What's the benefit of cutting a player who will be an EE?

Posted by Trentonjoe on 11/15/2017 11:26:00 AM (view original):
What's the benefit of cutting a player who will be an EE?

There should be none, but two separate discoveries - that cut EE players appear back in the recruiting pool (they appear as freshmen, once the season starts), and that you can cut and then re-sign a player - have turned that into potentially huge. It’s a glitch that needs to be fixed months ago.

The very bare bones minimum that should happen here is that the players in question should be listed as whatever class they would be in, if not cut. Even if you grant that UCLA recruited the player in good faith, and deserves his senior season, the fact that he comes in as a freshman is totatally unacceptable.

What really should happen is that the players disappear, are replaced by walkons for the season, and the glitch is fixed immediately, before a new season in any other world rolls.

Thats the gist of the ticket I submitted this morning.

I did not realize that he is on my roster as a 4 year FR and not as a 1 year SR transfer as intended and recruited.

I've submitted a ticket on the matter to WIS support to have his status changed back to the 1 year SR transfer.

Ticket #145143

It appears that due to the fact one of my recruits that was signed in the last recruiting session was an EE that was cut, he was originally recruited and shown as a 1 year senior transfer *but* has appeared on my roster as a 4 year freshman. Please change his availability back to being a 1 year senior transfer please. Thank You.

I'll let everyone know what WIS support gets back to me with.

Posted by buddhagamer on 11/15/2017 11:56:00 AM (view original):
I did not realize that he is on my roster as a 4 year FR and not as a 1 year SR transfer as intended and recruited.

I've submitted a ticket on the matter to WIS support to have his status changed back to the 1 year SR transfer.

Ticket #145143

It appears that due to the fact one of my recruits that was signed in the last recruiting session was an EE that was cut, he was originally recruited and shown as a 1 year senior transfer *but* has appeared on my roster as a 4 year freshman. Please change his availability back to being a 1 year senior transfer please. Thank You.

I'll let everyone know what WIS support gets back to me with.

Buddha, as a freshman, do his practice gains reset to what he originally was, or is he still at EE level? Does he have any room for growth?

So bad by WIS not to fix this originally (and to allow this to happen in the first place).

Posted by johnsensing on 11/15/2017 11:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by possumfiend on 11/15/2017 10:59:00 AM (view original):
Look, you misinterpreted my initial post. I never said you (Buddha) acted unethically. You presumed that. But you obviously feel guilty because you keep trying to deflect blame onto others (I.e., Steve and oldresorter).

You go ahead and do whatever you need/want to do to win, that’s your call. But it does cross a line to play someone you now know NEVER should have been available to you or anyone else.

It’s like getting money from an ATM and the machine mistakenly spits out $100s instead of $20s. You’ve done nothing wrong by taking money out, but the minute you start spending the money as if it’s yours you’ve crossed the line.

Why is buddha playing him wrong/unethical? He validly recruited the player, just like anyone else could have -- the player was available to anyone else in session 2. Why should he be forced to play with 11 players (or fewer) this season just because WIS can't get it together enough to fix a glitch?

BTW, your ATM analogy doesn't work -- if you try to withdraw $200 and the ATM gives you $1000, that extra $800 is not your money/property -- it's the bank's. The player here isn't anyone's "property" -- he's more akin to a $100 bill lying on the ground.

I disagree with you, but I might buy your analogy if you amended it to say the player was more akin to a counterfeit $100 bill lying on the ground.

The fact remains this “player” shouldn’t have been in the recruit pool. HD creates the talent pool for the game, but in this instance a user “created” (albeit inadvertently) an additional commodity that was no longer meant to be in the game. So, again, picking up the counterfeit bill isn’t the issue, spending it is still a problem.

Posted by possumfiend on 11/15/2017 12:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 11/15/2017 11:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by possumfiend on 11/15/2017 10:59:00 AM (view original):
Look, you misinterpreted my initial post. I never said you (Buddha) acted unethically. You presumed that. But you obviously feel guilty because you keep trying to deflect blame onto others (I.e., Steve and oldresorter).

You go ahead and do whatever you need/want to do to win, that’s your call. But it does cross a line to play someone you now know NEVER should have been available to you or anyone else.

It’s like getting money from an ATM and the machine mistakenly spits out $100s instead of $20s. You’ve done nothing wrong by taking money out, but the minute you start spending the money as if it’s yours you’ve crossed the line.

Why is buddha playing him wrong/unethical? He validly recruited the player, just like anyone else could have -- the player was available to anyone else in session 2. Why should he be forced to play with 11 players (or fewer) this season just because WIS can't get it together enough to fix a glitch?

BTW, your ATM analogy doesn't work -- if you try to withdraw $200 and the ATM gives you $1000, that extra $800 is not your money/property -- it's the bank's. The player here isn't anyone's "property" -- he's more akin to a $100 bill lying on the ground.

I disagree with you, but I might buy your analogy if you amended it to say the player was more akin to a counterfeit $100 bill lying on the ground.

The fact remains this “player” shouldn’t have been in the recruit pool. HD creates the talent pool for the game, but in this instance a user “created” (albeit inadvertently) an additional commodity that was no longer meant to be in the game. So, again, picking up the counterfeit bill isn’t the issue, spending it is still a problem.

No it is akin to you being handed a counterfeit $100 bill from a bank teller (WTF), and then everyone telling you later to hand it back over, not being reimbursed and finally getting called a counterfeiter by the public.

Posted by johnsensing on 11/15/2017 12:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by buddhagamer on 11/15/2017 11:56:00 AM (view original):
I did not realize that he is on my roster as a 4 year FR and not as a 1 year SR transfer as intended and recruited.

I've submitted a ticket on the matter to WIS support to have his status changed back to the 1 year SR transfer.

Ticket #145143

It appears that due to the fact one of my recruits that was signed in the last recruiting session was an EE that was cut, he was originally recruited and shown as a 1 year senior transfer *but* has appeared on my roster as a 4 year freshman. Please change his availability back to being a 1 year senior transfer please. Thank You.

I'll let everyone know what WIS support gets back to me with.

Buddha, as a freshman, do his practice gains reset to what he originally was, or is he still at EE level? Does he have any room for growth?

So bad by WIS not to fix this originally (and to allow this to happen in the first place).

None of his potentials changed from what I saw as a recruit (he's red in almost everything except DEF) so he won't grow much over the season.

I would of thought when WIS support responded in the original thread, they would of closed the loophole but this looks like the exact same result as OR had months ago so absolutely nothing was done to fix this issue it seems.

Oh, and I got pretty much the same lame response for my ticket yesterday about closing said loophole:

Ticket #145132

11/14/2017 4:04 PM	buddhagamer
It has been pointed out that players who declare for the NBA draft can still have their scholarships rescinded near the start of 2nd recruiting session. These players are still appearing as available transfers and *could* be exploitable by a coach who cuts his own EE and then subsequently try to recruit them back onto their own roster. Could you please remove the option to rescind the scholarship offer for a player who has declared for the NBA draft prior to the start of the rescind period. Thank You.
11/14/2017 5:43 PM	Customer Support
XXXXXX, Yes, we're aware of this issue and will be fixing it when time permits. Thanks.

Hi guys,

Thanks to everyone for alerting us to the bug again. The fix for it slipped through the cracks due to the change in ownership and everything happening around that.

I think the fairest solution here is to correct the class listing on the player(s) and leave them on the team that recruited them.

For my sake, can I have a list of affected player(s) please, to ensure that I don't miss anyone?

Thanks.

Why? They were both going to be drafted. Plus, thewiz17 did it deliberately to mess with his competitors... I would say getting rid of these two players Jenkins and Snyder, Auburn, UCLA is the way to go.

Posted by zorzii on 11/15/2017 12:45:00 PM (view original):
Why? They were both going to be drafted. Plus, thewiz17 did it deliberately to mess with his competitors... I would say getting rid of these two players Jenkins and Snyder, Auburn, UCLA is the way to go.

+1

Did either buddha or thewiz admit to exploiting the bug somewhere?

Just to add some additional fuel to the fire (and I sent in a ticket today, too) I don't agree that the cut player should be available at all, as either a Fr. or a Sr. My opinion is that he declared for the NBA draft and should no longer be eligible for college ball. In fact, if he didn't go to the NBA draft, I wouldn't have cut him and, if anything, the fairest solution is that he should be returned to me for his senior year. I'm stating that solution a little tongue in cheek as I feel the right solution is that he does go to the NBA (he was a #7 on the Big Board) and have one additional draftee this year, then fix the glitch (once declared, no longer available).

steve - I would agree with you if this had been caught promptly after the players were cut, but it gets much dicier once another team has signed the player. Removing those players now would punish the signing teams, who may not have intentionally done anything wrong.