Posted by all2matt on 11/5/2016 11:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 11/5/2016 11:25:00 AM (view original):
I think we're all going to find out who was at the top in 2.0 and cannot or will not learn 3.0. Evidently we will learn this in the forums.

I also believe that in two or three seasons we will have a new group at the top, quietly winning championships and posting helpfully in the forums. **fingers crossed**

Tell us spud what was he supposed to learn or do to sign his class?

Are u gonna troll or offer that great advise thats got u all those championships

Start here: Then quit whining.

Delaying signings in the second session would seem devastating to D2 teams who have waited and waited already. Will you allow them to sign anyone before the final day? I do recognize the EE problem, but another solution should be found. It sounds like most people who post here think D1 is the entirety of the game.

With 20 baseline points, you can unlock visits on 5 or 6 late players by the end of the first period with no problem (you may also need to offer starts/minutes, but if you're facing half a dozen possible EEs, why not?). The only issues then are 1) are there a rational number of players with the late preference who should be open to effort from teams with EEs, and 2) whether or not you are available first cycle of 2nd period to use your effort. Regarding 1, I don't think there are enough. More top 100 players should be holding off to hear from teams who may be hit by EEs. Right now it's set up as 25/25/25/25. It should be more like 10/10/30/50 for 3 star and up, with 50 being late.

Regarding 2, I'm more concerned about coaches who changed jobs and didn't have an opportunity to unlock visits for *anyone*, much less top 100 caliber players. But I think at least one no-signing cycle for late preference players at the start of 2nd period, and probably two is a good idea.

Posted by mike1004 on 11/5/2016 12:36:00 PM (view original):
Delaying signings in the second session would seem devastating to D2 teams who have waited and waited already. Will you allow them to sign anyone before the final day? I do recognize the EE problem, but another solution should be found. It sounds like most people who post here think D1 is the entirety of the game.

I agree, and it's why I think that should only be true for "late" preference players. Instead of having late preference players begin signing on the 23rd cycle, have them start on the 25th. Everyone else can stay the same.

Posted by hughesjr on 11/5/2016 11:47:00 AM (view original):
Right .. the exception of course right now being that there is not enough TIME for replacing EEs in the 2nd session. You have the resources in the 2nd session, but guys sign before you can UNLOCK any actions.

I agree with this completely. I had 3 EEs at Arizona in Smith last cycle and I knew I would have at least 2, so I did plan some backup options. but a couple signed in the first cycle of the 2nd session and this really limited me. couple this with a battle I lost VH to H where i was all-in. by this point, i couldn't unlock anybody else worth signing before they signed! it became silly. I ended up with 2 walk-ons and a lot of unused cash. i didn't even need extra cash, just more time before these guys signed.

So other than reference something that someone ELSE wrote, Spudtard has no actual thoughts of his own. There is a SHOCKER!!
Go back to whatever hole you crawled out of 6 months ago.

I don't see the logic to making EEs announcement so late in the cycle, unless it is to intentionally penalize coaches for having great players. Are there other reasons that EE decisions can't be made a couple of days before the first signing period? And then if they still want to penalize those coaches they could get only a % of the resources for those slots.

“It kills me to lose. If I’m a troublemaker, and I don’t think that my temper makes me one, then it’s because I can’t stand losing. That’s the way I am about winning, all I ever wanted to do was finish first.”~Jackie Robinson
“You learn more from losing than winning. You learn how to keep going.”~Morgan Wootten
“I love the winning, I can take the losing, but most of all I Love to play.”~Boris Becker
“When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less.”~Paul Brown
“No matter how much you’ve won, no matter how many games, no matter how many championships, no matter how many Super Bowls, you’re not winning now, so you stink.”~Bill Parcells
“I tell the kids, somebody’s gotta win, somebody’s gotta lose. Just don’t fight about it. Just try to get better.”~Yogi Berra

i know the game's called `hoops dynasty`..but in reality, today no one wins 7 championships in 13 years..not even duke! so, for me, making the DI game more competitive (as far as recruiting) makes perfect sense to me..sorry stewdog, i can relate to your recruiting troubles, but someone other than you will taste that winning feeling other than you for the foreseeable future..

Keep that worthless post count growing Spudhole. Funny how this whole forum is full of Spudhole haters. Although I would guess with your turd personality that you are hated most everywhere you show up.

Posted by mike1004 on 11/5/2016 12:36:00 PM (view original):
Delaying signings in the second session would seem devastating to D2 teams who have waited and waited already. Will you allow them to sign anyone before the final day? I do recognize the EE problem, but another solution should be found. It sounds like most people who post here think D1 is the entirety of the game.

+100
You get it.
Not everyone does.

Posted by mike1004 on 11/5/2016 12:36:00 PM (view original):
Delaying signings in the second session would seem devastating to D2 teams who have waited and waited already. Will you allow them to sign anyone before the final day? I do recognize the EE problem, but another solution should be found. It sounds like most people who post here think D1 is the entirety of the game.

Why is it devastating?

i think this is the way EE teams have to play it:

- a Big Six high prestige owner in a world i'm in had 2 openings, and had 1 "likely going" EE.

- in Period 1, that owner filled the 2 normal openings with two Top 100 players who had "Early" or "End Period 1" preference.

- also in Period 1, he pursued a "Late" Top 100 target for the potential EE, getting to Very High. He might have other Late targets lined up, but they might not be visible to me.

- so, if gets the EE, he can sign his target. if the EE stays, he'll just abandon the target.

I think that's the general strategy that probably needs to be followed.

Posted by npb7768 on 11/5/2016 7:28:00 PM (view original):
i think this is the way EE teams have to play it:

- a Big Six high prestige owner in a world i'm in had 2 openings, and had 1 "likely going" EE.

- in Period 1, that owner filled the 2 normal openings with two Top 100 players who had "Early" or "End Period 1" preference.

- also in Period 1, he pursued a "Late" Top 100 target for the potential EE, getting to Very High. He might have other Late targets lined up, but they might not be visible to me.

- so, if gets the EE, he can sign his target. if the EE stays, he'll just abandon the target.

I think that's the general strategy that probably needs to be followed.

That strategy is a good one (that I have used) if you have one ee not so great if you have 5 ees. They need to make all recruiting options available immediately in the second cycle to help coaches with multiple ees. If guys are waiting that late to sign they are looking to be swept off their feet.

Posted by CoachSpud on 11/5/2016 5:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mike1004 on 11/5/2016 12:36:00 PM (view original):
Delaying signings in the second session would seem devastating to D2 teams who have waited and waited already. Will you allow them to sign anyone before the final day? I do recognize the EE problem, but another solution should be found. It sounds like most people who post here think D1 is the entirety of the game.

+100
You get it.
Not everyone does.

Spud talking about someone getting "it" when he doesn't even know what "it" is.