Take from a 3.0 skeptic Topic

" ... don't play it up so you think that EE players are superior to your normal D1 seniors."

Because even normal D1 seniors are so good they're NBA-ready? So now we're going into denial to try to make it seem reasonable to indemnify coaches for their EE's? C'mon, guys, what is so hard about acknowledging this coin has two sides?
10/26/2016 3:45 PM
Posted by CoachSpud on 10/26/2016 1:40:00 PM (view original):
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).
How is it a Windfall of APs .. a GUY left the team and he got zero APs for 20 (or more) turns for that guy. APs are given on a per turn basis. Giving him exactly the same number of APs as someone else got whose senior is leaving is absolutely fair. You are not giving the EE coach anything that any other coach didn't get with their leaving player.

I am not saying to give them MORE APs than a person who has a senior leave, just give them the same amount.
10/26/2016 4:09 PM
Posted by CoachSpud on 10/26/2016 3:45:00 PM (view original):
" ... don't play it up so you think that EE players are superior to your normal D1 seniors."

Because even normal D1 seniors are so good they're NBA-ready? So now we're going into denial to try to make it seem reasonable to indemnify coaches for their EE's? C'mon, guys, what is so hard about acknowledging this coin has two sides?
Look, I'm not talking about the mid percentile guys here.

In any given recruiting class, there are anywhere between 20 to 40 recruits that will go EE. How about those guys who are lucky NOT to go EE but are still elite? Pick two four stars in the top 100 and you can likely get 1 which will go EE and 1 which will not. There is likely a *marginal* difference in the quality of those two players when they are recruited (or you can easily find 2 recruits which that is true for). In one case a coach (who's likely successful) is penalized and in an almost exact situation a coach is rewarded. That is what I call "crappy coach welfare"... gee I guess who would that apply to I wonder.

One will go EE and one will not. Why if I end up choosing the guy who does, I'm heavily penalized where the coach who picked the other guy doesn't get penalized at all (in fact according to you he got an NBA calibre player for all 4 seasons).

Point out where it says "Player X will EE" and I will make note of it when I recruit him. In fact, with the removal of scouting reports, I can't tell if any player won't go EE anymore in 3.0. At least if I could tell when I recruit him that he's in fact GOING to LEAVE at some point, then your argument of "You know what you're getting yourself into" holds some water.
10/26/2016 4:19 PM (edited)
budd - you are trying to explain this to a guy who's never even had a wet dream about an EE. As Benis said, leave the Spudtroll and his "background noise" alone and hopefully some day he may go away.
10/26/2016 4:26 PM
Posted by mullycj on 10/26/2016 4:26:00 PM (view original):
budd - you are trying to explain this to a guy who's never even had a wet dream about an EE. As Benis said, leave the Spudtroll and his "background noise" alone and hopefully some day he may go away.
My fear is that if the WIS developers don't here about our legitimate concerns about how EEs are being handled in 3.0, they'll think everything is fine and it all worked out on its own.

This continues to be the ONE biggest thing I see is flawed in 3.0 so far (I can adapt to almost everything else they've done and can live with it).
10/26/2016 4:32 PM
budd ~ you make excellent points and most everyone I think agrees with you.

One additional suggestion would be to change EE logic a bit. In Allen, Texas lost a Sophomore who became the 60th pick....dead last in the 2nd round. No way a sophomore comes out in that case. That's a totally different ballgame than how I lost a junior who was the leading scorer on the NT runner up. He went 3rd overall. That guy should leave every time.

And Spud doesn't realize (cause he hasn't been at high D1) that the EE guys and the non-EE guys are impossible to tell apart. All the 3, 4 and 5 star guys MIGHT go EE IF things break the right/wrong way. If it was obvious (like all 5 star guys leave after 2 years, all 4 star guys leave after 3 years) it might be reasonable to say thems the breaks, but it's not the case.
10/26/2016 4:45 PM (edited)
I'll respond to you guys who are trying, and the hater can go _ himself.

"In one case a coach (who's likely successful) is penalized and in an almost exact situation a coach is rewarded."
Except that there is neither a penalty nor a reward involved, just the same recruiting parameters for everyone. Yes, everyone. Base 20 AP's, 10 per opening. Same budgets. Special added resources for coaches who have an EE (I guess you could call that a "reward.") Everybody plays by the same rules.

"At least if I could tell when I recruit him that he's in fact GOING to LEAVE at some point ..."
And you DO have a good idea based on his ranking, as discussed at considerable length a few days ago in the forums. But certainty? Certainly not. I refer you back to koopman's very cogent posts about accepting the risk of recruiting the top guys. If you can't stand the risk, stay out of the kitchen.

"My fear is that if the WIS developers don't here about our legitimate concerns about how EEs are being handled in 3.0, they'll think everything is fine and it all worked out on its own."
And they have repeatedly said that they'll watch it and address it as needed. My fear is that rather than addressing it on its merits, they'll simply try to appease the complainers. As long as they address it on its merits, as needed, I think we'll be fine.

reinsel raises an interesting idea. Maybe WIS could consider that "dead last in the 2nd round. No way a sophomore comes out in that case" and improve the parameters of the probabilities of guys coming out.
10/26/2016 8:14 PM (edited)
Posted by mullycj on 10/26/2016 4:26:00 PM (view original):
budd - you are trying to explain this to a guy who's never even had a wet dream about an EE. As Benis said, leave the Spudtroll and his "background noise" alone and hopefully some day he may go away.
#nospudnovember is going awesome so far. Really enjoying it.

Btw budd- I think your posts are really insightful and you seem to have a really good grasp of the game and how it works. You see the big picture really well in my opinion. I noticed this during Beta. I agree with what you're saying regarding EEs. I've never had an EE so I can't say how exactly it does or doesn't work but what you say makes a lot of sense.

Here's my thing. It's hard to get a lot of really good players, right? Now with all the changes in the system, all of D1 is battling like crazy (or should be and I believe will be once we learn the system). So if you get several really good players it's not because you were gifted them or someone handed you candy, it's because you are a good recruiter. If you also then make deep tourney runs then you're a very good coach. Why should these things add up to being put at a disadvantage? Why should you be not be encouraged to make the best team you can possibly make?

Like you say, if you knew that the guy was a very high probability of leaving then yeah, you know what you're signing up for. Everyone KNEW Ben Simmons was a one and done. Not even a question about it. So yeah, taking him would be pretty transparent about the risk/reward. But if the big board is really that wonky, then it's a pretty silly system.
10/26/2016 6:38 PM
Why should you be not be encouraged to make the best team you can possibly make?

In HD 2.0, where you could literally have your entire roster filled with elite level talent, you are right that the whole purpose was to acquiring the absolute best talent possible. When you experienced EEs, what you lost was having the ability to put High IQ/Elite level talent which allowed you to compete for NCs year in year out (everything we all aspire to). When EEs did occur, at least you could replace him with a Low IQ non-developed elite players (which is what you started with in the first place). Mid-majors could get slightly inferior talent (assuming they could recruit well) which typically allowed them to compete by those players staying all 4 seasons.

In HD 3.0, the tables are now flipped completely around. They taken things from the elite schools (tourney cash, rollover, less-filled conferences), added other balances to boot (preferences, HV/CV caps) and made having EEs a lot worse than before (anyone arguing that EEs in 2.0 was worse needs their head examined).

When Ben Simmons signed for LSU, did you think whoever was the HC of LSU think for even one moment that he was going to stick around and that he didn't need to try to recruit a replacement before the ink was even dry on the LOI.... apparently in HD 3.0, we are led to believe that the 800 guy with 90 ATH, 90 SP, 90 DEF, 90 PER and showing up as #2 on the board is somehow going to miraculously decide to stay so don't bother to go out and look for a replacement until he shows up in his office after the tourney is over to surprise him that he's decided to go to the NBA...
10/26/2016 6:57 PM (edited)
"Why should these things add up to being put at a disadvantage?"

In short, they don't.

"Why should you be not be encouraged to make the best team you can possibly make?"

In short, you aren't, you're just being asked to accept the risks involved.
10/26/2016 7:02 PM (edited)
Posted by CoachSpud on 10/26/2016 7:02:00 PM (view original):
"Why should these things add up to being put at a disadvantage?"

In short, they don't.

"Why should you be not be encouraged to make the best team you can possibly make?"

In short, you aren't, you're just being asked to accept the risks involved.
I've always accepted the risks. I just think the penalty is absurdly high and vague (something like being pulled over for speeding in a car when they won't post the speed limit so you say go ride a bicycle instead to avoid getting a ticket).

I'll give your opinions more weight when you have 1/10th of the number of drafted players and/or NT wins. Until then, I'll file them away where I think they deserve to be...
10/26/2016 7:16 PM
Frosh or sophs, in reality seldom go pro, unless they are a lottery lock. And some will go cause of pressure and it ends up being a bad decision : Tyus Jones, the Harrisons to name a few. Others have to go pro cause a team can no longer hide their academic flaws. Just nake ees declare before first cycle, problem fixed
10/26/2016 7:24 PM
Posted by zorzii on 10/26/2016 7:24:00 PM (view original):
Frosh or sophs, in reality seldom go pro, unless they are a lottery lock. And some will go cause of pressure and it ends up being a bad decision : Tyus Jones, the Harrisons to name a few. Others have to go pro cause a team can no longer hide their academic flaws. Just nake ees declare before first cycle, problem fixed
I agree that would be a simple fix (and I suggested it in BETA months ago) putting us right back how EEs where handled in 2.0 (did anyone think how EEs worked back in 2.0 as being some type of issue?)
10/26/2016 7:32 PM
Posted by buddhagamer on 10/26/2016 7:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by CoachSpud on 10/26/2016 7:02:00 PM (view original):
"Why should these things add up to being put at a disadvantage?"

In short, they don't.

"Why should you be not be encouraged to make the best team you can possibly make?"

In short, you aren't, you're just being asked to accept the risks involved.
I've always accepted the risks. I just think the penalty is absurdly high and vague (something like being pulled over for speeding in a car when they won't post the speed limit so you say go ride a bicycle instead to avoid getting a ticket).

I'll give your opinions more weight when you have 1/10th of the number of drafted players and/or NT wins. Until then, I'll file them away where I think they deserve to be...
"I just think the imaginary penalty is absurdly high and vague ..." Fixed that for you. There is no penalty, nothing is taken away from you, no W's are stricken from your record, you are not stripped of any scholarships, nothing, nada.

You have never heard my opinions on this. All I have done is elucidate both sides of an argument. I'll give your opinions all the weight they deserve.
10/26/2016 8:13 PM
Posted by pkoopman on 10/24/2016 11:00:00 AM (view original):
Posted by lakevin on 10/24/2016 9:15:00 AM (view original):
OK, the cycle isn't over yet, but I'm coming around to like almost everything about the new system.

Consider me mostly convinced.

Early entries are still a massive problem -- I see people shying away from top talent because the penalty is so great. Which means you have folks walking to classes with multiple top-5 players because they are willing to trade away a season two years from now. Fix the EE problem now, please!
I'm glad you're coming around. IMO, it gets better each season.

I still disagree that EEs are a "massive problem". The trade off is exactly what I'd expect, given the nature of the commodity - I have to choose whether to go after the best of the best, and the realistic risk that comes with them, or going after safer, 4-year players; or striking some semblance of balance between the two.
This is one area that the game needs to resemble real life! Schools that put players into the NBA (EE) get top recruits back. They do not get crap back. If you simply have EE players announce to the Coach they are filing paperwork to leave, good Coaches will scout and make plans to replace them.

It has been mentioned and I like the idea, some of these players filing for EE stay. That will force top programs to rescend offers, cut players, or stop part two recruiting to stay at the 12 man limit.
10/27/2016 5:52 AM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4|5...7 Next ▸
Take from a 3.0 skeptic Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.