I don't know if this has been brought up at all on the forums but wouldn't one very easy fix to people's complaints about EEs be to adjust the distribution so that more recruits have their signing preference be late. I would say roughly half of recruits should be generated as late signers instead of the current quarter.

I've been saying this since even before beta started. Most starred recruits should be open to receiving effort from teams who will have early entries (i.e., high prestige teams). I think 40% whenever and 40% late is about right - not for all recruits, but for the top 100 for sure, and maybe even among all starred recruits. It should be uncommon for elite recruits to not even be able to seriously consider effort from elite teams.

That is not a complete fix as the teams that lose EE do not have adequate resources to develop options. That is, the resources (budget & 20 AP / recruit) are not made available until the start of period #2. Even with the change that you suggest, and even with the assumption that the EE is completely foreseeable, those coaches would be starting from way behind.

Now, if WIS has decided that D1 should be pretty much a flat earth, then fine, but teams that lose EE are not effectively able to "plan" to replace when they are competing against D2 teams in a race to unlock actions on those "whenever" & "late" recruits while the risk grows with each cycle that they jump down to D2 or even D3 very late.

The fact, that has been beaten to death on the forums, is that that an OVR ranked recruit should have an enormous preference for playing in D1. So much so, that rejecting D3 effort outright is necessary and rejecting D2 effort until the 2nd cycle is a good option. That would save D2 schools from wasting effort, but it would also ensure a pool of somewhat decent talent for those D1 schools that cannot find adequate replacements. At least that way, the race would be on an even footing.

I've suggested that last paragraph several times. It gets no footing.

"The fact, that has been beaten to death on the forums, is that that an OVR ranked recruit should have an enormous preference for playing in D1. So much so, that rejecting D3 effort outright is necessary and rejecting D2 effort until the 2nd cycle is a good option. That would save D2 schools from wasting effort, but it would also ensure a pool of somewhat decent talent for those D1 schools that cannot find adequate replacements. At least that way, the race would be on an even footing."
-Rogelio (nice 1,000th post)

+180000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/4/2017 5:55:00 PM (view original):
I've suggested that last paragraph several times. It gets no footing.

It was suggested a hundred times in Beta but a few potatoes didn't like it so instead Seble gave us the Red Light.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/4/2017 5:55:00 PM (view original):
I've suggested that last paragraph several times. It gets no footing.

+1

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/4/2017 5:55:00 PM (view original):
I've suggested that last paragraph several times. It gets no footing.

+1

Posted by CoachSpud on 1/4/2017 8:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by illini326 on 1/4/2017 3:32:00 PM (view original):
I don't know if this has been brought up at all on the forums but wouldn't one very easy fix to people's complaints about EEs be to adjust the distribution so that more recruits have their signing preference be late. I would say roughly half of recruits should be generated as late signers instead of the current quarter.

That is an insightful OP, whether by design or accidentally. It reads "...fix to people's complaints about EEs..." It is indeed the incessant cacophony of complaints that needs fixing. The matter of EE's will iron itself out as the clustering of EE's in a handful of teams naturally abates. The complaints can be expected to continue no matter what WIS does. Hopefully WIS will stay the course so the matter can naturally iron itself out.

It would also be useful if WIS would take some time to remind everyone that enjoying the superior performance of an eventual EE performer for one to several seasons is one side of the coin, and replacing him is merely the other side of the coin. There can be no harm in WIS helping its customers develop a deeper understanding of the game that way. Heads up, WIS!

and of course the question is HOW difficult replacing should be - there is no a priori reason that any particular degree of difficulty is the right one. One could wish that WIS might carefully consider the right degree of difficulty. The beta was a limited and artificial test - conducted in an unrealistic - for the game - environment. Seble rejected various ideas to adjust the degree of difficulty.

Perhaps the balance onto which Seble stumbled is the right balance as Spud believes. Or perhaps ideas such as the one illini and Mike talk about would make sense.

Seble is gone, the balance appears set. WIS said in October (?) that they were working to alter the timing of EE notification? action? maybe that will happen.

But there is no evidence that the current balance is the right balance - nor could there be - its a judgment call.

"Perhaps the balance onto which Seble stumbled is the right balance as Spud believes."

When are people going to learn not to try to put words into my mouth? I believe that over the next couple of seasons we will see how it rolls out and speculation won't be necessary. Give the game a chance to tell us. Yeah, it could tell us that it doesn't need change ... or it might become evident that a tweak will help the game overall (the only appropriate yardstick). All the current hysteria is simply misplaced.

prior post by Spud:

complaints are the problem

matter will iron itself out as clustering of EEs abates

WIS should stay the course

difficulty of replacing EE is the other side of the coin of the benefit of EEs

Spud new position:

need a couple more seasons to see what is the right balance

progress - well done Spud, you are moving slowly toward enlightenment.

Posted by Benis on 1/4/2017 9:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/4/2017 5:55:00 PM (view original):
I've suggested that last paragraph several times. It gets no footing.

It was suggested a hundred times in Beta but a few potatoes didn't like it so instead Seble gave us the Red Light.

As you know, I don't really care how hard replacing EE is. My opinion may change when I get deep enough into the game to get an EE but, right now, my concern is wasted effort from D2/D3 so that D1 with EE can swoop in late and nab a recruit thus culminating in wasted resources from the lower level.

Having some D1 prospects decline AP from D2 or D3 solves that problem. D1 has a bigger pool and D2/D3 won't be wasting prospects on players they will likely lose.

I know WifS has the technology. It's in HBD coach hiring. Offer a BL coach a AAA job and he'll call you names while threatening to kill your pets. No reason that can't be programmed into HD.

Now another, more complicated idea, and I have no idea how to make it fit within the current schedule, would be to have overlapping recruiting periods.

P1 - D1 session 1
P2 - D1 session 2, D2 session 1
P3 - D2 session 2, D3 session 1
P4 - D3 session 2

It would certainly ensure that the best players would be signed. It would allow the higher level to recruit secondary players with their advantage of being higher level. And would limit, but not eliminate, the potential of wasted resources by lower level schools.

^^^^^^
Could be as simple as staggering start times in each division. Of course, that's not a programmer talking.