So I just lost the Allen NT championship game to Texas A&M by 1 in OT. We were pretty clearly the best 2 teams in Allen D1 this year. Between us, we had 9 players on the top 100 big board that weren't graduating, 4 for me and 5 for TAMU.

I lost 3 guys to the NBA. The point of this thread is not to complain about that.

Texas A&M lost no one.

So next year, A&M will likely win the NT again or be a prime contender, where my best case scenario is to have 1 walkon. The point of this thread isn't to complain about Texas A&M's luck.

I know there are tricks to use when recruiting if you think you'll have EEs, but when you have more EEs than scholarship openings, its, tough to get on the list of 5 players with the APs and money for 2.

The point of the thread is that oneteam is going to be out of serious NT title contention for 3-4 seasons, while another is going to be back again next year and its based on luck. Nothing you can really do about it. Anyway, just another random element to this game that isn't fun. Maybe the solution will be that the top teams can't recruit multiple EE level players anymore, but I doubt that happens.

Everyone is saying that this new system encourages battling, but I don't think so. I think teams that battle are necessarily weaker off than teams that can avoid battles. Not all battles, but I don't think you want more than 1 going. That way you can punch above your weight and win a battle with a school with more prestige. I guess we shall see.

Seconded. At Texas in Allen, I made a lucky run to the Final 4 (thought I was a year away), and had the #81 and #96 on the board go pro (which in and of itself is sort of garbage, especially since champion A&M lost no one -- I will be very interested to see if and where they are drafted). The way recruiting is set up, there is almost certainly no way for me to replace those players with players of comparable skill, as I have just too much ground to make up on any high DI recruits. This should have been fixed before 3.0 rolled out -- the fact that we're well into 3.0 and admin is not even suggesting possible fixes is a major, major problem.

And before the apologists say it, "don't recruit multiple EEs" is not a fix.

Yeah Texas is a team to complain. Texas was not a top 10 team all year and made a run as a 4 seed to get to the final four. Not a total surprise, but there is no way Texas replaces those guys with top 100 players. They are all taken and without non-signing cycles and similar APs, it is tough to catch up.

leave aside replacing them with top 100 players - I think it is hard to replace an EE with a playable DI player - especially an unexpected or low probability EE

I have never had an EE in my career (only 1 season at D1) but I've always believed that EEs should announce at the beginning of the season and you get your budget at that point. Or even if you didn't get the scouting money on Day 1 maybe you get it RIGHT before 1st session of recruiting starts. something like that.

However, I do believe the EEs will be more spread out and there will be more battles for these types of players in 3.0. I'm at D prestige NMSU and I just signed a 4 star guy and I'm battling for a 5 star. So it's possible that I could have an EE on a team that won't even make the NT (who knows).

Lost my first EE this season. It was tough, because he was obviously the centerpiece of my team, and he may not even get drafted (fellow UMinn grads will immediately think of Rick Rickert). But I knew it was a possibility, and I'm in a position where I can replace his spot on the roster directly with a 3 star (I have other options to replace his production already on the team). If I pull it off, it may feel like poaching to someone else (even though I'm moderate and have offered a scholarship), but that's how you use those EE resources as an advantage. It's obviously harder to replace multiple EEs - and of course it should be! You know you can lose them going in, and you recruit them anyway, because they're valuable commodities, even if you don't have them all 4 years.

Everyone's going to adapt into different strategies, there isn't a right way. If I have 4 scholarships (like this year) I'll try to fight for 3, hope to win 2, then plan to fill out a competitive team with role players or projects I don't have to fight for. Of course mid-level, 4-year players you don't have to use battle resources for are going to be more attractive now. Maybe that 3-star whose ATH or Def tops out at 80 and so probably won't leave early gets a serious battle, whereas the 5-star who looks like he could jump after 1 or 2 years goes with no battle. And obviously, there will be teams getting lucky and winning all their dice rolls to come away with a killer class. Tip your hat. They'll probably have to deal with the same EE squeeze you feel now. It's a strategy they chose to pursue, and I think they should be allowed to experience the consequence, which is an increased risk of losing those commodities without having the resources to replace them directly when they do.

EEs for sure suck right now. my Arizona team in Smith is going to get gutted by EEs this season.

i truly think this problem will diminish, at least somewhat, as we fully transition from HD2 recruits to HD3 recruits. we have a couple more seasons before that turnover is complete. it may still be a big enough issue where WIS needs to make an adjustment--that remains to be seen. but i do understand seble's position (as I understood it) that we need to let this shake out before making what could be a hasty change.

So far, I have been able to replace most of my EEs, which has been kind of surprising. I knew they were likely, and went pretty hard after late signers throughout the first cycle, so that when the second cycle came around, I had a good position on them. The replacements were not as good as they would have probably been in 2.0, but they were very solid players that will develop into the quality of player I lost by the 3rd or 4th year. but they will probably also stay all 4 years. I do think it would be nice to have them declare earlier in the year - maybe midway through session 1.

This problem exists because of several flaws in the system. I actually like the realism of EEs and do not think that they should be disclosed at an unrealistic, early time in the year. But it is way too hard to replace an EE with a serviceable player. A scholly offer from a high-prestige team should trump a large amount of effort from bottom-feeder teams, and players get signed too quickly in session 2.

But even aside from the pure recruiting-system problems, this would not be as big of a deal if you could legitimately play with an 8-man rotation, which is eminently doable in real life. Or if there were more realistic roster sizes/compositions---not just the very-common 10 scholarship players at any one time. One should not have to take walk-ons in order to have enough recruiting budget to compete with the big boys.

One thing that they might be able to do is this .. for teams with an EE, automatically unlock all players recruiting actions in Division-I at the beginning of Recruiting Session 2 (if you had an EE only).

But also remember that Division 1 teams do get that done (all actions unlocked) on all recruits in the last 24 hours of Session 2 .. so you can try to spend money on the last day even if you have not unlocked the players.

Spud, you simply have no idea how the game is played at D1. 0-7 in your third year on a D1 team. Quit trolling the threads. I have no idea how you still have posting rights in this game.

Spud, you were doing so good at not being rude to others. Don't ruin it now.

Posted by jcfreder on 10/19/2016 11:48:00 AM (view original):
This problem exists because of several flaws in the system. I actually like the realism of EEs and do not think that they should be disclosed at an unrealistic, early time in the year. But it is way too hard to replace an EE with a serviceable player. A scholly offer from a high-prestige team should trump a large amount of effort from bottom-feeder teams, and players get signed too quickly in session 2.

But even aside from the pure recruiting-system problems, this would not be as big of a deal if you could legitimately play with an 8-man rotation, which is eminently doable in real life. Or if there were more realistic roster sizes/compositions---not just the very-common 10 scholarship players at any one time. One should not have to take walk-ons in order to have enough recruiting budget to compete with the big boys.

I agree with much of this, but keep in mind, when the recent updates to player preferences go into effect - presumably the next time a world rolls over and new recruits are generated - there will be more players with more intelligent preferences, appropriate to their status. Fewer top players preferring rebuilds, more top players wanting success and strong conferences. This should function to move the needle back to prestige on those elite recruits.

I still think more elite recruits should want to wait until the late period to sign, to let early entries shake out. I've been arguing this from day 1 of beta. I hope they come around to tweaking that eventually, as well.

Posted by pkoopman on 10/19/2016 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jcfreder on 10/19/2016 11:48:00 AM (view original):
This problem exists because of several flaws in the system. I actually like the realism of EEs and do not think that they should be disclosed at an unrealistic, early time in the year. But it is way too hard to replace an EE with a serviceable player. A scholly offer from a high-prestige team should trump a large amount of effort from bottom-feeder teams, and players get signed too quickly in session 2.

But even aside from the pure recruiting-system problems, this would not be as big of a deal if you could legitimately play with an 8-man rotation, which is eminently doable in real life. Or if there were more realistic roster sizes/compositions---not just the very-common 10 scholarship players at any one time. One should not have to take walk-ons in order to have enough recruiting budget to compete with the big boys.

I agree with much of this, but keep in mind, when the recent updates to player preferences go into effect - presumably the next time a world rolls over and new recruits are generated - there will be more players with more intelligent preferences, appropriate to their status. Fewer top players preferring rebuilds, more top players wanting success and strong conferences. This should function to move the needle back to prestige on those elite recruits.

I still think more elite recruits should want to wait until the late period to sign, to let early entries shake out. I've been arguing this from day 1 of beta. I hope they come around to tweaking that eventually, as well.

I agree with more elite players than the average wanting to wait until the 2nd signing period as well. This along with opening all recruiting actions to anyone who lost an EE at the beginning of the 2nd Session should come close to fixing EEs.