Posted by CoachSpud on 10/26/2016 8:13:00 PM (view original):

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.

Spud .. SOMETHING is taken away from them. 20 turns of 20 APs is taken away. Surely you can see that the opening is not showing up at the beginning of recruiting, right?

That means, you expect that coach with 2 regular and has 2 EEs go to somehow recruit for 4 spots with resources for 2 players.

I would go all in on 2 guys initially with APs, unlock recruiting actions and recruit them and then find some 'signing late' guys who I like and put some APs on them as well.

But you can not make up for those lost APs .. and you should not have to make up for them. Giving the APs retroactively back to the beginning of the recruiting year makes perfect sense and is absolutely fair.

If they did that, and if they added in one or two more days to the 2nd session recruiting, there would be (IMHO) no real issue with EEs.

And I do understand that there would be a trickle down effect on those extra APs .. in that some current guys will shift to the EE team, those D1 teams will have to take some guys from D2 and D3 coaches .. and some of the D2 coaches will then take some D3 coaches D1 or D2 recruits. But that's how it should be.

There won't be as many ees by team now, it makes 3.0 more realistic but to me there is still no reason not to fix that ees problem. Make it fair, have them declare first session.

hughesjr, I don't often disagree with you, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. That windfall of AP's at the start of the second period, a critical time, would totally and unfairly disrupt recruiting for a lot of coaches who never had the advantage of having an EE-caliber player on their team and who did nothing wrong. If you imagine that having had such a player is somehow deserving of more gifts, this isn't the way to do it.

Posted by CoachSpud on 10/27/2016 10:16:00 AM (view original):
hughesjr, I don't often disagree with you, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. That windfall of AP's at the start of the second period, a critical time, would totally and unfairly disrupt recruiting for a lot of coaches who never had the advantage of having an EE-caliber player on their team and who did nothing wrong. If you imagine that having had such a player is somehow deserving of more gifts, this isn't the way to do it.

Not more gifts .. the SAME gifts :)

You are saying they should have less resources per opening.

Posted by CoachSpud on 10/27/2016 10:16:00 AM (view original):
hughesjr, I don't often disagree with you, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. That windfall of AP's at the start of the second period, a critical time, would totally and unfairly disrupt recruiting for a lot of coaches who never had the advantage of having an EE-caliber player on their team and who did nothing wrong. If you imagine that having had such a player is somehow deserving of more gifts, this isn't the way to do it.

Agree that adding extra APs at the start of the 2nd period would be unfair to the teams already on late signers.

As many others have said, one of the most fair ways is to have them declare early so that everyone has an equal amount of resources to replace empty roster spots.

Posted by mullycj on 10/27/2016 10:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 10/27/2016 10:16:00 AM (view original):
hughesjr, I don't often disagree with you, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. That windfall of AP's at the start of the second period, a critical time, would totally and unfairly disrupt recruiting for a lot of coaches who never had the advantage of having an EE-caliber player on their team and who did nothing wrong. If you imagine that having had such a player is somehow deserving of more gifts, this isn't the way to do it.

Agree that adding extra APs at the start of the 2nd period would be unfair to the teams already on late signers.

As many others have said, one of the most fair ways is to have them declare early so that everyone has an equal amount of resources to replace empty roster spots.

+1 Exactly. A team knows anyways. Calipari knew Anthony Davis, Nerlens Noel etc, would leave after one season... He knows, so he prepares... Or he wouldn't be successful. Imagine, you declared! God NO! I wasn't aware I would need a PG... Dang, no more time to recruit... My deadline has passed. He would get fired.

"Not more gifts .. the SAME gifts :)
You are saying they should have less resources per opening."

If you think that you misread my posts. I am saying that they should have the same resources per opening that everyone else has. No sudden windfall to disrupt otherwise orderly recruiting at its most critical juncture.

"... have them declare early so that everyone has an equal amount of resources to replace empty roster spots" isn't a bad idea, and it avoids any sudden, disruptive windfall. It is substantially better than disrupting recruiting.

Retroactively assigning attention points is counterintuitive and artificial/unrealistic. Having them declare in the middle of the season is also unrealistic, and annihilates the risk/reward dichotomy that should be driving the gameplay strategy at this level.

If there is a problem, it should be dealt with primarily through player preferences. Have more 4-5 star players (who will comprise the bulk of future early entry candidates) want to decide late. And institute a diminishing returns principle on attention points for top level players. Elite prospects don't need you in their space all the time, dating their mothers. They want to know if they're going to have a chance for glory (prestige), championships (success), and if you will focus on them in the game (promises).

To that end, the way the system *should* work for teams with multiple expected EEs is that they should be able to pinpoint late signees (who should comprise the vast majority of 4-5 star recruits), actively recruit them with attention points, unlocking scholarships and promises, and offering them as appropriate, to as many prospects as they feel they will need. Then when they get the resources for the early entries, try to blow the roof off with max HV/CV effort in that first late signing period.

To the extent that this is not quite reality yet in 3.0, I do think some tweaks are in order. As I said, increase the number of 4-5 star players with the late preference (one of the last updates addressed part of this by having more of those players want success and conference strength, which was a step in the right direction). Then institute a no-signing period (at least for late signees) so that they don't sign with a team before teams with early entries can max effort.

And reduce the effect of excess attention, especially for top level recruits. Intuitively, if your program is sub-par (or doesn't match up well with his preferences, anyway) more attention to a top recruit should be a negative, not a positive. Get out of my face with that crap. For top recruits, credit should be heavily weighted toward promises, preferences, and prestige.

Crum recruiting period 1 has 2 more cycles.

30 of the 35 5-star recruits have already signed.
28 of the 35 4-star recruits have already signed.

So tweaks to the preferences for late signing are really needed. And reducing the affect of APs for recruiting makes tons of sense. APs could be just for unlocking recruiting actions, making HV/CV/promises/Etc the only things that affect interest.

I don't understand why people here feel that someone should be punished for having success. Yes it's a risk that someone loses an elite player that a coach must accept, but then does not mean he should be put at a disadvantaged position in replacing that EE. The penalty is already inherent in the fact that you are losing the elite player before his final year meaning you did not get full value from the player. A coach should not have to be afraid to have success.

Posted by poncho0091 on 10/27/2016 8:04:00 PM (view original):
I don't understand why people here feel that someone should be punished for having success. Yes it's a risk that someone loses an elite player that a coach must accept, but then does not mean he should be put at a disadvantaged position in replacing that EE. The penalty is already inherent in the fact that you are losing the elite player before his final year meaning you did not get full value from the player. A coach should not have to be afraid to have success.

The people who feel that way are the heavy minority. He just happens to be very vocal.

"Then institute a no-signing period (at least for late signees) so that they don't sign with a team before teams with early entries can max effort."
That would have the same disruptive affect as the AP windfall.

"I don't understand why people here feel that someone should be punished for having success."
I haven't seen anyone suggest that. Are you sure you understood?

I don't understand why people are so afraid to accept the risk inherent in signing a player who might eventually go EE. No, on second thought, I do understand that.

"That would have the same disruptive affect as the AP windfall."

Not really the same effect. And it's not about disruption, it's about building a system that intuitively simulates real life in a way that is fun to play. Retroactively giving people a bunch of extra minutes to spend in order to make up for preferences that are out of whack, and a system that doesn't work exactly as intended is a very inelegant solution. Have more high level players prefer to sign late, and have late *actually* mean late, not the first cycle, before any teams with early entries have been able to put in their intended effort (which is precisely the reason there is a late session, and why some players prefer it).

Spud, there is also an inherent risk of shooting for a player above your head, right? Do you accept that risk? If so, why not accept it for one more cycle, to let the system work the way it was actually intended to work?

"Spud, there is also an inherent risk of shooting for a player above your head, right? Do you accept that risk?
[Of course.]
If so, why not accept it for one more cycle, to let the system work the way it was actually intended to work?"

Because I accept it as a natural part of the organic recruiting process. However, the windfall merely exacerbates the arbitrary, artificial red light that Seble put in. Seble's red light is the antithesis of natural and organic. And accentuating the red light by giving it extra period or two while D1 coaches spend their windfall is a backwards step, not an improvement. Calling it an inelegant solution is kinder than it deserves.

BTW, your suggestion "If there is a problem, it should be dealt with primarily through player preferences. Have more 4-5 star players (who will comprise the bulk of future early entry candidates) want to decide late" is a good one. It would be an organic solution and not disruptive.

I'd love to hear Spudhole's definition of an "organic recruiting process".

....................on second thought...no I wouldn't. Easy to talk about EE penalties when you know you will never have one.

(BTW Spudhole trolling count now up to 76 posts/season)