Since you chose to bring me into the conversation, "We can craft 150 different compromise solutions, but, at the end of the day, they don't work. If the goal is to provide some sort of "EE welfare" (TM) for having talent that goes early" then sense of entitlement wins, the game loses, and the crybabies won't even have a clue why that happened. The best bet is to acknowledge that having superior talent for even one or two seasons is not a "problem" requiring any welfare. WIS has it right, watch a few seasons and respond if necessary with a reasonable tweak, not jump the gun to appease the complainers.

"maybe - and I say maybe because he is just that painful -- allow Spud to win a NT game. "

hahaha

Posted by CoachSpud on 10/25/2016 4:26:00 PM (view original):
Since you chose to bring me into the conversation, "We can craft 150 different compromise solutions, but, at the end of the day, they don't work. If the goal is to provide some sort of "EE welfare" (TM) for having talent that goes early" then sense of entitlement wins, the game loses, and the crybabies won't even have a clue why that happened. The best bet is to acknowledge that having superior talent for even one or two seasons is not a "problem" requiring any welfare. WIS has it right, watch a few seasons and respond if necessary with a reasonable tweak, not jump the gun to appease the complainers.

All the EE schools want is equal resources. You get ~900 APs for a regular opening and only ~300 APs for an EE.

Who is getting 'welfare' in this situation? I'd say it's the schools without early entries who need the imbalance in APs to compete with the EE schools.

Posted by CoachSpud on 10/25/2016 4:26:00 PM (view original):
Since you chose to bring me into the conversation, "We can craft 150 different compromise solutions, but, at the end of the day, they don't work. If the goal is to provide some sort of "EE welfare" (TM) for having talent that goes early" then sense of entitlement wins, the game loses, and the crybabies won't even have a clue why that happened. The best bet is to acknowledge that having superior talent for even one or two seasons is not a "problem" requiring any welfare. WIS has it right, watch a few seasons and respond if necessary with a reasonable tweak, not jump the gun to appease the complainers.

All seble did during beta was jump the gun to respond to misguided user preferences. The only reason he didn't jump the gun to fix EEs is because the game he built couldn't easily fix it.

Yeah realistically, based on what I know about programming, switching when EEs declare might not be so easy.

Giving credit based on the big board is HARD.

That leaves us with d?oing something complicated game wise, but simple programming wise OR eliminating multiple EEs which would be easy programming-wise.

" All the EE schools want is equal resources. "

If that were true, there would be no debate. The debate is whether special treatment should be given teams who have such a great player playing for them that they leave for the NBA early ... and if so, what special treatment.

3.0 sux done . not spending more $ on this recruiting makes no sense . wish I had not bought extra seasons . do not like it at all

Posted by hughesjr on 10/24/2016 12:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by chapelhillne on 10/24/2016 11:57:00 AM (view original):
I have another thought about EEs that came to me last night.

Let's say you recruit a 5 star guy that will turn pro after his sophomore year. You get two years of productivity out of him. However, for much of the two years, his IQ is low.

Compare that to a guy that starts out at 600, but has very high potential and a good WE. He will probably stay for 4 years, and he will also be very productive over at least his final two seasons. But those two seasons should be MORE productive than the EE guy because the second player will be playing his "star" years with a high IQ.

Something to consider. You still want to hope he gets drafted after his senior year for the prestige bump, so I suppose that's the downside.

Not to compare HD to real life .. but this is the same issue that faces them as well. Do I take a really great guy for one year or someone not quite as good for 2 or 3.

Both strategies work. Duke and Kentucky do great every year with 'get the best guys even if they are one and done'. Other teams like Wichita State and VCU make it to elite 8's with guys who might not even get drafted.

I always take the best I can .. they might just stay :D

Not just VCU and Wichita but also MsU and Wisconsin. Bo brought in white, unathletic, 3 star guys with buzzcuts and suddenly they blossom and turn into Frank Kaminsky, Bronson Koening, and Nigel Hays (ok he was one of two players in the past ten years that was not white or unathletic). MSU consistently wins with Keith Appling's or Kalin Lucas's, guys who are 4-star recruits who stay and perform well for 4 years but are too small or slow or whatever for the NBA.

Posted by CoachSpud on 10/25/2016 4:26:00 PM (view original):
Since you chose to bring me into the conversation, "We can craft 150 different compromise solutions, but, at the end of the day, they don't work. If the goal is to provide some sort of "EE welfare" (TM) for having talent that goes early" then sense of entitlement wins, the game loses, and the crybabies won't even have a clue why that happened. The best bet is to acknowledge that having superior talent for even one or two seasons is not a "problem" requiring any welfare. WIS has it right, watch a few seasons and respond if necessary with a reasonable tweak, not jump the gun to appease the complainers.

Spud, you are confusing sense of entitlement with learning the game so you can actually be good. The true sense of entitlement comes from the people who want to be good, but aren't willing to learn the game like everyone else. That would be guys who I won't name who after 4 seasons in the game believe they should be on the same level as someone who spent 10 years through trial and error to get where they are.

What these guys wanted was a clean slate to accommodate the fact that they joined the game later than others. That's a sense of entitlement if I ever saw one.

poncho, you and Ward make almost equal sense. I know you're both trying, but so far ... not so good.

Posted by reinsel on 10/25/2016 10:45:00 PM (view original):
Yeah realistically, based on what I know about programming, switching when EEs declare might not be so easy.

Giving credit based on the big board is HARD.

That leaves us with d?oing something complicated game wise, but simple programming wise OR eliminating multiple EEs which would be easy programming-wise.

Well as a programmer, I can say that it should be fairly easy to move when the guys declare. Seble just didn't want the subsequent player growth/tourney results not to factor into that decision is all.

One other thing WIS could do which still isn't ideal is to give the EE school a one-time infusion of large quantity of AP (i.e. same amount you would of gotten over the entire first period) ex. X AP per EE which would could assign at the start of the 2nd session. That would at least let the coach open up things after the first cycle assuming they didn't sign immediately.

" One other thing WIS could do which still isn't ideal is to give the EE school a one-time infusion of large quantity of AP (i.e. same amount you would of gotten over the entire first period) ex. X AP per EE which would could assign at the start of the 2nd session. That would at least let the coach open up things after the first cycle assuming they didn't sign immediately. "

I believe recruiting process should lead to success based on the merits of the recruiting efforts of the various coaches -- all of the coaches. Your suggestion gives a windfall to one coach without regard to the merits of his recruiting efforts, and crushes any coach who made meritorious efforts on any recruit that the EE coach uses his windfall on. Thus, meritorious efforts are defeated by your arbitrary windfall.

Posted by CoachSpud on 10/26/2016 12:28:00 PM (view original):
" One other thing WIS could do which still isn't ideal is to give the EE school a one-time infusion of large quantity of AP (i.e. same amount you would of gotten over the entire first period) ex. X AP per EE which would could assign at the start of the 2nd session. That would at least let the coach open up things after the first cycle assuming they didn't sign immediately. "

I believe recruiting process should lead to success based on the merits of the recruiting efforts of the various coaches -- all of the coaches. Your suggestion gives a windfall to one coach without regard to the merits of his recruiting efforts, and crushes any coach who made meritorious efforts on any recruit that the EE coach uses his windfall on. Thus, meritorious efforts are defeated by your arbitrary windfall.

I disagree. It is giving them credit for their great recruiting in a previous year, when they signed a guy who became an EE.

AND .. you are NOT giving them anything they didn't earn. What hippo is staying is .. you had an EE declare, you found that out at the beginning of Session 2. Well, there were X (maybe 20) turns in session 1 where you did not get any APs for this guy, so we will give you those 20x20=400 APs and you can use them however you want since you did not get them in session 1.

That makes sense to me .. the EE guy IS LEAVING .. if he had been a senior, you would have gotten 400 APs .. if he is an EE, you should get those 400 APs too.

Posted by hughesjr on 10/26/2016 1:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 10/26/2016 12:28:00 PM (view original):
" One other thing WIS could do which still isn't ideal is to give the EE school a one-time infusion of large quantity of AP (i.e. same amount you would of gotten over the entire first period) ex. X AP per EE which would could assign at the start of the 2nd session. That would at least let the coach open up things after the first cycle assuming they didn't sign immediately. "

I believe recruiting process should lead to success based on the merits of the recruiting efforts of the various coaches -- all of the coaches. Your suggestion gives a windfall to one coach without regard to the merits of his recruiting efforts, and crushes any coach who made meritorious efforts on any recruit that the EE coach uses his windfall on. Thus, meritorious efforts are defeated by your arbitrary windfall.

I disagree. It is giving them credit for their great recruiting in a previous year, when they signed a guy who became an EE.

AND .. you are NOT giving them anything they didn't earn. What hippo is staying is .. you had an EE declare, you found that out at the beginning of Session 2. Well, there were X (maybe 20) turns in session 1 where you did not get any APs for this guy, so we will give you those 20x20=400 APs and you can use them however you want since you did not get them in session 1.

That makes sense to me .. the EE guy IS LEAVING .. if he had been a senior, you would have gotten 400 APs .. if he is an EE, you should get those 400 APs too.

They already got tangible credit for their recruiting in a previous year, in the form of superior performance by a superior player. No need to double up.

Whether or not you should get a windfall of hundreds of AP's, it is unfair to the majority of coaches, making the second recruiting period nothing but a minefield for them. That is terrible for playability of HD. This sort of a windfall is NOT the solution to the EE situation (which you already know is NOT a "problem" IMHO anyway).

They already got tangible credit for their recruiting in a previous year, in the form of superior performance by a superior player. No need to double up.

You keep talking about superior player and you know what, it doesn't play out that way.

School A recruits some 4 star player, School B recruits a similar 4 star player. Coach A however is a scrub who can't win any NT games and develops his players poorly. Coach B is a good coach and gets his player to improve. By their JR seasons somehow they are both on the big board but guess what, Coach B player goes EE because he's actually competent in the NT while Coach A isn't.

So exactly what did Coach B do to deserve the penalty you so think he deserves? His player was better than Coach A's at the start? I think not. Maybe if all these EE players started out with elite ratings (not all do) and elite IQ (only JUCO's do), then I might see your point that these elite players are way superior over your regular recruits (whatever those are) but don't play it up so you think that EE players are superior to your normal D1 seniors.