seems realistic to me. Dudes are always randomly deciding to go pro in college or return for that matter. No rhyme or reason for many of them. Some go undrafted, some go pro in Europe.

Posted by Benis on 7/19/2021 11:26:00 AM (view original):
Improve EEs first. The random nature of EEs is annoying as hell.

Would additional recruits in RS2 be a solution (either through increased transfers or creating new recruits just for RS2)? Or do you feel like that's more of a band-aid and the true issue lies in players randomly leaving, therefore not being prepared to fill those scholarships?

I don't know man. Even if they said that the top 60 players were definitely leaving (no RNG), the list would still need to be updated after the NT which would lead to a bit of randomness. Basically you wouldn't get the final list of players leaving until after RS1.

I think I remember Adam mentioning how he wanted to get rid of the EE manipulation at some point. So I guess there's a chance that the EE process is evaluated as a whole and re-worked to be less frustrating.

There’s really only one way I see to change the system to 1) reduce “randomness” 2) reduce “manipulation” and 3) avoid all sorts of unintended bad gameplay outcomes. Make the players spot on the Big Board based on potential alone, not based on development; then make their tendency to declare a scoutable preference during recruiting, rather than a straight probability roll at the time of draft, one that sticks with them on their player card you can view as coach.

This will remove all incentive to hold players back in any categories, so those of us who like that risk/reward aspect will lose a little. Might as well just maximize out completely ASAP, because the players going to go when they’re going to go. That will have some gameplay implications, but probably not too bad since the impact will be spread on a pretty steady grade. We’ll probably see fewer seniors in high D1 after a few seasons. Mid-majors and some FB/press teams will still utilize a lot of no-star dominated teams, featuring strong senior classes, of course. Probably mostly neutral impact from a competitive standpoint. I would not be advocating for it under normal circumstances, but if they’re moving ahead with firings, it’s the sort of change they’re going to have to make to keep D1 viable.

Posted by shoe3 on 7/20/2021 1:44:00 PM (view original):
There’s really only one way I see to change the system to 1) reduce “randomness” 2) reduce “manipulation” and 3) avoid all sorts of unintended bad gameplay outcomes. Make the players spot on the Big Board based on potential alone, not based on development; then make their tendency to declare a scoutable preference during recruiting, rather than a straight probability roll at the time of draft, one that sticks with them on their player card you can view as coach.

This will remove all incentive to hold players back in any categories, so those of us who like that risk/reward aspect will lose a little. Might as well just maximize out completely ASAP, because the players going to go when they’re going to go. That will have some gameplay implications, but probably not too bad since the impact will be spread on a pretty steady grade. We’ll probably see fewer seniors in high D1 after a few seasons. Mid-majors and some FB/press teams will still utilize a lot of no-star dominated teams, featuring strong senior classes, of course. Probably mostly neutral impact from a competitive standpoint. I would not be advocating for it under normal circumstances, but if they’re moving ahead with firings, it’s the sort of change they’re going to have to make to keep D1 viable.

I could definitely see the merit in that type of change. I'm not sure if a "Leaving Early" preference is required since it's somewhat implicit within the player's rankings and ratings, although I guess it doesn't hurt to have complete transparency.

I'd still prefer for NT results (and possibly individual player awards) to have an effect on a player leaving early. It wouldn't really be random to see an additional player or 2 leave after a NT championship run. It also takes some sting out of an early NT exit if one of the players you thought was leaving actually stays. This is just a personal preference though, and not a very strong one.

Posted by mlitney on 7/20/2021 12:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 7/19/2021 11:26:00 AM (view original):
Improve EEs first. The random nature of EEs is annoying as hell.

Would additional recruits in RS2 be a solution (either through increased transfers or creating new recruits just for RS2)? Or do you feel like that's more of a band-aid and the true issue lies in players randomly leaving, therefore not being prepared to fill those scholarships?

I don't know man. Even if they said that the top 60 players were definitely leaving (no RNG), the list would still need to be updated after the NT which would lead to a bit of randomness. Basically you wouldn't get the final list of players leaving until after RS1.

I think I remember Adam mentioning how he wanted to get rid of the EE manipulation at some point. So I guess there's a chance that the EE process is evaluated as a whole and re-worked to be less frustrating.

How bout this.

Top 30 guys definitely leave. Then we can decide on how to do the next 30 spots but basically guys in the 30 to 70 range have a very good chance of going with the chance of leaving dropping sharply from there. A guy who is close to 100 on big board is VERY rare.

The big board gets updated before CT starts (when RS1 ends) but is not the "final" big board. The final big board will be influenced by player awards and team success. This would help with the "gaming" of the system a bit as you don't really see the final, final big board and there are other factors in play. No one is going to intentionally lose a NT to game the big board.

This could be a pretty simple change that would improve the randomness without needing to overhaul recruiting or recruit generation.

The Benis plan is guaranteed to increase EE manipulation significantly. Like, by a ton. Guarantee that the top 30 go? Make it very rare past 70? You’ve vastly increased the incentive to hold player development back. So if that’s a consideration, throw that plan out the window.

The Benis plan would be fine if combined with the shoe plan of using player potential instead of actual ratings. I think that achieves the goal of fixing EE manipulation while making EE's a little less random. That's a good start. Maybe we'll call it the Beshoenis3 plan.

why does EE manipulation need to be fixed? how does it hurt the game?

is it manipulation to intentionally target a recruit who will be less likely to leave - lets say for example a big who will develop into killer ATH, DEF, BLK and other ratings but whose LP will never get better than meh.

That bad LP makes him more likely to stay for four years and be a monster in many ways - manipulation to target him?

Personally I think the "manipulation" narrative is pretty overblown. There are many people out there who don't know to even do it and there are plenty of people know about it and choose not to do it.

When looking at some of the top guys on the big board, I can't tell if they were really manipulated (like seeing a guy's LP drop from 80 to 50).

So I say, who cares. My proposal is still way better than what we have now and if it increases the ratings manipulation that occurs by 0.5%, big deal.

i generally am supportive of max ratings having some bearing on leaving, but i don't think it should be everything. a 50/50 combination could work, or maybe it starts 100% current ratings for freshman, but for juniors its 50/50 or 70/30 or whatever. my concern is the guys with higher max ratings but without the ability to reach those ratings, i don't think having them leave as mediocre sophs for example, would be a good thing.

i personally like the idea of making the top 30 more likely to go, thus reducing the deep board draft picks. i'm generally a fan of some randomness in the game in the team planning / team building arena - it keeps us on our toes. i'm generally not a fan of 5% and 95% rolls in that space though. praying for miracles or the absence of getting shafted, i just don't think its good game design or makes for an enjoyable experience. so i'd be for making those top players leave 100%. but still, end of the day, there is still going to be a bunch of randomness in EEs, and i don't think any of the suggestions here change that.

Posted by Benis on 7/21/2021 9:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mlitney on 7/21/2021 8:32:00 AM (view original):
The Benis plan would be fine if combined with the shoe plan of using player potential instead of actual ratings. I think that achieves the goal of fixing EE manipulation while making EE's a little less random. That's a good start. Maybe we'll call it the Beshoenis3 plan.

Haven't seen poopshoe's idea of using potential instead of ratings... But I actually like that idea. That'd put a different spin on it and would replicate real life a lot more (which some people want).

Drawback would be that you get punished for great potentials and not get to enjoy the actual ratings themselves but that is the choice you make I guess. WE would be even more important. Anything to reduce the randomness, I'm for it.

”Haven't seen poopshoe's idea of using potential instead of ratings“

See how he plays hard to get? This is why the ladies love him.