If you have a guy that is likely going into the draft do you get extra points and money for recruiting (and scouting)?

It would seem to be a big disadvantage if you have a junior who looks like a lock to leave early and 2 seniors if you only got scouting/recruiting money as if you only have 2 schollys available.

You only get it after they leave meaning it's not available in the first session - only the second, and yes, this is a big point of contention in my mind. I have had teams where I had one scholarship, and ended up with three players that left early. It's just about impossible to deal with that kind of situation.

Thank you chapelhillne.

Posted by chapelhillne on 9/1/2018 8:01:00 AM (view original):
You only get it after they leave meaning it's not available in the first session - only the second, and yes, this is a big point of contention in my mind. I have had teams where I had one scholarship, and ended up with three players that left early. It's just about impossible to deal with that kind of situation.

I agree it is an impossible situation, and I always interpretted that as intentional as a way to level the playing field by punishing the schools that were landing 4 5* recruits every year and having them all EE, only to refresh with another crop of 5*'s. Under 3.0, it is impossible to maintain a dynasty only recruiting top talent due to the lack of resources for EE's in the first period. Even with all the resources allocated in the second session, you are at far to great of an AP deficit to compete for any comparable talent to what you lost, and are stuck with either taking some scrubs and dealing with a sub par team for the next 4 years, taking 3 walk ons and writing off your next season, knowing you will likely have max AP and resources the following year, or (my personal favorite) finding some DII or DIII that reached a little too far and poaching one of their recruits to hold you over with a moderate player, then taking a couple walk ons for the resource bump the following year. Regardless, I think it is a direct punitive measure designed to make sure nobody can actually build a dynasty and level the playing field.

The game isn’t too hard for you. “Dynasty” doesn’t mean you make the final four every year. This is a competitive, multi-player game. Lots of folks have figured out how to manage EE contingencies and “scrubs”. Everyone plays with the same rules, the price and volatility of elite commodities are the same for everyone.

yes...that explains why the population is thriving under 3.0.

Posted by shoe3 on 9/1/2018 2:33:00 PM (view original):
The game isn’t too hard for you. “Dynasty” doesn’t mean you make the final four every year. This is a competitive, multi-player game. Lots of folks have figured out how to manage EE contingencies and “scrubs”. Everyone plays with the same rules, the price and volatility of elite commodities are the same for everyone.

Has there even been a "dynasty" (which I would define 3+ national championships in a 5 year period at minimum, although I would entertain an argument for a mix of 4+ Final Fours and Championships over a 6 year period)) at DI since 3.0 started? Seriously asking, haven't seen it in any of the worlds I have been in (although piman314 at UCLA in Tark could change that with a victory tonight). The only teams I have even seen remain final four contenders are all situations where they got extremely lucky with EE's, where players that were "likely going" ended up staying. UCLA is in that situation now, where there best player was top 10 on the big board last year but miraculously came back for their Sr. year (and please don't read this as any slight against piman314--he is one of the best active coaches by any measure and I watched him dominate at Maryland, then move across the country, and build up an incredible program at UCLA).

I think the single greatest factor in winning championships under 3.0 is luck with recruiting and EE's (by which I mean beating the odds, e.g. having players stay when they were 90% EE, or winning a recruit you were trailing 30 to 70 on). The only teams I have seen win championships in 3.0 beat the odds in these types of scenarios, which is something that is completely out of a coaches hands. Yes, of course the coach had to recruit the player in the first place, but when a player stays against the odds it is an equal and opposite effect that a program has when a player leaves against the odds. One scenario can crush a program, the other can elevate it beyond all the other schools who's probabilities played out according to the numbers. Luck is the driving factor in elite success, as the system is designed to punish programs that consistently recruit top talent. When the system works, you have what happened to UConn in Tark a couple seasons ago. After a 35-0 dominant national championship run (one that followed two players in the top 12 on the big board miraculously staying), they had 3 or 4 EE's and were left with a squad that limped into the tournament. Had they not had another top 10 player from the big board stay, the next season would have been even tougher, and then this year, following two more EE's, they posted their worst record in 20 seasons. The system is designed to punish the teams who only recruit top talent to level the playing field. If a coach gets lucky and keeps players despite the odds, or wins recruits despite being a great underdog, then they can link several dominant seasons together. If the odds follow the numbers, it is impossible.

Bathtubhippo in Smith and Buddhagamer in Phelan, off the top of my head. But even then, your criteria for “Dynasty” is ridiculous. Should the real life NCAA make the game easier for Coach Cal, since Kentucky has only managed a single championship in the past 20 seasons?

3.0 rewards efficient scouting, long term planning, developing a team building strategy, and managing possibilities and contingencies. I much prefer a game that rewards managing possibilities over one that rewards knowing and exploiting formulas.

Posted by shoe3 on 9/1/2018 3:17:00 PM (view original):
Bathtubhippo in Smith and Buddhagamer in Phelan, off the top of my head. But even then, your criteria for “Dynasty” is ridiculous. Should the real life NCAA make the game easier for Coach Cal, since Kentucky has only managed a single championship in the past 20 seasons?

3.0 rewards efficient scouting, long term planning, developing a team building strategy, and managing possibilities and contingencies. I much prefer a game that rewards managing possibilities over one that rewards knowing and exploiting formulas.

Precisely why Kentucky is not a dynasty. In the real world there have been very few dynasties in any sports, and only a handful of inarguable ones. The UConn women's program is the greatest dynasty in the history of sports. John Wooden's UCLA run is a dynasty, along with Duke in the late 80's/early 90's, but nothing Coach K has ever touched will every be considered a dynasty (especially with most of the big wins vacated). The Yankee's have had a couple dynastic periods over their history, and given the parity of the modern NFL the Patriots are an inarguable dynasty. I am not a big hockey guy and don't know enough hockey history to comment there.

Coach Cal recruits one-and-dones and does so knowingly. If his players went against the odds and stayed until their SR year his teams would be unstoppable.

"Coach call recruits one-and-dones and does so knowingly. If his players went against the odds and stayed until their SR year his teams would be unstoppable."

This is part of the reason the current EE system sucks. You got guys who are top 5 or top 10 picks not leaving for NBA. Then you can you have a team building up a program, gets lucky in a dice roll and nabs a nice 4 star who then leaves who isn't even going to get drafted.

I chuckled when I read this OP. We obviously haven't been doing a good enough job complaining about EEs if there are still people who don't know how much it sucks by now.

" 3.0 rewards efficient scouting, long term planning, developing a team building strategy, and managing possibilities and contingencies. "

3.0 rewards blanket scouting, aggressive and reckless recruiting, recruiting for gross talent over team chemistry, and removes managing possibilities and contingencies from a coaches control by instituting an element of randomness that enables highly improbable and ridiculous outcomes that can make or break a program with a single dice roll (again, rewarding reckless recruiting).

Fixed that for you.

Great post Snafu

Posted by Benis on 9/1/2018 4:17:00 PM (view original):
"Coach call recruits one-and-dones and does so knowingly. If his players went against the odds and stayed until their SR year his teams would be unstoppable."

This is part of the reason the current EE system sucks. You got guys who are top 5 or top 10 picks not leaving for NBA. Then you can you have a team building up a program, gets lucky in a dice roll and nabs a nice 4 star who then leaves who isn't even going to get drafted.

This is false. Players who leave get drafted.

Posted by snafu4u on 9/1/2018 4:30:00 PM (view original):
" 3.0 rewards efficient scouting, long term planning, developing a team building strategy, and managing possibilities and contingencies. "

3.0 rewards blanket scouting, aggressive and reckless recruiting, recruiting for gross talent over team chemistry, and removes managing possibilities and contingencies from a coaches control by instituting an element of randomness that enables highly improbable and ridiculous outcomes that can make or break a program with a single dice roll (again, rewarding reckless recruiting).

Fixed that for you.

“Blanket scouting” - ? That doesn’t mean anything.

”Aggressive and reckless recruiting” - you’re in 2.0 thinking. It isn’t “reckless” to try to punch up. Take calculated risks. That’s good gameplay.

“gross talent over team chemistry” - what the hell are you talking about? You were just complaining that teams were being punished for only recruiting 4-5 star players. Pick a different lame gripe, dude. These are mutually exclusive.

”instituting an element of randomness” - false. You’re using words incorrectly. It’s probability. You are still upset (2 years later) that the recruiting outcomes are no longer absolute. That’s the bottom line. You preferred it determined by formula, so you knew what battles you would win, and what battles you had to avoid. It’s not “randomness” that you’re upset with, it’s a non-deterministic universe with ambiguity you can’t tolerate. It’s cool. There are other games out there for you. But this one is competitive and multi-player, and there are some things you *cant control*.

When there are outcomes you dont like, the answer is not to demand the game change. The answer is to change your gameplay, and/or your expectations.