Posted by franklynne on 11/1/2017 2:38:00 PM (view original):
"Well, except for Mike, Spud and Shoe, we are all for a change"
how did you come to that conclusion? i don't particularly care for change..i play by the rules set forth by the game..i enjoy playing the game..if i didn't i'd find another game to play..

Well, that and about 20 people post out of the thousandish who play. So, if you want to count the dozen that demand change as "all", zorzi is right.

Posted by zorzii on 11/1/2017 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 11/1/2017 1:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 11/1/2017 1:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 11/1/2017 12:38:00 PM (view original):
Zorzii- why are you still trying to explain your feelings on this subject to Mike, Spud and Poopman? You've said it 100 times already. There is literally nothing you can say to get them to change their minds just like you will never change yours.

Yeah. But still think there is something to learn since this time I did get a strat to get players in (4). And yet, you can't recuperate.

Who are you trying to teach? No one is listening.

I mean, go ahead if you want to, its your choice. I'm just trying to help you out and let you know that whatever you're saying is falling on deaf ears. As long as you know that, fire away.

Well, except for Mike, Spud and Shoe, we are all for a change.

False. Most of us just aren't interested in continuously indulging your incessant need to argue about it.

Posted by pkoopman on 11/1/2017 3:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mamxet on 11/1/2017 2:58:00 PM (view original):
it is also about WHEN you find out that you are losing these guys relative to the recruiting cycle - as a matter of gameplay, 3.0 changed fundamentally the relationship between the EE timeline and the recruiting timeline. There were always EEs and some teams had a lot and some teams had unlikely EEs happen to leave.

Its not about the EE - its about the relationship between the timelines

That’s fair, and I’d be all for having them announce earlier - without resources. But as long as recruiting is a commodity game based on a system of using resources to bid for talent, elite talent should never be easy to replace.

Why are you scared of giving SOME coaches resources for player? You are right they are commodities.
No one said they should be easy to replace.
They should be hard to replace.
They should be hard to replace for EVERYONE equally.
I'm sorry some coaches need a handicap because they aren't as good. Those are the breaks.
Suck it up buttercups and have everyone bid for "commodities" on an even playing field.

Even playing field doesn't exist.

Is Alabama and Alabama St on an even playing field?

And "Suck it up, buttercup" is my catchphrase for addressing whiners.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/1/2017 3:36:00 PM (view original):
Even playing field doesn't exist.

Is Alabama and Alabama St on an even playing field?

And "Suck it up, buttercup" is my catchphrase for addressing whiners.

So why is shoe arguing that Miami (OH) should have more resources then Ohio State?

PS I like that phrase.

I don't know why shoe is arguing that. I'm just saying, as long as prestige influences recruiting, there is no such thing as an even playing field.

Prestige is part of the game. I don't hear anyone demanding that it be removed(maybe someone is and I'm not paying attention cuz it's dumb).
The EE/resource is part of the game. Some are arguing rather loudly that it must be changed to "even the playing field".

It kinda sounds like "even playing field" means "I want an even playing field that tilts in my favor!"

Posted by pkoopman on 11/1/2017 3:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mamxet on 11/1/2017 2:58:00 PM (view original):
it is also about WHEN you find out that you are losing these guys relative to the recruiting cycle - as a matter of gameplay, 3.0 changed fundamentally the relationship between the EE timeline and the recruiting timeline. There were always EEs and some teams had a lot and some teams had unlikely EEs happen to leave.

Its not about the EE - its about the relationship between the timelines

That’s fair, and I’d be all for having them announce earlier - without resources. But as long as recruiting is a commodity game based on a system of using resources to bid for talent, elite talent should never be easy to replace.

we are on the same page

and WIS said a year ago that they were working to adjust the announcement of EEs - they sold the company rather than do so....hope seble adjusts this - to better handle the timeline problem

personally, I would adjust announcements first - see how that works. I bet that an improvement in when you KNOW that EEs will happen could make folks feel pretty good about this. The real wallop is when you get hit with a bunch including some that were highly unlikely,.

Posted by mamxet on 11/1/2017 4:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 11/1/2017 3:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mamxet on 11/1/2017 2:58:00 PM (view original):
it is also about WHEN you find out that you are losing these guys relative to the recruiting cycle - as a matter of gameplay, 3.0 changed fundamentally the relationship between the EE timeline and the recruiting timeline. There were always EEs and some teams had a lot and some teams had unlikely EEs happen to leave.

Its not about the EE - its about the relationship between the timelines

That’s fair, and I’d be all for having them announce earlier - without resources. But as long as recruiting is a commodity game based on a system of using resources to bid for talent, elite talent should never be easy to replace.

we are on the same page

and WIS said a year ago that they were working to adjust the announcement of EEs - they sold the company rather than do so....hope seble adjusts this - to better handle the timeline problem

personally, I would adjust announcements first - see how that works. I bet that an improvement in when you KNOW that EEs will happen could make folks feel pretty good about this. The real wallop is when you get hit with a bunch including some that were highly unlikely,.

It's a decent compromise. Doesn't fix the real issue (IMHO) but at least you can recruit strategically.

Posted by snafu4u on 11/1/2017 12:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by grimacedance on 11/1/2017 12:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 11/1/2017 12:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by l80r20 on 11/1/2017 12:09:00 PM (view original):
"I am only top 165 this season because EES are not fair."

"Elite talent is a commodity. It costs what it costs. You know the risks when you recruit elite talent, and everyone plays under the same conditions. It is not unfair."

Those two posts separate the wheat from the chaff.

As usual, spud misses the point. In any event, 90 on the EE board is not "elite talent." Although I do agree that "fairness" is the wrong metric to be looking at here, since it's entirely subjective.

Two easy changes remove this issue, and also (much more importantly) make it easier for coaches to move to new programs and recruit in session 2: (1) lessen the comparative power/value of APs; (2) make many recruits have a "late" signing preference. Boom -- problem solved.

I think the better solution is to add some brand new recruits for session 2. JUCOs and a few good HS players who reclassify and suddenly become available. This would put everyone on an equal playing field to nab these players.

I think that DII and DIII schools should face the same potential consequences as DI for recruiting elite talent. In second session, I have long thought it made sense to have the top players from DII (and the few who are good enough from DIII) transfer to DI for their final year of eligibility, just as they do in real life. This would create a new pool of recruits of legitimate mid level DI talent, that all the coaches who lost battles in session 1 or EE's could go after, all starting with a blank slate so nobody has an advantage carrying over from session 1.

Not only would this help balance second session recruiting, it would achieve the goals that mike and spud are so strongly advocating, of leveling the playing field so no DII or DIII programs can maintain elite status year in and year out. Not only would it benefit the sim game aspect that mike and spud want--making it easier for more coaches to have shots at winning by dismantling empires--it would also make the game better reflect the real world, a goal that many uses are after.

Seems like a win-win. Everyone who seeks elite talent at any level runs the same risks.

I'm a big fan of this idea. I think it would be a lot of fun fighting for these transfers.

Maybe the team it is transferring from still gets to fight for him and convince him to stay.

Posted by mullycj on 11/1/2017 3:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 11/1/2017 3:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mamxet on 11/1/2017 2:58:00 PM (view original):
it is also about WHEN you find out that you are losing these guys relative to the recruiting cycle - as a matter of gameplay, 3.0 changed fundamentally the relationship between the EE timeline and the recruiting timeline. There were always EEs and some teams had a lot and some teams had unlikely EEs happen to leave.

Its not about the EE - its about the relationship between the timelines

That’s fair, and I’d be all for having them announce earlier - without resources. But as long as recruiting is a commodity game based on a system of using resources to bid for talent, elite talent should never be easy to replace.

Why are you scared of giving SOME coaches resources for player? You are right they are commodities.
No one said they should be easy to replace.
They should be hard to replace.
They should be hard to replace for EVERYONE equally.
I'm sorry some coaches need a handicap because they aren't as good. Those are the breaks.
Suck it up buttercups and have everyone bid for "commodities" on an even playing field.

They are hard to replace for EVERYONE equally. Everyone plays under the same conditions and probabilities. That’s equal.

You even get the same resources, you just don’t get them until later. So you have to target some late recruits, and you have to use your APs judiciously in the first session.

What I don’t like about handing out resources for early entries early is that it reduces competitiveness. It narrows the range in which teams can compete for a recruit. It’s already a gamble for a B- team to stick on a recruit when an A+ shows up. If the A+ is going to have resources for 6 scholarships instead of 2, now it can overwhelm with APs, and it’s suicide to challenge them. So more top commodities are going to go unchallenged for, and that is a fundamental flaw in a commodity game.

Way to wordy but I suggested it damn near a year ago. Except I wouldn't wait til final year of eligibility. Top 50-100 in D2 offer their services to D1. Top 50-100 in D3 offer their services to D2.

Posted by ftbeaglesfan on 11/1/2017 2:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 11/1/2017 8:06:00 AM (view original):
Just to show EES can really change the trajectory of a team even if that team replaces players to the best of its efforts.

I lost four EES, three drafted in the second round. I thought I would lose two and battle for a spot in the NT.

I signed four players, one JUCO, one development player, one ineligible and one PF, not totally ready.

Results : I went from a top 40 rpi team (normally there) to 165 RPI. Yet, my team has a A prestige.

Nobody will tell me ees are skills now, replacing them needed skills but as you all see, getting the resources in the 2nd session did not enable me to put a competitive team on the floor.

Problem isn't the recruiting or "EE issues". The recruits you ended up with are not terrible. Here are the problems IMO.

1. One problem is a couple seasons back you recruited a terrible player who is now a senior. Sickles doesn't make my D2 roster and should have been cut at first chance. That's money and a scholarship tied up on a guy who isn't worth playing. A decent Junior or senior in his place is might have made a difference.

2. You are in a human filled Conference. 11 of 12 teams taken. Yeah you won't be at the top every season. Even the best coaches will have a season where they are not the best of eleven players.

3. Young team. You know that one though.

4. A handful of games where you should have won and the other team beat the odds to win. It happens. Hurts most when you are in a season with little room for error like you were this season. Flip those around and you are NT bound.

Nah, Sickel was to avoid the walk-ons penalty. He hasn't played, yet he did not leave so I use him this season. I lost some unlucky games against SIMS you are right but I did steal one from epic. I am not a nt team, will improve greatly next season, youth.

"You even get the same resources, you just don’t get them until later."

So if your boss was paying you $100 a day for 20 days and then $200 a day for 10 days you would say you make the same amount in a month as someone who gets paid $200 a day for 30 days? Good luck convincing your wife about that one.

Posted by Benis on 11/1/2017 4:26:00 PM (view original):
"You even get the same resources, you just don’t get them until later."

So if your boss was paying you $100 a day for 20 days and then $200 a day for 10 days you would say you make the same amount in a month as someone who gets paid $200 a day for 30 days? Good luck convincing your wife about that one.

Slow clap for the attempt at obfuscation. But low marks for the poor analogy. Dollars are allocated per scholarship, not per day. And APs are not dollars, nor are they dollar corollaries. They are already weighted to favor the kinds of teams that could possibly lose multiple EEs, and declining to accept a system that allows those teams to scare off competition for the most valuable commodities is a departure from realism I’m willing to make for the sake of gameplay; especially since APs are already handled poorly, since everyone should have the same number of hours in a day, regardless of open scholarships.

Wow. You used a lot of words to cover up that you said something incorrect. (Some big words too. Impressive!)

You said resources. APs count as recruiting resources. You don't get the same amount.

Thanks for playing.