could backfire, and then I would probably have to switch defenses.

Posted by chapelhillne on 9/26/2017 11:23:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, my New Mexico team is kind of like that too. I didn't have the prestige or money (because of distance) to compete for the elite guys. We are 23-1 and were #1 until that loss. However, we also have 6 seniors, and I suspect that is a big part of the reason for the success for me. How many seniors do you have? Mine is a pressing team too. I am trying for some EE quality players this time with my A- prestige, but it could backfire, and then I would probably have to switch defenses.

3 seniors, 4 juniors, 4 sops, 1 freshman

That's definitely good. I think press is the dominant defense, but there's almost no way to run it without bypassing EEs for the most part.

Possum site mailed me and thought one idea would be to have fewer elite recruits.

Another thought might be to limit the number of APs per cycle that can be placed on each recruit by a team. For example, if you could only put 10-20 on a player instead of 80, you'd really be out there going after a number of players every cycle. Right now, to win the elite guys, you almost have to go all in with the APs each cycle, and if you fail, then there's not much of a way to recover. If you can only put 10-20 AP on a player, you have to recruit more players. Then, if you fail on your primary target, you'd be in a position to go after backups. Right now, if you fail, someone else is probably going to have gone all in on the backup.

They'd need to fix the Considering list though because there would be a lot of teams on the good players. I think they need to do some beta testing on different options and see if there is some kind of adjustment that would improve it.

Posted by possumfiend on 9/26/2017 10:52:00 PM (view original):

One last argument against changing EEs and an honest question, I opened up johnsensing's profile after reading his posts and see four very competitive teams built almost entirely from EE caliber players. All four teams are ranked including one that just made a Final Four. In looking at each of his teams, it doesn't appear he is having any trouble in fielding these kind of teams in 3.0. So why do we need to change the rules? Does it really need to be even easier to build these type of teams because it certainly doesn't look all that problematic as it is.

Again why not make it the same for elite D2/D3 teams then? Should they not have the same roadblocks when it comes to obtaining elite talent due to I assume a prestige advantage over lower prestige coaches in their division. Last I looked, they get the same rewards as the D1 coaches but don't have to put up with the EEs we do.

I don't play D2 or D3, but I agree with you buddha.

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/26/2017 9:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 9/26/2017 9:10:00 PM (view original):
I used to stay out of EE debates. Now that I could have 3 this year with only 1 opening for Weber State, I really can forsee what a pain it is. I'd listen to the people with experience. How many EEs have you had in your career kcsundevil (honest question)? If you've had any I will shut up because different people will have different viewpoints.

I'll freely admit I've had zero. I purposefully avoid recruiting likely EEs. It's a strategic choice.

Your poor HD record can attest to that

Posted by chapelhillne on 9/26/2017 4:00:00 PM (view original):
After 3.0 has been in effect for a good while, I do believe that something needs to be done about the EE situation. I just got hit with three this morning on my Connecticut team. I had 3 openings and filled all three in the first cycle and have another player I should win easily in the second cycle. However, Once again I have two spots that will probably go unfilled.

I think the original intent of the way EEs were set up was to make it more competitive and to give lower level teams a chance to compete. But I think the recruiting process in and of itself already does this.

I think that players should declare early and at that point teams should go ahead and get recruiting resources for the players that they are going to lose. The EEs can really decimate a program, and you have no way of recovering under the current system.

Of the three EEs, one was likely going, and was ranked very high, so I figured he was gone. Another was on the fence, so I was not all that surprised he was going. The third player was not even on the board.

It really has me discouraged with the game, which I never thought I would say. Something needs to change in my opinion

chap ill just never fully agree, i fully believe it was put in place like this to limit the top talent a team can achieve it forces you to recruit players who you have to develop and will not leave early thats what 3.0 brought us all, to actually spread around the talent not have them sit and ride the pine on about 10 teams .i will always feel most these A+ schools will never understand that aspect, its who your recruiting its not a EE problem, they should of left as freshman anyways most of the time its like were complain anyways that i got a extra yr or 2 out of a guy, when you fully change your recruiting habits this will never be a issue. (side note having 2 walkons a yr isnt bad at all, in the old system i hardly ever had more than 10 as well as i COULDNT land enough talent either way )