Surely you have something better to do than troll me. Go walk the dog or something. I don't give a rat's *** but you make the forums awful toxic for newcomers.
And I've already said what I mean by "organic recruiting process," more than once. If you weren't so busy trolling me with your hate messages and read something once in a while, you would know that.

Personally, I don't love the lump sum of APs at start of 2nd period but it's better than not do anything. I still think having them declare right before recruiting starts is the way to go.

Posted by Benis on 10/28/2016 5:47:00 AM (view original):
Personally, I don't love the lump sum of APs at start of 2nd period but it's better than not do anything. I still think having them declare right before recruiting starts is the way to go.

I agree with this.

Posted by CoachSpud on 10/27/2016 10:15:00 PM (view original):
"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'm not in favor of extra APs. I think I made that clear. So the term "windfall" doesn't apply to anything I wrote.

The only reason there is a 2nd session, and the only reason there are visible preferences for signing period, is so that teams with early entries can have their effort considered. If recruits who are set to sign "late" actually sign before teams with early entries can have their effort considered, then there is no point to having a late session at all.

Im not in favor eliminating EEs, or having them declare early, because those teams shouldn't have a perpetual advantage in recruiting that comes with having those extra scholarship resources available from the start every year. But neither should they be unduly punished. The system should work as originally intended, i.e. high prestige teams with early entries should be able to, with careful planning and execution, compete fairly for recruits that match their preferences.

Loser's Ball isn't any better than Winner's Ball.

I completely disagree. Teams with EEs already got punished by losing the player. The NT winners don't have many EEs the prior year just due to luck.

It's not "extra" resources.....its the resources that everyone gets for a scholarship opening. I don't see why it is a good game design to treat an EE opening different from a walkon opening or a graduating senior opening. If you want to talk about extra resources, why do people with seniors get extra resources vs. schools that filled their spots with a NBA draft picks?

In Crum, there are 2 owners who have probable EE's that have done an excellent job of lining up "Late" recruits as back up plans.
Great strategy on their part.

Posted by reinsel on 10/28/2016 11:41:00 AM (view original):
I completely disagree. Teams with EEs already got punished by losing the player. The NT winners don't have many EEs the prior year just due to luck.

It's not "extra" resources.....its the resources that everyone gets for a scholarship opening. I don't see why it is a good game design to treat an EE opening different from a walkon opening or a graduating senior opening. If you want to talk about extra resources, why do people with seniors get extra resources vs. schools that filled their spots with a NBA draft picks?

If we could take the "bidding" nature of recruiting out, which I have always advocated, then I'd agree with you. But since those scholarship resources are still king, in a commodity bidding game, it just doesn't work to "protect" those high level commodities. That's what the previous version did, and that's what giving teams full value for EEs from the start would do. It removes all risk from the equation, so there is no longer any volatility to the highest value commodities. In that environment, it is a version of winner's ball, where the best teams have a perpetual pipeline of the best players. That is not the foundation of a good competitive multi-player simulation.

I know people like to say that losing the player is "punishment", but it just doesn't hold. Losing the player isn't punishment, your team isn't worse off than it would have been had you never signed the player. Losing an early entry is a return to stasis. EEs are really just elite jucos, who have some variability in term.

As long as teams can plan for, and fairly compete *for recruits who match their preferences*, and as long as there are a fair and rational number of said recruits (the ones who want success and strong conferences, and will sign late) then EEs don't need any further gameplay attention. You shouldn't need those resources *early* to manage the process. We just need to make sure there are a rational number of elite recruits who would be interested in and available for late credit from teams with early entries.

Posted by pkoopman on 10/28/2016 2:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by reinsel on 10/28/2016 11:41:00 AM (view original):
I completely disagree. Teams with EEs already got punished by losing the player. The NT winners don't have many EEs the prior year just due to luck.

It's not "extra" resources.....its the resources that everyone gets for a scholarship opening. I don't see why it is a good game design to treat an EE opening different from a walkon opening or a graduating senior opening. If you want to talk about extra resources, why do people with seniors get extra resources vs. schools that filled their spots with a NBA draft picks?

If we could take the "bidding" nature of recruiting out, which I have always advocated, then I'd agree with you. But since those scholarship resources are still king, in a commodity bidding game, it just doesn't work to "protect" those high level commodities. That's what the previous version did, and that's what giving teams full value for EEs from the start would do. It removes all risk from the equation, so there is no longer any volatility to the highest value commodities. In that environment, it is a version of winner's ball, where the best teams have a perpetual pipeline of the best players. That is not the foundation of a good competitive multi-player simulation.

I know people like to say that losing the player is "punishment", but it just doesn't hold. Losing the player isn't punishment, your team isn't worse off than it would have been had you never signed the player. Losing an early entry is a return to stasis. EEs are really just elite jucos, who have some variability in term.

As long as teams can plan for, and fairly compete *for recruits who match their preferences*, and as long as there are a fair and rational number of said recruits (the ones who want success and strong conferences, and will sign late) then EEs don't need any further gameplay attention. You shouldn't need those resources *early* to manage the process. We just need to make sure there are a rational number of elite recruits who would be interested in and available for late credit from teams with early entries.

I would agree with your assessment except for the lost APs. Losing a whole 1st sessions worth of APs is a huge disadvantage.

If you don't like giving a bunch of APs when the guy leaves (and we are only talking the APs you would have earned if you had the opening in the first session) , then another option is when you have an EE , it unlocks all the recruiting action on all recruits.

The problem is . . It takes to long to unlock the recruiting actions unless you have more turns or more APs per turn.

It doesn't remove all risk. Its MUCH harder to get 5 star guys now, agree?

Therefore just competing for 5 stars in itself is the risk. You won after careful strategy and battling (and maybe luck). You took a risk going for that guy and not a 2 or 3 star.

And the preference argument thing is a poor argument. You're battling teams with the same preference prob. Strong conf, wants to play, team success, coach longevity. Some of the others... okay but those are some big ones that most good teams will have and they just changed it so more big time recruits will want success. So its not like you can get an advantage there.

Posted by Benis on 10/28/2016 3:12:00 PM (view original):
It doesn't remove all risk. Its MUCH harder to get 5 star guys now, agree?

Therefore just competing for 5 stars in itself is the risk. You won after careful strategy and battling (and maybe luck). You took a risk going for that guy and not a 2 or 3 star.

And the preference argument thing is a poor argument. You're battling teams with the same preference prob. Strong conf, wants to play, team success, coach longevity. Some of the others... okay but those are some big ones that most good teams will have and they just changed it so more big time recruits will want success. So its not like you can get an advantage there.

The "risk" of losing a battle is a given. I'm talking about the realistic "risk" of having to work to replace a valuable and volatile commodity. Having that risk inherent in the process is realistic, and helps to distribute commodities in a more competitive way. The biggest upside, from a gameplay perspective, is that strategy and planning get rewarded. Past success is still a factor, but not the primary determinant of future success.

Teams with multiple early entries do still have advantages. I just used them to get a recruit in Allen that I would not have had the resources to move above moderate on, if not for the early entry of the guy he will replace. And it's also a given that you have to compete with other coaches for the best commodities. It's part of what made 2.0 so ridiculous - so many top 100 players going to teams with little effort, and unchallenged for. Once people get fully accustomed with how 3.0 is designed, I think it should actually be pretty rare to see legit top 100 guys not get battled for. It's absurd to me to suggest that any team should have anything like a lock on the most valuable commodities.

Posted by hughesjr on 10/28/2016 2:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/28/2016 2:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by reinsel on 10/28/2016 11:41:00 AM (view original):
I completely disagree. Teams with EEs already got punished by losing the player. The NT winners don't have many EEs the prior year just due to luck.

It's not "extra" resources.....its the resources that everyone gets for a scholarship opening. I don't see why it is a good game design to treat an EE opening different from a walkon opening or a graduating senior opening. If you want to talk about extra resources, why do people with seniors get extra resources vs. schools that filled their spots with a NBA draft picks?

If we could take the "bidding" nature of recruiting out, which I have always advocated, then I'd agree with you. But since those scholarship resources are still king, in a commodity bidding game, it just doesn't work to "protect" those high level commodities. That's what the previous version did, and that's what giving teams full value for EEs from the start would do. It removes all risk from the equation, so there is no longer any volatility to the highest value commodities. In that environment, it is a version of winner's ball, where the best teams have a perpetual pipeline of the best players. That is not the foundation of a good competitive multi-player simulation.

I know people like to say that losing the player is "punishment", but it just doesn't hold. Losing the player isn't punishment, your team isn't worse off than it would have been had you never signed the player. Losing an early entry is a return to stasis. EEs are really just elite jucos, who have some variability in term.

As long as teams can plan for, and fairly compete *for recruits who match their preferences*, and as long as there are a fair and rational number of said recruits (the ones who want success and strong conferences, and will sign late) then EEs don't need any further gameplay attention. You shouldn't need those resources *early* to manage the process. We just need to make sure there are a rational number of elite recruits who would be interested in and available for late credit from teams with early entries.

I would agree with your assessment except for the lost APs. Losing a whole 1st sessions worth of APs is a huge disadvantage.

If you don't like giving a bunch of APs when the guy leaves (and we are only talking the APs you would have earned if you had the opening in the first session) , then another option is when you have an EE , it unlocks all the recruiting action on all recruits.

The problem is . . It takes to long to unlock the recruiting actions unless you have more turns or more APs per turn.

Well I have also said that APs should have diminishing returns. I dislike the idea that they can accumulate and offer an advantage to a team beyond unlocking the recruiting efforts. They should either be static - every coach has the same number of hours in the week - or they should have a sharp diminishing return effect after unlocking recruiting effort.

Posted by pkoopman on 10/28/2016 5:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/28/2016 3:12:00 PM (view original):
It doesn't remove all risk. Its MUCH harder to get 5 star guys now, agree?

Therefore just competing for 5 stars in itself is the risk. You won after careful strategy and battling (and maybe luck). You took a risk going for that guy and not a 2 or 3 star.

And the preference argument thing is a poor argument. You're battling teams with the same preference prob. Strong conf, wants to play, team success, coach longevity. Some of the others... okay but those are some big ones that most good teams will have and they just changed it so more big time recruits will want success. So its not like you can get an advantage there.

The "risk" of losing a battle is a given. I'm talking about the realistic "risk" of having to work to replace a valuable and volatile commodity. Having that risk inherent in the process is realistic, and helps to distribute commodities in a more competitive way. The biggest upside, from a gameplay perspective, is that strategy and planning get rewarded. Past success is still a factor, but not the primary determinant of future success.

Teams with multiple early entries do still have advantages. I just used them to get a recruit in Allen that I would not have had the resources to move above moderate on, if not for the early entry of the guy he will replace. And it's also a given that you have to compete with other coaches for the best commodities. It's part of what made 2.0 so ridiculous - so many top 100 players going to teams with little effort, and unchallenged for. Once people get fully accustomed with how 3.0 is designed, I think it should actually be pretty rare to see legit top 100 guys not get battled for. It's absurd to me to suggest that any team should have anything like a lock on the most valuable commodities.

I don't think anyone is going to have a lock on the best players with or without EE funds. That's not what anyone is arguing for. I just don't think it makes sense if I have 1 opening and then have an unexpected EE and be able to compete effectively for 2 players. You can plan all you want and strategize all you want, but the fact remains, you are at a huge disadvantage in this situation.

I guess my point is - Seble intended 3.0 to be more heavy on battles for top recruits. I think this is achieved in many ways already. However, with the EE thing, it makes people more risk averse and less likely to battle. If I have 2 Seniors and 2 guys on the big board, just the fact that they might leave will make me wary of going all in on a top player or even getting in to a battle with someone. I know that I could lose a coin flip or two and be really, really hurting if those 2 guys end up leaving early. Much more so than if I knew that I was losing 2 players and only 2 players that season.

Making coaches more risk averse is just counter to what was a major goal of the update in my opinion.

Posted by Benis on 10/28/2016 5:21:00 PM (view original):
I guess my point is - Seble intended 3.0 to be more heavy on battles for top recruits. I think this is achieved in many ways already. However, with the EE thing, it makes people more risk averse and less likely to battle. If I have 2 Seniors and 2 guys on the big board, just the fact that they might leave will make me wary of going all in on a top player or even getting in to a battle with someone. I know that I could lose a coin flip or two and be really, really hurting if those 2 guys end up leaving early. Much more so than if I knew that I was losing 2 players and only 2 players that season.

Making coaches more risk averse is just counter to what was a major goal of the update in my opinion.

To be clear, I do want to address problems with early entries. I just think there's a better way to do it that doesn't skew the risk/reward dichotomy toward all reward. Both strategies should be viable. You should be able to take the classic Duke approach of the 80s-90s of going after 4-year guys; and you should also be able to take riskier approaches to going after high-value commodities. But you shouldn't be protected from the risk.

Keep in mind, scholarship resources are still king here. Full-season resources for an extra 2 scholarships could mean being able to max effort on 2 more elite recruits early in the process.

There are are good ways to get those players on the line, and this process rewards strategy, not just longevity and past success. The rub is that there have to be a rational amount of elite players waiting until the late session, and they shouldn't be making decisions in the first cycle of the late session before teams with early entries can make their full pitch. When 80% of top 100 players are signing early, it's a problem.

Keep in mind, scholarship resources are still king here. Full-season resources for an extra 2 scholarships could mean being able to max effort on 2 more elite recruits early in the process.

At minimum distances, HV/CV are around $200/$400 so max effort cost is at minimum $4400. Since an opening @ D1 only gives you $3K per, you can't get 2 recruits of any kind with max effort invested in both (which for elite recruits are usually a costly battle).

With most late signing elite recruits being heavily invested by likely high prestige schools, getting 2 EEs likely only gets you a 50/50 chance to win a single recruit (in essence, for every 4 EES, you get to replace him with a similar starting player and taking 3 walk-ons).