Posted by mrslam34 on 12/4/2020 8:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 12/4/2020 2:51:00 PM (view original):
I answered new world. Moving EE decisions up and adding a 5th line on depth chart seem so straightforward (and have unanimous community agreement).

I actually strongly disagree with moving up EE decisions or going back to one recruiting period. EE's can be annoying but they are a known part of the game that can and are accounted for by most top coaches. Sometimes you get unlucky, but it's all about playing the odds. Dealing with EE adds a layer of strategy to recruiting and practice plan that would be lost if it was moved up. Not to mention that the change people seem to want would benefit the A+ teams much more than lesser teams and I don't think the A+ teams need extra help. On my Minnesota team this year I could easily end up with 3 or more EE. It would feel a little dirty to me if I had the resources for the EE during the first recruiting session. It would be much closer to the old days where the top teams could simply reload every year and get whoever they want (a simplification of 2.0 but I don't think it's a necessarily inaccurate).

If that change is made it would remove some strategy from the game and would benefit the top teams. Love the discussion about areas to improve but I just wanted to make it clear that this idea doesn't necessarily have unanimous community agreement.

Yeah, how to handle EEs is very far from unanimous, depending on what is being proposed. Handing out resources for the first session would be very controversial, for reasons already discussed. Even just moving it up for planning purposes - what are the unintended consequences? Deep NT runs do increase odds of players declaring. Removing this does impact gameplay.

A better “fix” more in line with the realistic spirit of the game, where coaches don’t control, manipulate, or otherwise game the decisions made by players, would be if a player’s tendency to leave early was a scoutable attribute. Perhaps a coach could even devote some AP during recruiting toward his at-risk players, if not to influence them, but maybe to pin down their intentions.

If it's far from unanimous, then I'll take a backseat. I don't have enough experience to where my vote should count then. I thought it was the obvious choice that everyone wanted. And it sounds good to me. So forget I ever mentioned it

Posted by gillispie1 on 12/4/2020 6:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Basketts on 12/4/2020 6:29:00 PM (view original):
That'd be cool. Can you imagine the hype for the NT game before the second half sims?

why would it be more than before the whole game sims?

Not saying it would be more or less than before the game, just that coaches can react in the coaches corner about how the game is going, and predict how it will finish while they grab a halftime beer.

Posted by Basketts on 12/4/2020 9:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 12/4/2020 6:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Basketts on 12/4/2020 6:29:00 PM (view original):
That'd be cool. Can you imagine the hype for the NT game before the second half sims?

why would it be more than before the whole game sims?

Not saying it would be more or less than before the game, just that coaches can react in the coaches corner about how the game is going, and predict how it will finish while they grab a halftime beer.

well i was skeptical until you got all the way to the end IM IN

Posted by topdogggbm on 12/4/2020 8:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 12/4/2020 6:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 12/4/2020 2:51:00 PM (view original):
I answered new world. Moving EE decisions up and adding a 5th line on depth chart seem so straightforward (and have unanimous community agreement).

i actually still don't fully understand this - moving EE decisions up. you guys are saying have players EE based on their ratings the day before recruiting? and not taking into account NT success? what about at draft time, is it final ratings, NT success or no NT success? NT success is kinda designed to prevent the haves from having too much, if it didn't factor into EE leaving but did factor into draft order it would be backwards from today.

just wondering about the details i suppose...

The details are so you get the proper amount of resources for RS1! Very simple here. That way you're not trying to scurry and salvage a player you didn't even expect to have to recruit.

this simple change can fix EVERYTHING about D1 in my opinion. It's why I never wanted to get involved with D1 at all. (As we speak I'm just now getting into recruiting my first EE type of talent. Now would be a great time to fix it please!)

thanks, that totally clears it up

I've been thinking about the EE situation a bit, after reading both sides of the argument. I feel like the current system is mostly good. It definitely adds another layer that requires additional knowledge and skills. You really have to master the EE game to be the best of the best, which I think plays into one of things that Adam said. He wants the game to be "easy to learn, hard to master".

Gillispie and others have laid out many detailed posts about how to play the EE game by the odds. You'll get screwed sometimes, but like I said, I feel like that's something that can separate the great coaches from the truly elite.

There's probably many ways that it can be improved, but pushing EE declaration back would only benefit the higher prestige schools and help to create imbalance while making the game less realistic.

Posted by mlitney on 12/4/2020 11:20:00 PM (view original):
I've been thinking about the EE situation a bit, after reading both sides of the argument. I feel like the current system is mostly good. It definitely adds another layer that requires additional knowledge and skills. You really have to master the EE game to be the best of the best, which I think plays into one of things that Adam said. He wants the game to be "easy to learn, hard to master".

Gillispie and others have laid out many detailed posts about how to play the EE game by the odds. You'll get screwed sometimes, but like I said, I feel like that's something that can separate the great coaches from the truly elite.

There's probably many ways that it can be improved, but pushing EE declaration back would only benefit the higher prestige schools and help to create imbalance while making the game less realistic.

Here is where I disagree a bit.

Every EE costs a school 440 APs. That's a lot. Why should you lose AP when you know the EEs are coming? It doesn't make sense, and of course it isn't realistic.

EEs are generally very easy to handle at A+. I just take 1-3 walkons a year, target enough guys with late preferences, and then carpet-bomb my EE money on people with my superior prestige. Even when I have multiple EEs, it's generally fine. My last two titles are coming off 3 and 2 EEs respectively. The schools it really kills are the A-/A ones trying to stay competitive. The exception here is when you get 3 and 2 back-to-back or something. Losing 2200 AP in 2 years is ridiculous though, no amount of prestige can make up for that.

Posted by gillispie1 on 12/4/2020 10:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 12/4/2020 8:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 12/4/2020 6:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 12/4/2020 2:51:00 PM (view original):
I answered new world. Moving EE decisions up and adding a 5th line on depth chart seem so straightforward (and have unanimous community agreement).

i actually still don't fully understand this - moving EE decisions up. you guys are saying have players EE based on their ratings the day before recruiting? and not taking into account NT success? what about at draft time, is it final ratings, NT success or no NT success? NT success is kinda designed to prevent the haves from having too much, if it didn't factor into EE leaving but did factor into draft order it would be backwards from today.

just wondering about the details i suppose...

The details are so you get the proper amount of resources for RS1! Very simple here. That way you're not trying to scurry and salvage a player you didn't even expect to have to recruit.

this simple change can fix EVERYTHING about D1 in my opinion. It's why I never wanted to get involved with D1 at all. (As we speak I'm just now getting into recruiting my first EE type of talent. Now would be a great time to fix it please!)

thanks, that totally clears it up

Assuming this is sarcasm.

This was kind of the issue with in-season recruiting from day1 gil. I'm a huge proponent of this idea and I'm as shady on it as you.

I'll post tomorrow morning in a new thread about my thoughts on this. Tired right now.

ok sounds good - yeah i mean, i totally get the problem. i was never really a fan of the in-season recruiting, and although a lot of the 3.0 recruiting changes have endeared themselves to me, i am still not much of a fan of that part. the two sessions is just too long to remember what is going on anyway! i coached roughly till the day 3.0 was released (it was just a convenient time to retire, it wasn't a protest quit), so i know the back story, i just never experienced any of it for myself until a year and change ago.

but yeah - the details on how you'd go about doing what you suggested, i think, are fuzzy. i figured as you were selling it as a consensus item, it was reasonable to ask some questions on the details :) i don't think its consensus but that wasn't my main point, a lot of times around here we talk generally about stuff but don't get into the specifics. often my asking about the specifics is taken as opposition - but typically that isn't the case. i just feel like there are valid questions the community should discuss prior to advocating for a change. like ok, if people want to do <whatever>, then how? there's usually some downsides or tradeoffs to consider and i've always felt the more fully-baked the idea, the better chance of it happening eventually, and happening in a positive way when it does happen - even if it takes years!

Posted by mlitney on 12/4/2020 11:20:00 PM (view original):
I've been thinking about the EE situation a bit, after reading both sides of the argument. I feel like the current system is mostly good. It definitely adds another layer that requires additional knowledge and skills. You really have to master the EE game to be the best of the best, which I think plays into one of things that Adam said. He wants the game to be "easy to learn, hard to master".

Gillispie and others have laid out many detailed posts about how to play the EE game by the odds. You'll get screwed sometimes, but like I said, I feel like that's something that can separate the great coaches from the truly elite.

There's probably many ways that it can be improved, but pushing EE declaration back would only benefit the higher prestige schools and help to create imbalance while making the game less realistic.

i don't want to argue against myself, but i will say, the EE thing - it is pretty darn important, but i don't want folks to feel like you can't win without EE shenanigans. that is definitely not the case. my early EE plans were non existent and i suffered mightily. but mostly i was getting wrecked after winning, and it stopped me from making the runs of consecutive titles, but i still had one of the game's best runs as a pretty poor recruiter and with zero EE manipulation.

i suppose nowadays, more people do it, so it is more necessary. but i could still totally bail on holding back on EEs and still be really successful. the bigger part is the planning side, i wouldn't recruit those guys who leave before they are worth it - adopting that strategy is a bigger part of my EE success than actually holding players back. EE planning, knowing when a guy is likely to leave and how valuable they are, that is about 80% of it. the manipulation helps but that is definitely less crucial. team planning, including player development, recruit evaluation and prioritization, player projections, ee projections, and ee planning, that whole ball of wax that turns on 1) understanding what makes teams and players great, and 2) doing the planning over time to ensure good synergy - that is still by far the most important part of this game. the EE games to hold a guy back 15 lp to reduce his junior EE odds by 20%, that stuff helps, but i want to make sure folks realize those kind of things are not at its core what is essential for d1 success, team planning always has ruled the day and probably always will.

Losing elite talent should be painful. It should hurt. If it doesn’t hurt when an elite player decides to go to the NBA before his eligibility is up, we’re not playing a college basketball simulation. That should be part of the cost of recruiting that kind of player, and managing that risk should be part of what separates good coaches from excellent coaches. Coaches who don’t want to deal with those headaches should consider D2 an alternative.

Using resource distribution to bid on players is not the way I would design the simulation either, but that’s what we have, and that isn’t likely to change.

If teams that lose early entries have extra resources for them upfront before recruiting begins, that means less battling for elite recruits, and ultimately a less competitive environment. This is the same debate we were having during and right after beta. Presenting this as a consensus is pretty disingenuous.

You also forget that the two recruiting sessions screw over new coaches and coaches changing teams by putting them a full season behind in recruiting for their new team. The 1st season is even more of a waste than usual.

Not the best way to RETAIN new users.

Posted by mullycj on 12/5/2020 11:01:00 AM (view original):
You also forget that the two recruiting sessions screw over new coaches and coaches changing teams by putting them a full season behind in recruiting for their new team. The 1st season is even more of a waste than usual.

Not the best way to RETAIN new users.

Not really a screw for new coaches, they don’t recruit at all before the first season. You could always give them the option of starting at the beginning of RS2 instead of after rollover, I suppose. That has nothing to do with early entries, of course.

Regarding changing teams, the change I suggested and always supported has been adding (perhaps just reserving, if recruit gen scarcity is a concern) a certain number of mid-range quality D1 pool players for the second session only. These are players who had breakout seasons on their teams, and are only at the end of the year getting on everyone’s radar. I think most of them should be Juco, obviously none of them will be top 100 or even starred players, but can be good stopgap quality players - like ~650 overall players with variable potential and B range IQ in the known sets coming in. You bring in 50-75 of those guys that everyone starts fresh with in the second session, that gives coaches who changed jobs, and experienced EE pain, a chance to get some quality.

Hell, you could even add an extra late session camp, a “Second Chance Rodeo” Juco Invitational in Denver after the season.

Posted by topdogggbm on 12/4/2020 6:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/4/2020 5:38:00 PM (view original):
The big changes I want for jobs are really some of the biggest problems for the new user experience, I think. I definitely don’t want firing to be increased, not with the game as it is now, that would be ridiculous.

Why do you feel that way tho? Most coaches who have an elite job, have multiple teams. They are also generally good coaches. If you stunk for a long time at one of your schools, would you quit if you got fired? I doubt it. I wouldn't quit if I got fired from one of my schools after 5 straight seasons at under .500 or under 10 wins or whatever. I'd understand it. I'd expect it.

I often wonder if anyone would REALLY care if they got fired based on performance. What leg would they have to stand on? I don't know the requirements to get fired. But you have to perform really bad apparently. I think by the time a coaches reaches the level of D1 where they could be fired, they would continue playing HD and would also understand why they were fired

People should def get fired more but there needs to be some kind of understanding. Expectations at the time of hiring would need to be visible to the coach.

Let new users coach D1 teams immediately. The only people that care about D2 and D3 basketball are HD nerds.

This also entices existing users to pickup more teams.