EE's are getting out of hand - Page 2 - Hoops Dynasty

Posts: 2136 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 122 1 1

Rookie

Posted by teamrc on 4/19/2012 4:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jslotman on 4/19/2012 11:12:00 AM (view original):
A question I've never seen answered is whether the EE per team cap change was made in conjunction with a change in overall EE"s per world per season. I believe the answer to be "no," meaning when the system goes through the BCS teams and figures out EE's and there are gaps between the cap number and the overall number of EE's, lesser teams are almost automatically going to lose more players. Ergo, B+, not particularly highly-rated, first round NT loser Gonzaga loses two in Allen and C+, not highly rated at all, first round NT loser Marist loses one.

Seriously, Marist lost as many early entries as one final four team (Texas - capped) and more than runner-up Arizona (wait for it...also capped). Just doesn't make any sense.
as coach of the Zags, I have lost 7 in the last 6-7 seasons.
The C who left was a 734 overall rated junior, let me repeat that for those who missed it........That's seven hundred and thirty friggin four.
A 734 rated junior leaving a Big-6 team would be a joke... there are tons of better players to lose than him.
For us to lose him was a deal breaker.
Not here to rant.
It's just time to do something less frustrating.

Most of the guys you've lost have been legit. The other guy who left this year was taken #1 overall. And I know the center didn't have a great overall, but I'm pretty sure he did have great cores. The overall doesn't really matter.

That said, I'm not really defending the EE process. It needs to be improved.

I encourage you (and others) to badger seble about the "5 maximum" rule specifically, which is awful, and EE's in general.

4/19/2012 11:30 PM

kmasonbx

Posts: 847 (0)

Hall of Famer

210

Prospect

I'm pretty sure it was 6 maximum, and I'm not even sure that's been coded in. G Tech last season in Tark lost 2 EEs and returned just 4 players, due to a combination of seniors and walkons. So despite being guaranteed having 6 openings they still lost 2 EEs.

4/19/2012 11:35 PM

girt25

Posts: 2136 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 122 1 1

Rookie

Posted by kmasonbx on 4/19/2012 11:35:00 PM (view original):
I'm pretty sure it was 6 maximum, and I'm not even sure that's been coded in. G Tech last season in Tark lost 2 EEs and returned just 4 players, due to a combination of seniors and walkons. So despite being guaranteed having 6 openings they still lost 2 EEs.

No, it's five. And it's coded in. But that includes seniors and EE's, not walk-ons (thank God for small favors).

4/19/2012 11:36 PM

angmar

Posts: 219 (0)

Hall of Famer

141

Rookie

Posted by girt25 on 4/19/2012 10:33:00 AM (view original):
Posted by reinsel on 4/19/2012 9:02:00 AM (view original):
I think the latest rule change to eliminate EEs if you have 5 or more seniors was a bad one, and forces more EEs from weaker teams.
I hate the rule change -- it's a rich-get-richer mistake by seble that he somehow doesn't get. It's kind of insane, actually.

I don't think it's had a major overall impact on EE's, but there are probably a few each season that it does impact (and that's enough).

You've got me a bit confused Daalt. I specifically remember you getting more than irate a few seasons back when St. John's had 5 players leave early and that it was ridiculous that a team could lose so many players. Now you seem to be saying that some teams don't have enough EE's. Was it just because St. John's had SO many or am I missing something here? It kind of sounds like you're flip-flopping, but maybe I'm missing your point?

4/20/2012 12:52 AM

girt25

Posts: 2136 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 122 1 1

Rookie

I thought it was ridiculous that St. John's would lose five (!) EE's and other elite schools didn't lose a single player despite having many studs that could've gone, yes.

But there's a big difference between doing something that would've made that a bit more more equitable (i.e. simply making it harder for a school to get completely gutted by making each successive EE a bit less likely to leave) and completely stopping everything at five.

What seble's done here is given yet another advantage to the elite teams ... and instead of putting in a mild tweak to fix an issue, he put in a dramatic rule that causes way more harm than good. He flubbed this one badly.

4/20/2012 7:46 AM

professor17

Posts: 366 (0)

Hall of Famer

222 13

Rookie

Posted by girt25 on 4/20/2012 7:46:00 AM (view original):
I thought it was ridiculous that St. John's would lose five (!) EE's and other elite schools didn't lose a single player despite having many studs that could've gone, yes.

But there's a big difference between doing something that would've made that a bit more more equitable (i.e. simply making it harder for a school to get completely gutted by making each successive EE a bit less likely to leave) and completely stopping everything at five.

What seble's done here is given yet another advantage to the elite teams ... and instead of putting in a mild tweak to fix an issue, he put in a dramatic rule that causes way more harm than good. He flubbed this one badly.

Not only that, but by having a clearly defined hard cap of 5, it allows teams to game the system to prevent EE's. It is starting to become fashionable for elite teams to sign Senior transfer players (instead of taking walk-ons) to minimize the number of EE's they'll have in the off-season. Those guys count as Seniors towards the limit of 5 players lost.

4/20/2012 8:48 AM

kmasonbx

Posts: 847 (0)

Hall of Famer

210

Prospect

BCS teams have always signed senior transfers instead of taking walk-ons and it had nothing to do with avoiding EEs, it was to maximize recruiting money for the next season.

4/20/2012 8:55 AM

professor17

Posts: 366 (0)

Hall of Famer

222 13

Rookie

Posted by kmasonbx on 4/20/2012 8:55:00 AM (view original):
BCS teams have always signed senior transfers instead of taking walk-ons and it had nothing to do with avoiding EEs, it was to maximize recruiting money for the next season.

Understood. But now they're also doing it to prevent EE's.

4/20/2012 8:58 AM

acn24

Posts: 1020 (0)

Hall of Famer

260 357 172

Rookie

I've said it before, but:

Two suggestions to improve the early entry process at DI:

Currently it seems like evals for all of the top 100-120 recruits say that they will likely leave early for the NBA. I suggest reducing that to 25-35 (skewed towards 4-5 stars, but some 1-3 stars as well), but actually make it mean something. The kids who have that message will leave early, current logic can be used (or tweaked and improved) to determine if they leave after their FR, SO or JR seasons, but they will never see their SR season.

Also, I think there should be an extra email that comes at rollover, with the draft email, where your assistant coach can tell you who had a great summer and who might be tempted by the NBA if they have a good season. That way EEs can be better predicted (if they weren't on the email, they won't go) and it will allow coaches to mitigate their impact by adjusting recruitng targets.

4/20/2012 9:12 AM

kmasonbx

Posts: 847 (0)

Hall of Famer

210

Prospect

I don't know if this is a complicated fix, but I feel like recruiting money should be different. When I first started this game, I think that was when the change was first put in to make it so the most money you could have was for 6 openings, I think that should be changed. However, I don't think it should be changed in the way where everybody who has more than 6 openings gets money for those extra openings. It should be done in a way where you only get money for additional openings over 6 if they come from graduation and EEs. For example you have 5 seniors and 2 EEs, you get money for 7 openings, but if you had 4 walkons, 2 seniors and 2 EEs, you would still only get money for 6 openings. This would prevent guys from going afte 1 or 2 studs with 6 scholarships worth of money and taking 4 walkons knowing they'll get money for 9 guys the next season.

I don't know if this would bring back the superclasses, but I think it addresses the rare situation when you have 7+ guys leave your team, but doesn't let you game the system to create superclasses.

4/20/2012 9:49 AM

jetwildcat

Posts: 1204 (0)

Hall of Famer

198 3

Prospect

Posted by kmasonbx on 4/20/2012 9:49:00 AM (view original):
I don't know if this is a complicated fix, but I feel like recruiting money should be different. When I first started this game, I think that was when the change was first put in to make it so the most money you could have was for 6 openings, I think that should be changed. However, I don't think it should be changed in the way where everybody who has more than 6 openings gets money for those extra openings. It should be done in a way where you only get money for additional openings over 6 if they come from graduation and EEs. For example you have 5 seniors and 2 EEs, you get money for 7 openings, but if you had 4 walkons, 2 seniors and 2 EEs, you would still only get money for 6 openings. This would prevent guys from going afte 1 or 2 studs with 6 scholarships worth of money and taking 4 walkons knowing they'll get money for 9 guys the next season.

I don't know if this would bring back the superclasses, but I think it addresses the rare situation when you have 7+ guys leave your team, but doesn't let you game the system to create superclasses.

how about they just increase the prestige bump from EE's

4/20/2012 10:14 AM

jslotman

Posts: 303 (0)

Hall of Famer

126 9

Prospect

I think postseason success needs to have a lot more to do with EE's. I realize I'm going to be accused of espousing socialist dynasty, but all paying customers should have a relatively equal shot at success in the game, and the current early entry system (combined with the awful recruit generation) doesn't really lend itself to that.

4/20/2012 10:17 AM

jetwildcat

Posts: 1204 (0)

Hall of Famer

198 3

Prospect

Posted by jslotman on 4/20/2012 10:17:00 AM (view original):
I think postseason success needs to have a lot more to do with EE's. I realize I'm going to be accused of espousing socialist dynasty, but all paying customers should have a relatively equal shot at success in the game, and the current early entry system (combined with the awful recruit generation) doesn't really lend itself to that.

i think you could be just as fair by making likeliness of declaring early more crystal clear in the recruiting process

4/20/2012 10:45 AM

girt25

Posts: 2136 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 122 1 1

Rookie

Posted by professor17 on 4/20/2012 8:58:00 AM (view original):
Posted by kmasonbx on 4/20/2012 8:55:00 AM (view original):
BCS teams have always signed senior transfers instead of taking walk-ons and it had nothing to do with avoiding EEs, it was to maximize recruiting money for the next season.
Understood. But now they're also doing it to prevent EE's.

Exactly -- seble's update has opened the door for them to simply game the EE system.

4/20/2012 11:09 AM

girt25

Posts: 2136 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 122 1 1

Rookie

Posted by jslotman on 4/20/2012 10:17:00 AM (view original):
I think postseason success needs to have a lot more to do with EE's. I realize I'm going to be accused of espousing socialist dynasty, but all paying customers should have a relatively equal shot at success in the game, and the current early entry system (combined with the awful recruit generation) doesn't really lend itself to that.

js, you get ****** off when things don't mirror real life (i.e. the pf I signed and didn't play recently, etc.) And then you lobby for something like this, which does't resemble real life at all.

And no, you don't have an equal shot at success in DI. There are going to be inherent advantages of being at UCLA vs. UC-Riverside. The point of EE's is not simply to use them as a tool to artificially level the playing field.

Team success already plays a clear role in EE's.

(All of that said ... it's been way too long since we've been in a conference together. There's an opening in my conference in Marx World in Socialist Dynasty, would love to have you. Everyone gets the same amount of recruiting money, has the same number of open scholarships, the same prestige and all of the recruits have the same starting values and potential. Also, every game ends in a tie. See you there!)

4/20/2012 11:18 AM

Forums

EE's are getting out of hand Topic

Search Criteria