(Insert comment on EEs from shoe below)

“Utah officials not surprised by Carl Jackson's decision to enter the NBA draft early”

LOL

Youre welcome, dogggg

Posted by Benis on 1/25/2020 9:17:00 AM (view original):
Just lost my THIRD early entry that wasnt even on the big board. There is a <1% of losing a guy to EE that wasn't on big board so this kind of luck is insane. I need to get my *** to the casino asap.

what a ****** *** system they created to determine who leaves early.

And in Wooden I had #2 on the Big Board stay??

Posted by garmansouth on 1/25/2020 11:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 1/25/2020 9:17:00 AM (view original):
Just lost my THIRD early entry that wasnt even on the big board. There is a <1% of losing a guy to EE that wasn't on big board so this kind of luck is insane. I need to get my *** to the casino asap.

what a ****** *** system they created to determine who leaves early.

And in Wooden I had #2 on the Big Board stay??

Yup makes sense! Makes for an ultra competitive and fun game by introducing crazy randomness that you have no control over.

I'm starting to dig the idea of adding this randomness to the projection report. Every couple seasons there will be a team projected as a 1 seed that gets snubbed from the tourney while a team in the 100-150 range is randomly chosen to make the tourney. Itd be fun to roll the dice and see!

Posted by Benis on 1/25/2020 11:43:00 AM (view original):

Posted by garmansouth on 1/25/2020 11:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 1/25/2020 9:17:00 AM (view original):
Just lost my THIRD early entry that wasnt even on the big board. There is a <1% of losing a guy to EE that wasn't on big board so this kind of luck is insane. I need to get my *** to the casino asap.

what a ****** *** system they created to determine who leaves early.

And in Wooden I had #2 on the Big Board stay??

Yup makes sense! Makes for an ultra competitive and fun game by introducing crazy randomness that you have no control over.

I'm starting to dig the idea of adding this randomness to the projection report. Every couple seasons there will be a team projected as a 1 seed that gets snubbed from the tourney while a team in the 100-150 range is randomly chosen to make the tourney. Itd be fun to roll the dice and see!

Regarding “Randomness”, “no control over”...

Unexpectedly losing a key player to early entry is always 100% user error. Either the coach doesn’t understand player evaluation, or the coach doesn’t understand how the system works.

1. You let Jackson’s LP increase 11 points this junior season, up to 96. If you didn’t want him to possibly leave early, that’s your first and most obvious mistake.

2. His athleticism and defense started the year at 99 and 91. He started with 70+ speed and rebounding. He was a top 20 by position recruit, and his overall began the season in the mid-800s. This is a player who is going to be close to the big board, and you should have known it.

3. There were only 22 graduating seniors on the big board. That’s a very low number, and it means a lot of decisions will be down to probability; this being the case, you should know odds increase for the draft going off the board. Instead of just looking for 25-30 “yes” answers from early entry candidates, the system was looking for 38 this year.

4. The big board is not designed to tell you what is going to happen. It’s a tool to help you get a picture, but it is not the picture. Coaches are supposed to use their own evaluation skills to determine if they will need to develop contingencies, or try to mitigate the risk of EE by limiting certain attribute growth areas.

5. Comparing it to the projection report isn’t totally invalid, but your analysis is silly (when real life teams start declining invitations to the NCAA tournament in favor of the NIT, perhaps your idea will get some traction). The projection report doesn’t tell you who is going to be in the final four. Both compilations give a 100% accurate *snapshot* of how teams and players stack up. But the snapshot is not the outcome. Each outcome - whether it’s a tournament game result, or player early entry decisions - results from probability.

The game isn’t designed to tell you exactly what will happen. It’s designed to give you a look at what is likely, and then run a simulation. Lists and projections are not outcomes. Until this gets through to you, you will continue to misunderstand the game, and spread misinformation among the coaches you influence.

sure makes it difficult to remain competitive when you have the second recruiting cycle to try to replace the Early Entries.

At Arizona/Rupp I lost 4 last season. I then lost a couple late recruiting battles as 72% and 68% favorite. Finally signed a couple high schoolers I fought off D2 & D3 teams for. This season I lose two more EE that were high on the board and a surprise third that wasn't on the board.

I may just take 4 walk-ons this season which at least will allow me to participate in early recruiting next season.

Posted by oldwarrior on 1/25/2020 1:00:00 PM (view original):
sure makes it difficult to remain competitive when you have the second recruiting cycle to try to replace the Early Entries.

At Arizona/Rupp I lost 4 last season. I then lost a couple late recruiting battles as 72% and 68% favorite. Finally signed a couple high schoolers I fought off D2 & D3 teams for. This season I lose two more EE that were high on the board and a surprise third that wasn't on the board.

I may just take 4 walk-ons this season which at least will allow me to participate in early recruiting next season.

Yup, split recruiting sessions doesn't help.

also doesn't help when you are at a D baseline or mid major school. Losing guys early who are very borderline NBA quality is rough.

But the system sucks. Nuff said.

Wayne Bland, for example, is probably sitting about where Jackson was. I don’t know if he’s 101 or 130, but he’s likely in that range. Because he’s a sophomore, and because Phelan currently has 31 graduating seniors on the big board, my odds are much better; but I will definitely not be surprised if he jumps. And I am prepared for that scenario.

Posted by Benis on 1/25/2020 9:17:00 AM (view original):
Just lost my THIRD early entry that wasnt even on the big board. There is a <1% of losing a guy to EE that wasn't on big board so this kind of luck is insane. I need to get my *** to the casino asap.

what a ****** *** system they created to determine who leaves early.

If they're going to take EE's off the board, then that list should be available., so you can hold those players back if you decide to.

Ok a recap..... shoe, what is your opinion of.....

#2 stays. And #'s 85, 95, and multiple not on board all go. Your arch rival gets to keep his #2. And you lose all your guys that I just listed.

A) such a wonderful system!
B) this **** sucks!

Please choose A or B

I've only been playing 3.0 a short period, and was vastly under recruiting early, so I have only recently had to deal with the whole EE issue. My first run-in was with a sophomore big who was clearly going to get drafted, just a matter of when. With about 4 games left in the regular season, he was still listed at ~45 on the big board and was likely staying. I was feeling like "hmm - I guess he stays one more and then DEFINITELY leaves after his junior year". After the upcoming game, he went to ~30 and on the fence. After the second to last game of the season, he was ~20 and likely going. It happened in a flash from projected staying and second round pick to projected going and just outside the lottery.

In retrospect, I didn't realize really how to manage a player like that. At the time, a team in conference had a similar big who he played off the bench after his freshman year. He was right next to my big, ~45, on the big board and he moved up about 4 slots in the same time period. He stayed for his junior season despite being a similar skill level. Should I have sat my big to hinder ratings progress and his ability to win an award? Should I have put more minutes into other categories outside of perimeter / BH / pass (where he gained most of his attributes his sophomore year) to avoid him progressing to the extend he did?

I'm especially curious as I have another sophomore big that is on a similar path, skill wise, as the previous big I mentioned. I'm debating putting him on the bench, limiting his touches, and avoiding putting minutes into things like passing (where he has ~25 points of potential growth remaining). He honestly won't improve much this season outside of passing - his only other non-yellow/red categories are speed, defense, stamina, and durability (all black).

Posted by topdogggbm on 1/25/2020 2:34:00 PM (view original):
Ok a recap..... shoe, what is your opinion of.....

#2 stays. And #'s 85, 95, and multiple not on board all go. Your arch rival gets to keep his #2. And you lose all your guys that I just listed.

A) such a wonderful system!
B) this **** sucks!

Please choose A or B

C) who gives a **** what poopshoe thinks

Posted by upsetcity on 1/25/2020 2:47:00 PM (view original):
I've only been playing 3.0 a short period, and was vastly under recruiting early, so I have only recently had to deal with the whole EE issue. My first run-in was with a sophomore big who was clearly going to get drafted, just a matter of when. With about 4 games left in the regular season, he was still listed at ~45 on the big board and was likely staying. I was feeling like "hmm - I guess he stays one more and then DEFINITELY leaves after his junior year". After the upcoming game, he went to ~30 and on the fence. After the second to last game of the season, he was ~20 and likely going. It happened in a flash from projected staying and second round pick to projected going and just outside the lottery.

In retrospect, I didn't realize really how to manage a player like that. At the time, a team in conference had a similar big who he played off the bench after his freshman year. He was right next to my big, ~45, on the big board and he moved up about 4 slots in the same time period. He stayed for his junior season despite being a similar skill level. Should I have sat my big to hinder ratings progress and his ability to win an award? Should I have put more minutes into other categories outside of perimeter / BH / pass (where he gained most of his attributes his sophomore year) to avoid him progressing to the extend he did?

I'm especially curious as I have another sophomore big that is on a similar path, skill wise, as the previous big I mentioned. I'm debating putting him on the bench, limiting his touches, and avoiding putting minutes into things like passing (where he has ~25 points of potential growth remaining). He honestly won't improve much this season outside of passing - his only other non-yellow/red categories are speed, defense, stamina, and durability (all black).

I understand I started ranting a bit here, so let me bring myself back on track.

In my opinion - EEs in HD aren't done well right now. However, I don't believe it's entirely due the initial point of the big board being inaccurate. Although not entirely common, it's also not uncommon for players to leave after their first three years for the NBA draft and then go undrafted. 14 non-seniors left college last year and went undrafted. Imagine if that happened in HD? You lose one of your best players early AND you don't even get a prestige boost. To make at least somewhat realistic, they have to add some variability (It's part of the reason why, even though I've been crushed by it recently, I don't see the recruit roll being that bad. Conversation for another time.)

One way to at least try and fix the current system could be: if a player is on "an NBA teams", even if it isn't the big board, you should receive an email from the player saying "I'm x% sure I'm leaving / staying" and be given a recruiting budget that player based on the % he states. If the player is 100% likely to leave, the team should be allotted maybe 10 additional AP and 1/2 of an open slot's budget for recruiting / scouting (in other words, 1/2 of what they would have gotten if the guy was a walkon or senior). If they are 50% likely to leave, they would get 5 additional AP and 1/4 of the open slot's recruiting / scouting. Doing this makes it so you are aware he could leave, you don't get a huge advantage of AP and money if he stays, and recruiting talented players doesn't come with the inherent punishment that is currently around.

In Knight, I saw the new coach of A+ Syracuse hasn't played since before 3.0. He asked his conference mates for some advice and they mentioned how 5-stars might just not be worth attacking as they come with normally come with a battle, the roll could not go in your favor even if you 'win', and if you successfully recruit them - they leave in 2 years. It shouldn't be like that. Kentucky, in the real world, doesn't avoid a 5-star as it might hinder them when he leaves.

Another rant but this one a bit more on topic.