Posted by Benis on 1/26/2020 11:03:00 PM (view original):
Your point about replacing EEs at Fordam was exactly what I thought when Piman mentioned his EEs at Kansas and UCLA. Much easier to replace talent there. If I lose EE at MSU it isn't so bad. But losing guys not on the big board at schools like Utah and NMSU is rough.

Also I cant tell if you think that sophomores that leave early are lottery picks or you just want it to work that way because it def doesnt today. My soph that went EE that wasnt on big board went late 2nd round at #54

That's how I want it to work. i just lost a sophmore at Fordham who was likely staying and was a second rounder. That seems kinda silly to me, i wish the logic was a little more in tune with what I want it to be :)

I also think it would be neat if kids who "want to play" were more likely to stay or if that was just a preference. In 1.0 there was a correlation between a line in the scouting report and if kids left early but I think they took it away.

Posted by Benis on 1/27/2020 12:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 1/26/2020 11:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 1/26/2020 11:03:00 PM (view original):
Your point about replacing EEs at Fordam was exactly what I thought when Piman mentioned his EEs at Kansas and UCLA. Much easier to replace talent there. If I lose EE at MSU it isn't so bad. But losing guys not on the big board at schools like Utah and NMSU is rough.

Also I cant tell if you think that sophomores that leave early are lottery picks or you just want it to work that way because it def doesnt today. My soph that went EE that wasnt on big board went late 2nd round at #54

your EE that was not on the board, the one you that spawned this thread - he was a soph? that's rough, that definitely gets you a pass on a good bit of your complaining here :)

Most recent one was a Junior. I had a Soph leave early not on big board at NMSU. Wasnt even that great. As anyone with at least one functioning eyeball can see, I did withhold practice minutes to decrease his chance of leaving. Only grew 24 pts as soph with 75 WE.

But let's have some fun with math.

Of the seasons I've tracked this stuff, there have been 694 EEs and 12 who weren't on the big board. 1.7% of all EEs weren't on board.

For me personally, I've had 15 EEs with ******* THREE not on the big board. 20%.

But ya know. I'm just a big ol whiner for no reason.

Buddy, nobody thinks that. I don't want to speak for everyone but most of us just think you are just a big ol' whiner.

" But you no longer have the logic of, sign all the best players you can at all times. Instead, you are forced to "not make your players as good" due to the EE situation. You REMOVE practice minutes. You have to "consider" NOT getting too much elite talent. And it's all surrounding the EE situation. That is so *** backwards it's beyond belief!"

I don't use that logic. I sign the best players I can and maximize their skills. I do recruit players who are less likely to leave a little more but there's no reason to totally change your strategy. The biggest difference between D1 and the other levels are the coaches are better.

If they just kept scouting and recruiting as is but made it a one time affair AFTER the season was over, many of these issues would disappear. I never understood why it was so important to someone to go to two recruiting sessions..including one in season when the number of EE's are unknown.

I really don't have the luxury of coaching a player in a way that is making him less likely to leave early. I am a mid-major that simply does not have the time and/or smarts of gillipse and others to dissect the game and become an A+ coach. I would say that even if I were to luck out with an EE player it would never change the way I coach. I always coach to win, period. Even if I were a better recruiter, I will still coach every game to win which would result in my playing the best players. If this would create an EE, than so be it.

"The biggest difference between D1 and the other levels are the coaches are better"

I definitely disagree with this. At all levels I think there are probably only 15-20 coaches who consistently have legit shots of winning the title. Top D1 coaches aren't any better or worse than top d2 coaches.

It seems to me that if two-period recruiting isn't getting nuked (I am not holding my breath), the EE situation could be fixed with two small, interrelated tweaks:

1. APs are overvalued -- they are at least 2x stronger than they should be, IMO. Reduce their strength by 1/2 (at least). This is not just an EE problem.
2. Everyone gets a set value of APs, no matter how many scholarships you have open (or alternatively, have the floor be at 70, and you get 10 points per open scholly).

Right now if you have one or two open schollys, and you have multiple EEs (expected or not), you are screwed even if you plan for it, because teams with 4/5/6 open schollys have a massive lead in APs on the late preference guys, and you are disadvantaged in battling during the first session, because you've got to plan for EEs.

PS. It's crazy to me that so many of you are deliberately keeping attributes low to try to avoid EEs (I've never done that, apparently I'm working at a competitive disadvantage). As others have said, that is a sign that all is not well with the incentives in DI.

Posted by Benis on 1/27/2020 2:17:00 PM (view original):
"The biggest difference between D1 and the other levels are the coaches are better"

I definitely disagree with this. At all levels I think there are probably only 15-20 coaches who consistently have legit shots of winning the title. Top D1 coaches aren't any better or worse than top d2 coaches.

If I have time, I will go through a world and see what the numbers really look like.

I can tell you this, I would say once every 8-12 seasons I have a real chance of making the FF in D2/D3. It’s like once every 20 in D1.

hell, I just one a title in D2 that I didn’t think was that good.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 1/27/2020 3:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 1/27/2020 2:17:00 PM (view original):
"The biggest difference between D1 and the other levels are the coaches are better"

I definitely disagree with this. At all levels I think there are probably only 15-20 coaches who consistently have legit shots of winning the title. Top D1 coaches aren't any better or worse than top d2 coaches.

If I have time, I will go through a world and see what the numbers really look like.

I can tell you this, I would say once every 8-12 seasons I have a real chance of making the FF in D2/D3. It’s like once every 20 in D1.

hell, I just one a title in D2 that I didn’t think was that good.

I dont think that has to do with quality of coaches but more to do with the fact you're at Fordham and are at a major disadvantage vs high prestige schools. Everything is even at d2/d3.

So I guess I would say it's hard to gauge who are actually the really good coaches at D1 vs D2/D3. Is it more impressive to win a title at UCLA or reach final four with Fordham? I'd probably say the latter.

I am getting my *** kicked at Georgetown too!

I looked at stark, there are 30 coaches with A- or better prestige. i don’t know all the names but I am going to assume they all know what they are doing. There’s another 5 with under a A- that would surprise me if they one a title.

take that for what it’s worth....

Posted by Trentonjoe on 1/27/2020 3:45:00 PM (view original):
I am getting my *** kicked at Georgetown too!

I looked at stark, there are 30 coaches with A- or better prestige. i don’t know all the names but I am going to assume they all know what they are doing. There’s another 5 with under a A- that would surprise me if they one a title.

take that for what it’s worth....

Of those 30, only about 10 have a d1 title under their belt. I counted about 15 that don't have a single title at any level.

Not trying to **** on those guys, just saying.

Posted by Benis on 1/27/2020 4:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 1/27/2020 3:45:00 PM (view original):
I am getting my *** kicked at Georgetown too!

I looked at stark, there are 30 coaches with A- or better prestige. i don’t know all the names but I am going to assume they all know what they are doing. There’s another 5 with under a A- that would surprise me if they one a title.

take that for what it’s worth....

Of those 30, only about 10 have a d1 title under their belt. I counted about 15 that don't have a single title at any level.

Not trying to **** on those guys, just saying.

Agreed

I completely disagree that D1 coaches are better as well. I think D1 coaches have more game planning to do on a regular basis. Because there's more coaches in D1.

But there's also baseline prestige and such, that separates the opportunity for all the mid majors. Also I think benis noted, most elite coaches at D1 don't get to keep their players 4 seasons every season, and some do. Due to the "randomness" of EEs.

I will also say that D2 coaches have an argument AGAINST being the best as well. Because there's no cap on recruits. So, like in D1 you can only recruit so many 100 everything guys. But in D2, I can out recruit another coach.

So what we have here, is a situation where it's impossible to compare that D1 coaches are better/worse than D2. And each level has to be treated as it's own level, and gauged against itself.

You can only compare to each level in each world independently.

There's so many layers to this thought. I started to say that D1 can prove who the better game planners are, D2 can prove easier, who the better recruiters are. But that's not true either. In D1 rolls can swing recruiting one way or another consistently. In D2, game planning from the S16 (maybe E8) is complex because all teams are elite at that point. My last point is..... I do just as well (in D2) against coaches that only coach D2, as I do against coaches that also coach D1. It's foolish to think that coaches that win D1 titles could just drop down to D2 and win at a HIGHER level because of the coaching quality.

Sorry the the gil length posts. I had to think about this one for a min!

Posted by johnsensing on 1/27/2020 2:52:00 PM (view original):
It seems to me that if two-period recruiting isn't getting nuked (I am not holding my breath), the EE situation could be fixed with two small, interrelated tweaks:

1. APs are overvalued -- they are at least 2x stronger than they should be, IMO. Reduce their strength by 1/2 (at least). This is not just an EE problem.
2. Everyone gets a set value of APs, no matter how many scholarships you have open (or alternatively, have the floor be at 70, and you get 10 points per open scholly).

Right now if you have one or two open schollys, and you have multiple EEs (expected or not), you are screwed even if you plan for it, because teams with 4/5/6 open schollys have a massive lead in APs on the late preference guys, and you are disadvantaged in battling during the first session, because you've got to plan for EEs.

PS. It's crazy to me that so many of you are deliberately keeping attributes low to try to avoid EEs (I've never done that, apparently I'm working at a competitive disadvantage). As others have said, that is a sign that all is not well with the incentives in DI.

1. I agree mostly, though I would approach it a little different. I’d make AP after unlocking actions have diminishing returns, or even negative value, if the preference match is bad.
2. Glad you’ve come around, I thought this was one of my best ideas during beta. :)

As for attribute suppression, I think some folks are overestimating how much it’s used. One of the very best coaches in the game (and now a second) has said they don’t do it at all. I think it’s a tool in the tool box one *can* use, if they find it important. I don’t think it’s good or bad for the game, as long as something is given up in return for gain. I use it in a limited sense - generally I’m only suppressing the LP and Per for possible EE caliber Fr and So to keep them under 90 (or under combined 140) if possible, before I’m ready to lose the player. Since juniors are all at least on the fence (ie, roughly a coin flip if the draft gets down to them), I only suppress them if I am relatively sure I can push them or keep them down below where I expect the draft to stop.

At least the way I approach it, it really just comes down to fully developing the scoring of elite players last, unless I have some compelling team-need-based reason to prioritize it sooner.

Posted by shoe3 on 1/27/2020 6:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 1/27/2020 2:52:00 PM (view original):
It seems to me that if two-period recruiting isn't getting nuked (I am not holding my breath), the EE situation could be fixed with two small, interrelated tweaks:

1. APs are overvalued -- they are at least 2x stronger than they should be, IMO. Reduce their strength by 1/2 (at least). This is not just an EE problem.
2. Everyone gets a set value of APs, no matter how many scholarships you have open (or alternatively, have the floor be at 70, and you get 10 points per open scholly).

Right now if you have one or two open schollys, and you have multiple EEs (expected or not), you are screwed even if you plan for it, because teams with 4/5/6 open schollys have a massive lead in APs on the late preference guys, and you are disadvantaged in battling during the first session, because you've got to plan for EEs.

PS. It's crazy to me that so many of you are deliberately keeping attributes low to try to avoid EEs (I've never done that, apparently I'm working at a competitive disadvantage). As others have said, that is a sign that all is not well with the incentives in DI.

1. I agree mostly, though I would approach it a little different. I’d make AP after unlocking actions have diminishing returns, or even negative value, if the preference match is bad.
2. Glad you’ve come around, I thought this was one of my best ideas during beta. :)

As for attribute suppression, I think some folks are overestimating how much it’s used. One of the very best coaches in the game (and now a second) has said they don’t do it at all. I think it’s a tool in the tool box one *can* use, if they find it important. I don’t think it’s good or bad for the game, as long as something is given up in return for gain. I use it in a limited sense - generally I’m only suppressing the LP and Per for Fr and So to keep them under 90 (or under combined 140) if possible, before I’m ready to lose the player. Since juniors are all at least on the fence (ie, roughly a coin flip if the draft gets down to them), I only suppress them if I am relatively sure I can push them or keep them down below where I expect the draft to stop.

At least the way I approach it, it really just comes down to fully developing the scoring last, unless I have some compelling team-need-based reason to prioritize it sooner.

Honestly this is how I force Juco propreity and or prepare for last givings on a top target usually I target 5 players but.

Blocking fake wardo posts. You're welcome everyone.