Posted by girt25 on 6/4/2012 3:13:00 PM (view original):
Thanks, seble. Hopefully next time it won't take a near riot ...

Next we just have to fix the 5/6-man rule itself so that it actually protects teams from being decimated by EE's.

As evidenced by UConn losing four good-but-not-great EE's this morning, it currently does not.

Again, let's just make each subsequent EE less likely to leave once you've lost one (i.e. the second would be harder, the third even harder, etc.) That actually helps protects teams from being decimated by EE's, as opposed to protecting teams that are already lucky enough to have held on to a bunch of seniors.

I don't think that will be necessary now.  With the change to 6 and the removal of senior transfers from the equation, I think the original posted adjustment will do just fine.    What I mean is that he has said a player's decision to leave will be influenced by where he projects in the draft.  I have no idea where those 4 Uconn ee's are going to be drafted, but if they are all top 10 picks, why should one decide to stay simply because a teammate left?   Making the guys projected to be drafted in the late first or even the  2nd round have a higher percentage to stay should be enough to get the system pretty good combined with the change to 6 and the removal of the transfers.  

As an example, in Tark last season Duke had just about the most ridiculous class I have ever seen, 6 players, all 4 and 5 stars.   His choice to recruit a stellar class, and if they all decide to go pro together and all go in the top 15 picks, so be it.   That's hardly being decimated as he'll just land 4 more 5 star recruits. 

Well, because the point of the 5-man rule was that some people were upset that their teams were getting horribly decimated by a bunch of EE's, and the change was supposed to guard against it (it did not).

I agree that the changes to EE's seble is suggesting will help make them better. That said, I still think they should do a good job of making it reasonably equtable, so that some teams aren't losing 2-4 players while others are keeping comparable players and losing no one.

(And yes, that will still happen, as the top echelon or two of EE-eligible players are grouped closely enough together from a ratings perspective where it simply has to happen.)

The team success component was looking simply at wins instead of the more complete view of team success that we use most places, so I've made that change.  Looking only at wins would likely inflate the status of players from mid-major teams who dominate their conference.  Using the full picture of success (which includes postseason) will make that factor more meaningful. 

Well, that explains why the ultra-dominant ACC in Phelan has had surprisingly few EE's, relative to the strength of the conference. When you send 10-11 teams to the NT on an annual basis, they beat each other up in conference and as a result probably didn't have high enough win totals for the team success component to really be a factor.

Good changes. I hope they'll be implemented ASAP. I believe Knight is the next world that would be effected.

I can't believe folks who've actually paid attention to DI for more than 13 seconds over the last 10-15 seasons would include a total wins variable in the programming that determines early entries. 

Didn't Kentucky just win the National Championship and have 5 Freshmen and Sophomores leave early.

If the rating factors for deciding who should be getting picked is based on ratings and if they are calculated fairly, then I personally think that there should be no limit on EE's per team at all, nor should there be a limit tied to graduating players.

Players who are good enough to go in the top 15-20 spots in the draft (when compared fairly) should almost always leave early.  Sophomores should have a higher chance than Freshmen and Juniors a bit higher than Sophomores, etc.

If a team gets 5 players who will be drafted in the top 15, then they should all leave early.  The team should get a huge prestige bump for that, meaning they can again get a good class.

Is that not how it is in real life right now?  Isn't this game supposed to simulate what is happening in college basketball.

No, that's not exactly how it is in real life (see Sullinger, Barnes, Perry Jones, and Terrence Jones in 2011).  

Every year there is a kid who could be a top10/15 pick who stays and often there are a couple.  

That said, I don't know that this aspect of the game should mimic real life, and I'd be fine if the top 10-15 automatically leave.  At least as long as seble eliminates any personality indicators.

Edit: I see you said "almost always."  I read "always" the first time.  My bad.

Posted by hughesjr on 6/4/2012 8:41:00 PM (view original):
Didn't Kentucky just win the National Championship and have 5 Freshmen and Sophomores leave early.

If the rating factors for deciding who should be getting picked is based on ratings and if they are calculated fairly, then I personally think that there should be no limit on EE's per team at all, nor should there be a limit tied to graduating players.

Players who are good enough to go in the top 15-20 spots in the draft (when compared fairly) should almost always leave early.  Sophomores should have a higher chance than Freshmen and Juniors a bit higher than Sophomores, etc.

If a team gets 5 players who will be drafted in the top 15, then they should all leave early.  The team should get a huge prestige bump for that, meaning they can again get a good class.

Is that not how it is in real life right now?  Isn't this game supposed to simulate what is happening in college basketball.

As soon as you can have Anthony Davis and John Wall type freshmen with that sort of impact in HD, then that's an apt comparison. Until then ... not even remotely close.

Beyond the fact that it's a poor comparison ... please don't make me list the myriad things in real life that don't even remotely resemble HD, and vice versa. Let's do what makes most sense for HD ... and I have an awfully difficult time buying the argument that one team losing three EE's and another team keeping three comparable players and losing no one fits that bill.

I have to agree with girt.  Because of the importance of IQ and because of the difficulty in recruiting nationally in this game,  losing MORE EE's that seble is adding is going to suck.  If teams can with with freshman and sophs in HD, then I would be fine with more EE's. 

bottom line, if they go through with this EE thing, which it appears seble is set on, there should be some tweaking to the overall IQ system as well to make IQ's either imrpove fatser or matter less.

Posted by grantduck on 6/5/2012 2:33:00 AM (view original):
I have to agree with girt.  Because of the importance of IQ and because of the difficulty in recruiting nationally in this game,  losing MORE EE's that seble is adding is going to suck.  If teams can with with freshman and sophs in HD, then I would be fine with more EE's. 

bottom line, if they go through with this EE thing, which it appears seble is set on, there should be some tweaking to the overall IQ system as well to make IQ's either imrpove fatser or matter less.

Or make IQ's count more in the overall ranking of who gets "drafted" and at where they fit into the system.

I am only saying that guys who are going to get drafted in the first round (and then only really the top half of the first round) are the most likely early entries.

If they don't rank or play well enough to be top 20 picks, then they should be ranked in the draft (and go early) accordingly.

By all means, lets make the guys going early have to actually be the best ranked players.  But, if you really do have 3 or 4 of the top 15 players who are going to get drafted, based on a realistic ranking, then they should leave early.

hughes, the problem is, there's basically no difference between the #7 player and the #17 and #27 player -- other than an arbitrary and questionable ranking system. Your statement kind of assumes that there's this clear cut group, and there's not at all. My point is that, other than maybe a very few guys at the top, there's a big group of comparable players that could all go EE. So to take three guys from that group from one team, and nobody from that group from another (comparable) team, is just no good.

grant, I don't think that this change is going to result in a lot more EE's, but rather simply a change to the methodology on which guys go EE.

it'll be interesting to see how many EE's there are vs. the old system.  Seble directly said:

Just a quick update: I've been doing some further testing on the rule that prevents early entries once a team has lost 5 players already.  After my testing, and the forum feedback, I've decided to bump up the number to 6.  That change should lead to more underclassmen leaving.

So he's saying more underclassmen will leave.

And grantduck nails it imo.  This game doesn't readily allow for national recruiting, so you're at the whim of getting a good RNG when the recruits are distributed.  If your 360 mile radius is pretty barren, it's going to be tough to replace those EEs.  And the lack of All-world impact freshmen makes it tough to rely on a bumper crop of freshman even if you can recruit them successfully.

We'll all just have to adjust to the changes and iterations of tweaking things.

Any chance a 'Mock Draft' could be added, or a Draft Projection that would work much like the Tournament Projection? 


I think it would be cool to see where your players are at, and maybe that would help take some of the sting out when/if an underclassmen leaves early. 

You could also see how a team's success or how his ratings increase affects his draft status. 


Forgive me if this has been mentioned previously, i haven't read all this thread or previous one's that may have touched on it. 

Posted by girt25 on 6/5/2012 7:51:00 AM (view original):
hughes, the problem is, there's basically no difference between the #7 player and the #17 and #27 player -- other than an arbitrary and questionable ranking system. Your statement kind of assumes that there's this clear cut group, and there's not at all. My point is that, other than maybe a very few guys at the top, there's a big group of comparable players that could all go EE. So to take three guys from that group from one team, and nobody from that group from another (comparable) team, is just no good.

grant, I don't think that this change is going to result in a lot more EE's, but rather simply a change to the methodology on which guys go EE.

I could be wrong, but I think seble specifically said the process he was looking at would mean MORE overall EE's.

And I could be wrong, but I think the difference in # would be slight if anything.

Good question to ask him ...