mike, i was very surprised about the players i have lost to EE off board! 1 of the 2 i've had go from off the board in recent seasons wasn't even a starter! the minimal solution to the EE issue should be that at least no one goes EE if they aren't even on the big board. making backup plans for EE replacements is challenging (and should be to some extent), but having things you can't reasonably predict at all is just stupid. there is no strategy in that.

on topic: conference cash, meh. i don't think the amount of money is an issue in HD3. if anything, i think it would be cool if you got an extra AP for the second session for every tournament win. this would make sense, since your conference is getting increased exposure, and it would be pretty minimal.

My assumption has been that EE are ratings based not production based. If that's incorrect, my thinking of being able to "predict" EE with some level of certainty would change.

If one wanted to reward teams for success, make "Wants success" a huge preference.

Yes I think that EE players should be on the big board. If not on the big board that is a problem

some EEs are easy to predict - like you have one guy, who is top 20 on the big board and likely leaving

some EEs are hard to predict - like you have three guys - on the fence - ranked say 60-80 on the Board - each plays a different position - likely that one or two will go - but three might.

especially hard to plan for even playable replacements in some cases. Thats what WIS wants - altho would be nice to see action on earlier announcements they said were in the works.

I dont think more money for conference success is a key improvement at this point, given the way 3.0 plays. I miss the $ for conference success in part because I used to have a rooting interest in conference success much more than I do now.

Posted by bathtubhippo on 3/12/2017 10:24:00 AM (view original):
And some EEs aren't even on the big board! How do you plan for that? Magic?

Bingo. No one has given a good response to this one.

Supersloth- I have teams at all 3 levels. Some of my suggestions may seem like I don't care about D3 but that's not true. I love playing D3 and only want to make it better. We can agree or disagree on whether it actually would improve the game but my motivations are not self serving.

Some aspects of new recruiting won't go away but the ship hasn't sailed on everything. Having a more restrictive system (some sort of level cap) COULD be done if they wanted. They should still continue to tweak and make improvements.

Posted by Benis on 3/12/2017 12:43:00 PM (view original):
Supersloth- I have teams at all 3 levels. Some of my suggestions may seem like I don't care about D3 but that's not true. I love playing D3 and only want to make it better. We can agree or disagree on whether it actually would improve the game but my motivations are not self serving.

Some aspects of new recruiting won't go away but the ship hasn't sailed on everything. Having a more restrictive system (some sort of level cap) COULD be done if they wanted. They should still continue to tweak and make improvements.

They need to make improvements. The system has many flaws. Changing job in D1 is a total irrealistic nightmare. Ees need a solution. I think the two sessions recruiting which seemed like a good idea is to he biggest problem.

Benis- I would have no problem with a cap on recruits. I can adapt to whatever parameters are set before me. As long as the cap isn't drastic, you're probably right, the blow back won't be too severe. However, that's about the only thing about current recruiting that could be changed without a lot of pushback.

As for EE, I just looked at IBA's Big board for this season. With only one exception, every underclassman was top 20 rated at his position when he was recruited. The one exception was the 100th player on the board, a 26 position rated PF Jr. Now, I can't speak to the guys who declare who aren't on the board, but I highly suspect they too would also be top 20 at their position without many exceptions for say a 26th rated guy here or there. Anybody seeing a trend here? Under no system will there be absolute certainty about who will decide to leave. I constantly hear everyone say they want realism, well there you go. There are surprises every season in real life on who decides to leave. If you want, Whatif should just increase the size of the big board to 200. I suspect that would pretty much encompass everyone who ends up actually leaving. Internationals do seem to offer more of a puzzle, as there were no rankings, although I suspect experienced players have a pretty good feeling by looking at ratings and their potentials as you recruit you can have a general idea if they are an early entry possibility down the road.

Posted by supersloth33 on 3/12/2017 2:41:00 PM (view original):
Benis- I would have no problem with a cap on recruits. I can adapt to whatever parameters are set before me. As long as the cap isn't drastic, you're probably right, the blow back won't be too severe. However, that's about the only thing about current recruiting that could be changed without a lot of pushback.

As for EE, I just looked at IBA's Big board for this season. With only one exception, every underclassman was top 20 rated at his position when he was recruited. The one exception was the 100th player on the board, a 26 position rated PF Jr. Now, I can't speak to the guys who declare who aren't on the board, but I highly suspect they too would also be top 20 at their position without many exceptions for say a 26th rated guy here or there. Anybody seeing a trend here? Under no system will there be absolute certainty about who will decide to leave. I constantly hear everyone say they want realism, well there you go. There are surprises every season in real life on who decides to leave. If you want, Whatif should just increase the size of the big board to 200. I suspect that would pretty much encompass everyone who ends up actually leaving. Internationals do seem to offer more of a puzzle, as there were no rankings, although I suspect experienced players have a pretty good feeling by looking at ratings and their potentials as you recruit you can have a general idea if they are an early entry possibility down the road.

It does change the fact that you can't prepare for it...

i'm sorry, but 'you should have a feeling for it' is an absolutely ridiculous argument

Posted by bathtubhippo on 3/12/2017 3:05:00 PM (view original):
i'm sorry, but 'you should have a feeling for it' is an absolutely ridiculous argument

Wouldn't they stop complaining about EE's why not just a simple report to front office? To the head coach during a break period of signings period 1 and 2. This would basically solve complaining and would push forward the forums posting to a whole new level.

Posted by bathtubhippo on 3/12/2017 3:05:00 PM (view original):
i'm sorry, but 'you should have a feeling for it' is an absolutely ridiculous argument

Not really. You KNOW what makes a good player. If you can't translate that over to possible EE, I'm not sure what else can be said.

These are different points in my opinion. Sure when I'm recruiting a player I know which ones have a chance of going EE. So you take the chance that this player may not stay 4 seasons and leaves permaturely. That is the risk reward of EEs. The penalty is that he's gone and you need to replace a good player earlier. It shouldn't be more than that.

D1 recruiting is more competitive than D3 recruiting. You can't really compare them.

Getting these EEs aren't exactly gifted to teams.

OK, let's be clear. I'm no rocket scientist.

I checked the Big Board in Smith. Clicked a bunch of random players. The lowest I found was 834 OVR. So, if I'm trying to project which of my guys might be EE, I'd use a number like 834 as a guide.

Now, if I had a 766 declare, I'd be surprised. Not so much if an 850 did.

Posted by Benis on 3/12/2017 4:25:00 PM (view original):
These are different points in my opinion. Sure when I'm recruiting a player I know which ones have a chance of going EE. So you take the chance that this player may not stay 4 seasons and leaves permaturely. That is the risk reward of EEs. The penalty is that he's gone and you need to replace a good player earlier. It shouldn't be more than that.

D1 recruiting is more competitive than D3 recruiting. You can't really compare them.

Getting these EEs aren't exactly gifted to teams.

This is what I was saying, and I usually don't share knowledge on stuff I don't know or still have questions on.