Big yes to a signing-free cycle (at least for late signee preference). Ambivalent toward fooling around with the value of attention points for this issue, although they should continue to monitor to make sure they're working as intended.

I have always been opposed to eliminating EEs, or having them declare early. I think elite players should be a high-risk, high-reward proposition, and coaches should tailor their recruiting strategies in 3.0 to suit their taste for risk. That said, I am also a big advocate of adding junior college players specifically to the 2nd period. It's realistic - late bloomers have big juco seasons and end up on the radar of big 6 teams late. Maybe not NBA caliber, but replacement level, so in the 650-750 OVR range. They start with a clean slate. The big plus is that it doesn't just make life easier for coaches dealing with early entries, but it gives options to anyone changing jobs. There seem to be fewer overall jucos in 3.0 anyway. Save some for the 2nd recruiting period.

The other idea is to make early entries a big part of the "wants success" preference, or add another preference for "future plans", where recruits could favor academics or playing professionally, such that programs who produce early entries - NBA factories - would hold big sway over some recruits.

Ive been saying since the beginning of beta, more of the top 100 players should have the late preference. Those top players should, more often than not, want to wait to see what openings the top teams might have. It should be pretty rare (IMO) for a truly big fish, 5-star player to commit early.

Have EEs declare at the end of the scouting period before Recruiting stars, give teams the right amount of $$$ and APs for their openings..........I will agree with this long as we have no unexpected EEs. During Beta, I actually had a player that wasn't on the EE list drafted.

Posted by mullycj on 10/4/2016 1:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 10/4/2016 10:11:00 AM (view original):
A third suggestion to tarv's excellent two above:

3. Reduce the "value" of APs. Right now, it seems that the "head start" in APs from the 1st round makes it nearly impossible for a school with EEs to compete on anything like a level playing field. Based on some battles I've been in, and this EE fiasco, I think APs are too strong/should be knocked down by 1/3 or 1/2.

Screwing with the other parts of recruiting just messes other things up unrelated to EEs.

Unless you think APs are too strong separate from the EE issue

I do think they're too strong in general, but I think lessening the value of APs would have a beneficial effect on the EE issue.

Posted by mullycj on 10/4/2016 1:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 10/4/2016 10:11:00 AM (view original):
A third suggestion to tarv's excellent two above:

3. Reduce the "value" of APs. Right now, it seems that the "head start" in APs from the 1st round makes it nearly impossible for a school with EEs to compete on anything like a level playing field. Based on some battles I've been in, and this EE fiasco, I think APs are too strong/should be knocked down by 1/3 or 1/2.

Screwing with the other parts of recruiting just messes other things up unrelated to EEs.

Unless you think APs are too strong separate from the EE issue

I, along with john and I think sportsguy, believe that either APs are too strong or prestige is too weak. Getting a better balance there will help the game in general, but it will particularly help with EEs (because teams with EEs are typically high prestige teams)

"SO, someone without an EE will always have an advantage unless something is changed."

That is looking at only half of the picture. No one "always" has an advantage if you look at the whole picture. The coach without an EE was without the advantage enjoyed by the coach with the EE player, ie. the advantage of his superior performance for one, two or three seasons. That advantage is not a birthright. There doesn't need to be a program of indemnity for EE's. Trying to tinker with the fundamental cornerstones of HS3.0 just to try to indemnify or partially indemnify the coach whose advantage of the performance of the EE has elapsed sounds a lot like a "solution" in search of a problem. I am in agreement with a statement above: "I think elite players should be a high-risk, high-reward proposition." Accept the risk and live with the downside as well as the upside, or don't accept the risk.

Raise your hand if you've had an EE. Raise your hand if you've had an EE that wasn't on the big board so you couldn't "plan to replace appropriately"

+1 +1

Posted by guyo27 on 10/4/2016 4:56:00 PM (view original):
Raise your hand if you've had an EE. Raise your hand if you've had an EE that wasn't on the big board so you couldn't "plan to replace appropriately"

+1 +1

*raises both hands*

Posted by guyo27 on 10/4/2016 4:56:00 PM (view original):
Raise your hand if you've had an EE. Raise your hand if you've had an EE that wasn't on the big board so you couldn't "plan to replace appropriately"

+1 +1

so, whats the plan if you have 3 guys graduating, 1 guy at say #25 on the big board and likely to leave and then a big man at 77 and on the fence and a guard at 85 and on the fence - you have AP and $ for three slots - good chance you'll have 2 or 3 EEs - but you dont know the positions - and if you try to cover those possibilities in phase one of recruiting you'll dilute your AP usage and get no traction

Posted by CoachSpud on 10/4/2016 4:07:00 PM (view original):
"SO, someone without an EE will always have an advantage unless something is changed."

That is looking at only half of the picture. No one "always" has an advantage if you look at the whole picture. The coach without an EE was without the advantage enjoyed by the coach with the EE player, ie. the advantage of his superior performance for one, two or three seasons. That advantage is not a birthright. There doesn't need to be a program of indemnity for EE's. Trying to tinker with the fundamental cornerstones of HS3.0 just to try to indemnify or partially indemnify the coach whose advantage of the performance of the EE has elapsed sounds a lot like a "solution" in search of a problem, I am in agreement with a statement above: "I think elite players should be a high-risk, high-reward proposition." Accept the risk and live with the downside as well as the upside, or don't accept the risk.

Spoken like someone who's never had an EE/isn't competing for NTs.

I'm afraid I'm feeding the trolls, but let me lay out my thoughts on the issue, in numbered sentences:
1. I believe that as 3.0 is currently set up, if you have an EE, it is nearly impossible to replace that EE with a player of similar caliber, or even a legitimate DI player.
2. I believe there is a consensus among high DI players that statement 1 above is true.
3. I believe that statement 1 is unnecessarily punitive to those coaches who have EEs -- especially since there's a good bit of randomization built into which players go EE.
4. If we're going for realism here -- which is why EEs were added in the first place, at least in my understanding (and I thought added realism was also at least one of the justifications for the 3.0 changes in the first place) -- there needs to be a way for the programs that have EEs to have a good shot to replace those EEs. Duke's recruiting didn't go into the toilet when Brandon Ingram went pro.
5. I believe there is a consensus among high DI players that statement 4 above is true.
6. It therefore follows that the recruiting process needs to be tweaked -- whether it's a "fundamental cornerstone" or not -- lest WIS further **** off the customer base. Then again, if WIS really cared about the customer base, I doubt they would have run out 3.0 in the way they did it -- but that's here nor there with regard to the current issue.
7. In my view, the best way to tweak it -- although reasonable minds certainly do differ -- is to lessen the value of APs, which would also have the happy byproduct of lessening their skew on several battles, so that the school with an EE could more easily "catch up" -- especially if it has preference matches.
8. The fact that this was not fixed -- or at least attempted to be fixed -- in beta is an extremely bad sign for the future of the game. From what I've read on the forums, many people raised this issue, and seble, one foot out the door, basically shrugged.

Tell me where I'm wrong.

1. Okay.
2. Okay.
3. True if you look at only half the picture.
4. Indemnification indefinitely? No, thanks.
5. Yes, no doubt that is their opinion.
6. Is there a question there, or just a rant?
7. Already said my opinion on this, bad idea.
8. It doesn't need to be "fixed." EE's will be spread out, not horded by as few teams at the top. Seble appeared to expect the same.

Posted by johnsensing on 10/4/2016 5:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 10/4/2016 4:07:00 PM (view original):
"SO, someone without an EE will always have an advantage unless something is changed."

That is looking at only half of the picture. No one "always" has an advantage if you look at the whole picture. The coach without an EE was without the advantage enjoyed by the coach with the EE player, ie. the advantage of his superior performance for one, two or three seasons. That advantage is not a birthright. There doesn't need to be a program of indemnity for EE's. Trying to tinker with the fundamental cornerstones of HS3.0 just to try to indemnify or partially indemnify the coach whose advantage of the performance of the EE has elapsed sounds a lot like a "solution" in search of a problem, I am in agreement with a statement above: "I think elite players should be a high-risk, high-reward proposition." Accept the risk and live with the downside as well as the upside, or don't accept the risk.

Spoken like someone who's never had an EE/isn't competing for NTs.

I'm afraid I'm feeding the trolls, but let me lay out my thoughts on the issue, in numbered sentences:
1. I believe that as 3.0 is currently set up, if you have an EE, it is nearly impossible to replace that EE with a player of similar caliber, or even a legitimate DI player.
2. I believe there is a consensus among high DI players that statement 1 above is true.
3. I believe that statement 1 is unnecessarily punitive to those coaches who have EEs -- especially since there's a good bit of randomization built into which players go EE.
4. If we're going for realism here -- which is why EEs were added in the first place, at least in my understanding (and I thought added realism was also at least one of the justifications for the 3.0 changes in the first place) -- there needs to be a way for the programs that have EEs to have a good shot to replace those EEs. Duke's recruiting didn't go into the toilet when Brandon Ingram went pro.
5. I believe there is a consensus among high DI players that statement 4 above is true.
6. It therefore follows that the recruiting process needs to be tweaked -- whether it's a "fundamental cornerstone" or not -- lest WIS further **** off the customer base. Then again, if WIS really cared about the customer base, I doubt they would have run out 3.0 in the way they did it -- but that's here nor there with regard to the current issue.
7. In my view, the best way to tweak it -- although reasonable minds certainly do differ -- is to lessen the value of APs, which would also have the happy byproduct of lessening their skew on several battles, so that the school with an EE could more easily "catch up" -- especially if it has preference matches.
8. The fact that this was not fixed -- or at least attempted to be fixed -- in beta is an extremely bad sign for the future of the game. From what I've read on the forums, many people raised this issue, and seble, one foot out the door, basically shrugged.

Tell me where I'm wrong.

1. Mostly true. It will be very difficult to directly replace an early entry, solely with the resources opened up by that early entry, in the 2nd period, with a player of equivalent value (i.e., a player in the top 10 in his class with a player in the top 10 in his class). From my experience in beta, you can certainly get legitimate D1 players in the 2nd period, though you may need to adjust your frame of reference for what legitimate means.
2. Mostly true, sure.
3. I disagree here, I don't see it as punitive. Its part of the calculation of how we prioritize. I don't know if anyone else tracks it, but it seems pretty clear that early entries are mostly from the top 12 players at their position in each class. Sometimes it goes down to top 20, but rarely beyond that. So if you're recruiting among the top 20 or so, there's some risk, top 12 or so a little more probability. Planning for the possible (and probable, as you go up) early expiration of your valuable commodity should be a part of your strategy.
4. In reality, there aren't many teams who don't have to scramble when multiple players leave early. There's only one Kentucky, and I don't think that's necessarily a good model for how it should work in this game.
5. Perhaps. But there are lots of players affected by how elite commodities were distributed in HD 2.0, and how the changes affect 3.0 gameplay. Whether we like it or not, it is pretty clear that WIS wanted those elite commodities spread out amongst more players. That's a feature, not a bug, as they say.
6 and 7. See above. I agree there are some beneficial changes they can (I'd argue should) make to improve gameplay for coaches who have to do important recruiting in the late period (early entries, coach changes, real life issues took them out of the first session). I don't think changing the value of APs is necessarily one of them. Maybe it's necessary, maybe not, but I wouldn't want it done because of early entries alone, especially because...
8. The reason they want to see how it plays out in live worlds, and get lots of data on it before making a big structural change is that most of us who played beta agree that it will be unlikely for teams to be able to recruit classes of many 4-5 star players consistently. Teams will get lucky and win all their rolls occasionally, but it won't happen every year. 2-3 seasons of 3.0, and it will then likely be pretty rare for a team to actually lose more than a couple early entries in a season. So making big long-term structural changes solely to fix a problem that may correct itself through gameplay adaptation is not necessarily a good idea.

Unless you guys are using alias's to post, you know not what you are speaking of. You have experienced zero EEs in your HD careers. What you don't realize is that in HD2, EEs were already killers to teams. If you want to win D1 NTs, you need to avoid EEs, especially Sophomores leaving early.
Unfortunately, you couldn't predict it. I've had guys in the top 10 on the big board stay, and I've had guys who where 97th and likely staying leave, and I've had people not on the big board leave. It's random, it's unfair and it made the difference between winning NTs and losing in the round of 16when a top 25 likely going stud came back against the odds.

There are many options to make things better, but creating a system where taking the #1 overall guy means you basically have to take a walkon the year he goes pro is a dumb solution to a problem that never existed.

you're "hoarding" players that should be available for D2 nd D3 schools reinsel, don't be silly. Clearly the #1 guy in the land that lives in NC should want to go to eastern school of mines in Utah because they shoot more 3's.

...and wants a rebuild

+1