I am pretty sure if I target <3 ready to play at high level division III I would've won 3 ships at Chowan and maybe a PTI a bit earlier with Baldwin Wallace. I actually looked into detail but I have missed 2 ships in football and basketball that I only play half the field in football and is resorting to one playbook and probably is going to scrap and head back to division III. How many Inels they take is enticing and they are really not top level programs however they think this game is a model of a arcade NBA Jam which is not significant and is not the same model where 30 and 50 year olds still have trouble playing this game.

Posted by shoe3 on 1/25/2020 4:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by upsetcity on 1/25/2020 3:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by upsetcity on 1/25/2020 2:47:00 PM (view original):
I've only been playing 3.0 a short period, and was vastly under recruiting early, so I have only recently had to deal with the whole EE issue. My first run-in was with a sophomore big who was clearly going to get drafted, just a matter of when. With about 4 games left in the regular season, he was still listed at ~45 on the big board and was likely staying. I was feeling like "hmm - I guess he stays one more and then DEFINITELY leaves after his junior year". After the upcoming game, he went to ~30 and on the fence. After the second to last game of the season, he was ~20 and likely going. It happened in a flash from projected staying and second round pick to projected going and just outside the lottery.

In retrospect, I didn't realize really how to manage a player like that. At the time, a team in conference had a similar big who he played off the bench after his freshman year. He was right next to my big, ~45, on the big board and he moved up about 4 slots in the same time period. He stayed for his junior season despite being a similar skill level. Should I have sat my big to hinder ratings progress and his ability to win an award? Should I have put more minutes into other categories outside of perimeter / BH / pass (where he gained most of his attributes his sophomore year) to avoid him progressing to the extend he did?

I'm especially curious as I have another sophomore big that is on a similar path, skill wise, as the previous big I mentioned. I'm debating putting him on the bench, limiting his touches, and avoiding putting minutes into things like passing (where he has ~25 points of potential growth remaining). He honestly won't improve much this season outside of passing - his only other non-yellow/red categories are speed, defense, stamina, and durability (all black).

I understand I started ranting a bit here, so let me bring myself back on track.

In my opinion - EEs in HD aren't done well right now. However, I don't believe it's entirely due the initial point of the big board being inaccurate. Although not entirely common, it's also not uncommon for players to leave after their first three years for the NBA draft and then go undrafted. 14 non-seniors left college last year and went undrafted. Imagine if that happened in HD? You lose one of your best players early AND you don't even get a prestige boost. To make at least somewhat realistic, they have to add some variability (It's part of the reason why, even though I've been crushed by it recently, I don't see the recruit roll being that bad. Conversation for another time.)

One way to at least try and fix the current system could be: if a player is on "an NBA teams", even if it isn't the big board, you should receive an email from the player saying "I'm x% sure I'm leaving / staying" and be given a recruiting budget that player based on the % he states. If the player is 100% likely to leave, the team should be allotted maybe 10 additional AP and 1/2 of an open slot's budget for recruiting / scouting (in other words, 1/2 of what they would have gotten if the guy was a walkon or senior). If they are 50% likely to leave, they would get 5 additional AP and 1/4 of the open slot's recruiting / scouting. Doing this makes it so you are aware he could leave, you don't get a huge advantage of AP and money if he stays, and recruiting talented players doesn't come with the inherent punishment that is currently around.

In Knight, I saw the new coach of A+ Syracuse hasn't played since before 3.0. He asked his conference mates for some advice and they mentioned how 5-stars might just not be worth attacking as they come with normally come with a battle, the roll could not go in your favor even if you 'win', and if you successfully recruit them - they leave in 2 years. It shouldn't be like that. Kentucky, in the real world, doesn't avoid a 5-star as it might hinder them when he leaves.

Another rant but this one a bit more on topic.

First, my approach to Knop, based on what you’ve said, would be to go ahead and let his passing improve to ~60, or until he starts moving up into the 30s on the big board. With his high starting rebounding, defense, and LP, there wasn’t much you could do to keep him off the board, but you can keep him out of the projected first round this year, which will increase your odds of keeping him. His less-than-elite athleticism might help you keep him longer, but I think he’s still a good bet for ending up projected in the first round next season, so you need to look at a senior season from him as bonus.

There were lots of ideas batted around during beta, a few looked like yours. Essentially, the guiding principle is that the game doesn’t want coaches to be able to stock a roster with an endless stream of NBA talent. Even if there was a team in real life that could fill its roster with NBA talent, that isn’t good for a competitive multiplayer simulation. So because of that guiding principle, elite commodities (legit 4-5 star players) need to come with high volatility. There must be risk to go along with the reward.

So managing that volatility becomes a coaching skill. Instead of one single way to approach recruit prioritization, there are many viable strategies (take multiple walkons and go after only elite talent, take projects and redshirts and ineligibles to mitigate the damage “unexpected” early entries might do, manage player development to reduce the risk of early entry, etc etc). Even Coach Cal has to deal with negative consequences of high turnover; as evidenced by Kentucky’s lack of a closet full of trophies despite all the one-and-dones.

But your taking all luck response and rolls out of the game. We did nominate you as the voice majority of the rest but that is not the simplify of the game the system has one thing right and one thing only the Math corrects itself no matter what.

Shoe this has not been your best thread.

I can't believe you actually told Benis to suppress the growth of a player not on the Big Board.

I am the biggest advocate of suppressing growth in the world, and I do it the moment a player hits 100 in all areas I don't feel are necessary to help my team nonnegligibly increase their odds to win the title.

But you cant suppress the LP on a big whos not in the Top 100! That is crazy! How will you ever win a title that way.

Shoe, I have two questions and a comment. My comment is....

I (and probably everyone else) feel like you LOVE the EE situation. That's just super weird

My questions..... 1) why does the game have to be this way, to have a good multiplayer simulation, like you say? What's wrong with the rich being rich? Why do we need to hand out participation trophies to everyone? What's wrong with a Big 6 team winning every season? Or Kansas/UNC/Duke winning all the time? To me, that's a GOOD thing! Only the coaches with the best resumes should get those jobs. Why should the UK job go to a coach that has just played a long time and has an above average resume?

2) Do you REALLY believe that a "fun" and "good" way to play this game, is upon signing an elite recruit, to sabotage his ratings and make him NOT an elite recruit with growth, simply because he might leave? That's good game play?

Question 2 is ridiculous any way to make it. Gil and others are correct, in making IQ "different" in some way shape or form, to balance out the true worth of a young EE caliber player. I'm so sorry, but the ridiculousness of this very issue is why I will never play D1 if I continued playing this game for 50 years. It's STUPID beyond belief!!!!!!!!

As far as question 1, I just feel like you want everyone to be able to take turns being good. That is not a good way to make a multiplayer game fun. If someone is good at the game, they should be good at the game.

Posted by cubcub113 on 1/26/2020 12:50:00 AM (view original):
Shoe this has not been your best thread.

I can't believe you actually told Benis to suppress the growth of a player not on the Big Board.

I am the biggest advocate of suppressing growth in the world, and I do it the moment a player hits 100 in all areas I don't feel are necessary to help my team nonnegligibly increase their odds to win the title.

But you cant suppress the LP on a big whos not in the Top 100! That is crazy! How will you ever win a title that way.

The difference between 89 LP and 96 LP of one player is not very significant, from a team standpoint (certainly didn’t result in a title run for Utah). If it’s that important to you, by all means max out as soon as possible. But don’t turn around and say the outcome (an early entry) is “random” and you had “no control” over it. You did. You made a choice that increased his odds of leaving early. Not being on the big board doesn’t mean he’s safe. Everyone who’s played more than a couple seasons of high level D1 should probably know that by now.

Posted by topdogggbm on 1/26/2020 1:04:00 AM (view original):
Shoe, I have two questions and a comment. My comment is....

I (and probably everyone else) feel like you LOVE the EE situation. That's just super weird

My questions..... 1) why does the game have to be this way, to have a good multiplayer simulation, like you say? What's wrong with the rich being rich? Why do we need to hand out participation trophies to everyone? What's wrong with a Big 6 team winning every season? Or Kansas/UNC/Duke winning all the time? To me, that's a GOOD thing! Only the coaches with the best resumes should get those jobs. Why should the UK job go to a coach that has just played a long time and has an above average resume?

2) Do you REALLY believe that a "fun" and "good" way to play this game, is upon signing an elite recruit, to sabotage his ratings and make him NOT an elite recruit with growth, simply because he might leave? That's good game play?

Question 2 is ridiculous any way to make it. Gil and others are correct, in making IQ "different" in some way shape or form, to balance out the true worth of a young EE caliber player. I'm so sorry, but the ridiculousness of this very issue is why I will never play D1 if I continued playing this game for 50 years. It's STUPID beyond belief!!!!!!!!

As far as question 1, I just feel like you want everyone to be able to take turns being good. That is not a good way to make a multiplayer game fun. If someone is good at the game, they should be good at the game.

Regarding your comment, that would be a poor interpretation of what I’ve said. I explicitly and specifically told you the ways I think the system could be improved, to something ideal and wonderful that I could LOVE. Either you’re neglecting to read what i actually write in response to you, or all that time with Benis has rubbed off, and you’re just deliberately misrepresenting what I write.

Regarding 1: By “this way”, I assume you mean the possibility of losing early entries. Well one, there is a real life NBA drafting real players from real college basketball teams, sometimes before they graduate, so a simulation of college basketball without that feature would be pretty dumb. And because this is primarily set up as a resource allocation game - it doesn’t have to be, I don’t think it should be, but that’s what it is - to make it competitive (ie players need to work to stay on top, there is no mechanism to exploit to just remain on top in perpetuity) those elite commodities we are competing for need to have volatility. Since the attributes and potential are absolute, and pretty much knowable, the volatility aspect relies on early entry. In other words, since there are no unexpected “busts”, volatility comes in the form of losing access to them. That prevents a form of winner’s ball, where advantages of success just extends in perpetuity. Why is that bad? Because this is a game people pay to play. Why pay for a game where people have unassailable advantages just by virtue of being here first?

Regarding 2: I didn’t say it was good and fun. Don’t put words on my keypad, Benis Jr. I said it’s a strategy that coaches can use to mitigate the risk. To me, good and fun isn’t a game where there is one specific path to figure out and know, and every question has a “correct” answer. Good and fun is a game where I can develop many different viable strategies, and use them as I see fit, with some expectation of success, when applied in reasonable situations. In other words, I want a game that has standards of risk and reward, and requires players to navigate those decisions, and deal with the consequences. Sometimes losing an elite commodity to early entry is a reasonable risk when recruiting elite commodities.

Don’t play D1, then. And don’t coach it in real life either, if you can’t tolerate the volatility of elite commodities.

And “taking turns being good” is, again, a very stupid way to interpret what I’ve written. I want being good at the game to mean something. If Benis was better at the game, he would have been able to tell that Jackson was good enough to leave early, and he would have noticed that there were very few graduating seniors on the big board, so he wasn’t safe.

And it’s also insulting to all the excellent 3.0 coaches out there who maintain programs that are much better on a much more consistent basis than any real life program. Nobody wants “participation trophies”. What I want is a game that treats evaluation, long term planning, and adaptability as skills that figure into success. In other words, maintaining a top level D1 team (or “being good”, as you say) is more than knowing what numbers are higher and what positions need passing versus rebounding.

Posted by cubcub113 on 1/26/2020 12:50:00 AM (view original):
Shoe this has not been your best thread.

I can't believe you actually told Benis to suppress the growth of a player not on the Big Board.

I am the biggest advocate of suppressing growth in the world, and I do it the moment a player hits 100 in all areas I don't feel are necessary to help my team nonnegligibly increase their odds to win the title.

But you cant suppress the LP on a big whos not in the Top 100! That is crazy! How will you ever win a title that way.

"How will you ever win a title that way"

Quickly scans poopshoes D1 history... you don't.

Posted by Benis on 1/26/2020 7:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 1/26/2020 12:50:00 AM (view original):
Shoe this has not been your best thread.

I can't believe you actually told Benis to suppress the growth of a player not on the Big Board.

I am the biggest advocate of suppressing growth in the world, and I do it the moment a player hits 100 in all areas I don't feel are necessary to help my team nonnegligibly increase their odds to win the title.

But you cant suppress the LP on a big whos not in the Top 100! That is crazy! How will you ever win a title that way.

"How will you ever win a title that way"

Quickly scans poopshoes D1 history... you don't.

I love when you two parrot 0nly’s silly line of attack. “Shoe says the game shouldn’t be set up to let teams horde commodities and go on long, self-perpetuating runs of dominance. But he doesn’t even have any more D1 titles than Benis! Why would you listen to him?”

I’m comfortable with my D1 competitiveness. Only one team wins a D1 championship every year. For those following along, one of the key differences between my approach to the game, and that passed down from 0nly to his disciples, which they are *very invested* in keeping alive, is that I think the game should be fun for more people than the ones who dominate it. If I don’t win enough for you to pay attention to, that’s cool. Free country. If you don’t like my word count, logic, vocabulary or humor, also fine. I don’t need internet friends. Literally the only thing I care about, as it regards my participation in this forum, is whether the game is fun. So when Benis does stupid things like call the EE system random, and complain about having no control over it, I will continue point out his utter lack of imagination, and dull intellect.

So again, as regards the OP:

“If it’s that important to you, by all means max out as soon as possible. But don’t turn around and say the outcome (an early entry) is “random” and you had “no control” over it. You did. You made a choice that increased his odds of leaving early. Not being on the big board doesn’t mean he’s safe. Everyone who’s played more than a couple seasons of high level D1 should probably know that by now.”

"PS - if only we hade a drinking game where you had to down one every time shoe says "commodities"

He'd be winning a lot of titles because the rest of us would be dead.

Nothing like a lil EE thread to start some fun!

I'm also not saying that whoever was here first should get all the best programs. One thing that would make it better in my opinion is more firings. If you're a long term coach that's played for years, and you see somebody else coming along and dominating the game, while you're stinking up an A+ baseline school, would you be mad if you were fired and he got the job? I wouldn't be. Because it makes sense. You'd have dibs on the best available job, and the coaching carousel would continue and once you worked your way back up, you'd get another bigtime job again.

For those that get mad about that, THAT is where I think the game is wrong. Why let someone play 100 seasons at UCLA? The coaching carousel would make the game more realistic, and if you wanna play 100 seasons at one school, come to D2. Or D3. But if we're trying to make it more realistic, that's the first change needed.

From there, the dominoes fall. But this response wasn't really about the EE stuff. It was based around shoes comment about "why should whoever is here the longest, be the best". It shouldn't be that way. And firings would fix that

**add in..... I definitely don't see eye to eye with benis, on a lot of the things in this game. You (shoe) just choose to group me with him because this is the one particular issue that we argue about the most. And in this case, I do agree with him. But I don't agree with him on most other topics

The Drinking game we had was suppose to simulate life reaction reflexes to help us understand the Athletes who decide to be semi Pro and drink or get in trouble and bet on games or lose their GPA. I had a 3.5 before I took every Math at Sophomore level believe it or not nobody understood math because we had a new teacher who actually followed the rules and kept the learning curve which is the only thing I liked about that class. I had to go to a neighbor school and I could've played 3a level baseball in Greenville which is the only regret I have I would've gotten Auto scholarship to Ecu instead of signing on and waiting but went to Duke instead.

Does this sound like Shoe? Shoe is majority commentator and even then I do not understand how he has the worst majority supporting him. 2.0 was a really good model and we had less complaning because division III couldn't get fall back options at division One you think I am complaining at my 46th win at Ecu 3 classes in we are white 130 and stacking classes this off season. I am actually going to get my expanded role because Zero emails from other Universities its either you take fall back options or Juco or you don't get a player at all.

Believe it or not I got <4 targets <2 is main priority <>1 is a blue martin out of the 70/70/70 model with a 80/20 split. I got three more targets and believe it or not no division one team is on any of them I don't know what I did wrong I am in a different state so stealing from Duke is not a option to win games and I completely understand that and am on good terms with that. However one of the few I plan on getting every1 from the 1s.

Posted by cubcub113 on 1/26/2020 12:50:00 AM (view original):
Shoe this has not been your best thread.

I can't believe you actually told Benis to suppress the growth of a player not on the Big Board.

I am the biggest advocate of suppressing growth in the world, and I do it the moment a player hits 100 in all areas I don't feel are necessary to help my team nonnegligibly increase their odds to win the title.

But you cant suppress the LP on a big whos not in the Top 100! That is crazy! How will you ever win a title that way.

while i agree its not shoe's best thread (there are a wide range of opinions on how EEs should work, and sort of by definition none of are them are right or wrong, so i think he's taking the wrong tack here - significantly so) - i have to back him up on this point. i suppress growth of players not on the big board all the time. this is both in anticipation of high big board ratings later on, and for players who i believe to be hovering right below the board.

however, its completely absurd that such a strategy should be successful in this game. its hard for me to put my thumb on exactly why it feels so backwards for coaches to be incentivized to hold back players on stats and ratings... its not just that its totally unrealistic, or that its generally not an enjoyable thing to manage for anyone. it just feels really absurd, something games should not have in them. this kind of stuff pops up as an unintended consequence in games all over and is near universally derided - games can be based on any insane fantasy, but they shouldn't feel absurd. to me, its proof of a broken system.

Posted by shoe3 on 1/26/2020 8:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 1/26/2020 7:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 1/26/2020 12:50:00 AM (view original):
Shoe this has not been your best thread.

I can't believe you actually told Benis to suppress the growth of a player not on the Big Board.

I am the biggest advocate of suppressing growth in the world, and I do it the moment a player hits 100 in all areas I don't feel are necessary to help my team nonnegligibly increase their odds to win the title.

But you cant suppress the LP on a big whos not in the Top 100! That is crazy! How will you ever win a title that way.

"How will you ever win a title that way"

Quickly scans poopshoes D1 history... you don't.

I love when you two parrot 0nly’s silly line of attack. “Shoe says the game shouldn’t be set up to let teams horde commodities and go on long, self-perpetuating runs of dominance. But he doesn’t even have any more D1 titles than Benis! Why would you listen to him?”

I’m comfortable with my D1 competitiveness. Only one team wins a D1 championship every year. For those following along, one of the key differences between my approach to the game, and that passed down from 0nly to his disciples, which they are *very invested* in keeping alive, is that I think the game should be fun for more people than the ones who dominate it. If I don’t win enough for you to pay attention to, that’s cool. Free country. If you don’t like my word count, logic, vocabulary or humor, also fine. I don’t need internet friends. Literally the only thing I care about, as it regards my participation in this forum, is whether the game is fun. So when Benis does stupid things like call the EE system random, and complain about having no control over it, I will continue point out his utter lack of imagination, and dull intellect.

So again, as regards the OP:

“If it’s that important to you, by all means max out as soon as possible. But don’t turn around and say the outcome (an early entry) is “random” and you had “no control” over it. You did. You made a choice that increased his odds of leaving early. Not being on the big board doesn’t mean he’s safe. Everyone who’s played more than a couple seasons of high level D1 should probably know that by now.”

you are totally off base here. nobody is against the game being fun for everybody, but the game should certainly be fun for those who are winning, wouldn't you think? i mean, if that's everyone's goal, then getting there should be pretty gratifying. the problems with EEs, as some folks see them, is that they really undermine the fun of building high end d1 programs. virtually nobody is saying high d1 teams aren't good enough, or don't have enough advantages - its really an enjoyment issue.

also, just because you have some influence on something, doesn't mean there isn't a major random factor. when folks say random in a casual setting like this (as opposed to a math forum or something), they rarely mean the random factor is the only factor - just that the random factor is larger than they like. calling EEs random is fine - frankly, you are pretty loose with the math concepts yourself, so you are in no position to try to hold others to such a rigid standard.

P.S. - what is with this conspiracy crap about the0nly and his disciples? the EE arguments being regurgitated here long predate the0nly, i sort of have no idea what you are talking about - but i really don't think you do, either...