Posted by pkoopman on 9/27/2017 11:23:00 AM (view original):
The arguments are all basically the same as they were a year ago, even if some of the voices have changed.

Chapel, JS, mully, I have total respect for your opinions, but I think you're totally wrong. This is a commodity game, the most valuable commodities need to come with high cost and volatility. Making it easier and simpler for the top 5-10 programs to stay on top every year is not a compelling argument.

I think there are some good ways to improve gameplay in this area, but it's on the player preference side, not the team resource side. Most elite players should want to wait until the top programs have their full resources available to make decisions, so most of them should have the late signing preference. And players with the late preference should not sign for the first two late (at least) cycles. Late should mean LATE. I also like an academic vs. pro-ball preference. I also like the idea of having the ability to siphon off some APs to try to convince a kid to stick around another year; maybe make promises available to him as well.

It's genuinely interesting to me that you think my position on the EE issue is totally wrong, but are advocating changes to the recruiting model that are very similar to ones that I have advocated in this thread and elsewhere -- I completely agree with you re: having more elite recruits with a late preference, and a "no-sign" period or two in session 2, and also agree that preferences should be tweaked. To me, that goes a long way to fixing any EE issues (although I still feel APs are overpowered).

Posted by buddhagamer on 9/27/2017 12:05:00 PM (view original):
For those of you who want to keep the penalty of recruiting elite level talent, I still have to hear *ANYONE* provide an argument on why it should not then apply to ALL divisions then.

Maybe it should, but is there a compelling gameplay argument that doesn't boil down to resentment, a "how would you feel!" kind of argument? So far, I haven't seen a serious case made for it improving gameplay, so I don't take the idea seriously. I'm open to changing my mind.

Does it add realism? Honest question, how many guys leave D2 to play at a D1 program every year? Does the #46 pg recruit in the class go to Abilene Christian with dreams of some day moving up to sit on the bench at Texas Tech? My thought is, that guy doesn't get persuaded to play at Abilene Christian in the first place, he goes juco. But it it happens in real life to a significant degree, the game should look into it.

Does it make the game more fun? Does it enhance strategic value of choices? My initial thought is probably not much. There's already a significant risk to a D2 team investing resources to that player, because if a D1 above D+ prestige moves in hard, he's probably toast.

I am probably more inclined to get behind a push to program more of those players to choose juco, rather than drop divisions, along the lines of recruiting an ineligible player - maybe he just doesn't show up.

Posted by johnsensing on 9/27/2017 12:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 9/27/2017 11:23:00 AM (view original):
The arguments are all basically the same as they were a year ago, even if some of the voices have changed.

Chapel, JS, mully, I have total respect for your opinions, but I think you're totally wrong. This is a commodity game, the most valuable commodities need to come with high cost and volatility. Making it easier and simpler for the top 5-10 programs to stay on top every year is not a compelling argument.

I think there are some good ways to improve gameplay in this area, but it's on the player preference side, not the team resource side. Most elite players should want to wait until the top programs have their full resources available to make decisions, so most of them should have the late signing preference. And players with the late preference should not sign for the first two late (at least) cycles. Late should mean LATE. I also like an academic vs. pro-ball preference. I also like the idea of having the ability to siphon off some APs to try to convince a kid to stick around another year; maybe make promises available to him as well.

It's genuinely interesting to me that you think my position on the EE issue is totally wrong, but are advocating changes to the recruiting model that are very similar to ones that I have advocated in this thread and elsewhere -- I completely agree with you re: having more elite recruits with a late preference, and a "no-sign" period or two in session 2, and also agree that preferences should be tweaked. To me, that goes a long way to fixing any EE issues (although I still feel APs are overpowered).

You're right, I missed your first post on this thread. We are mostly on the same page then, on how best to address the issue; I've been advocating some variety of those two changes since beta.

I picked up on the "recruit crappier players" tack, and I do disagree with you on that (I think you know that, from forum and conference chats). I think most of this gets resolved by players adjusting expectations and gameplay, and as in real life, there is nothing wrong with high level teams relying on a core of good players who will never play professionally. Those teams should be able to compete, through their own strategic choices, with teams who only go for elite talent. That only happens if those "elite-focused" teams are having to deal with less depth and more volatility year over year.

"Does it add realism? Honest question, how many guys leave D2 to play at a D1 program every year? Does the #46 pg recruit in the class go to Abilene Christian with dreams of some day moving up to sit on the bench at Texas Tech? My thought is, that guy doesn't get persuaded to play at Abilene Christian in the first place, he goes juco. But it it happens in real life to a significant degree, the game should look into it."

I think this is irrelevant. The recruiting system is already very unrealistic. How many guys turn down scholarship offers from D1 schools to play at D2 or even D3? Maybe it happens once in a blue moon but in HD it happens dozens and dozens of times every season. Typically this is a human coach beating a sim, but it still isn't realistic for this to happen so frequently.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/27/2017 11:47:00 AM (view original):
Can anyone provide a couple of examples of a team, under the same coach/user, that made an Elite 8, lost 3 or more EE, then failed to make the NT the next season? I keep reading "hard to remain competitive". First, it should be hard. Second, this is a consumer product. The same 15 users making the E8 every season is fun for 15 users, not so much for everyone else. So maybe "good competitive" isn't E8 every year. Maybe it's a NT appearance with the OPPORTUNITY to make E8.

Georgia tech - stewdog. Arguably the best coach in all of HD

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=5980

Iowa st - doomey

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/History.aspx?tid=6005

Illinois- paleriders, might apply too, his 1st rd loss was historic coming of a national title are returning the best team in HD

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/History.aspx?tid=5997

Cal - rickybell might've been a hard bubble team off of huge runs.

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/History.aspx?tid=5919

all i see is examples of over recruiting and it coming back to hurt them , everyone has a down year here and there.

Hold on a sec. GaTech works but the other three do not. Iowa St was S16 but, even if I give you that one, the other two have LONG streaks of NT appearances.

Posted by crzyballplay on 9/27/2017 1:38:00 PM (view original):
all i see is examples of over recruiting and it coming back to hurt them , everyone has a down year here and there.

Did mike ask for examples? So I gave him examples. I thought that was what he was asking for, u know actual data or did misunderstand the intention of the question.

all2matt / waykbordr

Posted by mullycj on 9/27/2017 1:38:00 AM (view original):

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

It's going to take me a lot of time and therapy to recover from this devastating burn.

I'll go ahead and make prediction and add my Ole Miss team with my all2matt ID as a team that will be sitting at home next season. I think transfers are the only way to salvage a decimated team. It helps by adding more developed talent and balances out your classes in bad situations. So if you plan on fielding elite teams you better do it in California.

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=11977

This is my Unc team , as you can see were doing OK by my standard, the team is young ( no seniors) also a good mix of top talent and players ive developed. If you look further go to drafted players , Last yr i had 1 EE, 1 4 year 5 star stay (was never in the top 20 on the board) and a 4 year Developmental guy that gained over 300 points , the year before a 4 year Developmental player that gained 270 points of improvment, the year before that, Jones somehow stayed past yr jr year and was the #1 pick, the other was a 4 star who stayed 4 years (lack of BH kept him in school is my guess as he was only a 2nd rounder), the year before that i had 2 juniors leave early and on my current roster going forward i have 2 guys on the board this yr none higher than 50 i expect to maybe have 1 go pro, obv hoping for 0 as thats 2nd round you never like a EE leaving for 2nd round but i understand it happens. Beyond that
Thompson who isnt on the board has a chance next yr or even this yr (even tho he isnt on the board he is still a 888 overall player i wouldnt be shocked)
Swafford a highly recruited player will leave early , im hopeful of him leaving his jr year if nobody leaves he will be locked in until then.
Roesseler who was a 530 overall recruit has a chance nxt yr as he has around 60-70 more points of dev left
Encarnation is either a 3 to 4 year player
everyone else is all 4 year to 5 year players
that team will be scary nxt year if nobody leaves and could still be if i only lose 1 with not alot of NBA talent .
I took UNC back to its Glory in a short amount of time mixing in top players i knew would leave and getting guys i knew would stay