Posted by CoachSpud on 1/11/2017 1:02:00 AM (view original):
HD 3.0, poncho ... HD 3.0. It hasn't been "a few seasons" of 3.0 in any world yet.

Last I looked, most 2-a-day worlds have almost completed 4 recruiting seasons under the new HD 3.0 model, so I'm guessing your definition of "few" is more than the dictionary definition of that word (that or "any" isn't correct usage either).

yeah, spud, what's your definition of "a few" if not 3+?

by the way I checked this morning before the last cycle ran, and just over half of the "Late" recruits in my recruit pool had signed already. unless my experience is atypical, this means about 50% of "Late" preference recruits are signing in the first two cycles of the second session. about 3/4 of of "Whatever" preference players had also already signed. I wish I had checked for this information at the first cycle of Session 2 as well but alas. in any case, clearly even the "Late" preference players are total gambles for coaches that need to open new players from scratch in Session 2, for whatever reason (team change, surprise EE, etc).

Are EE more spread out now or are individual teams still suffering from 3-5 a season?

Posted by bathtubhippo on 1/11/2017 9:25:00 AM (view original):
yeah, spud, what's your definition of "a few" if not 3+?

by the way I checked this morning before the last cycle ran, and just over half of the "Late" recruits in my recruit pool had signed already. unless my experience is atypical, this means about 50% of "Late" preference recruits are signing in the first two cycles of the second session. about 3/4 of of "Whatever" preference players had also already signed. I wish I had checked for this information at the first cycle of Session 2 as well but alas. in any case, clearly even the "Late" preference players are total gambles for coaches that need to open new players from scratch in Session 2, for whatever reason (team change, surprise EE, etc).

In Tark, I have that 44 out of 61 guys with Late preference and a qualifying offer have signed after 3 cycles of 2nd session.

I'm actually on one of those late guys so I'm getting shafted here!! SOB needs to sign!

For real though, I'm a D2 and very close to signing a 4 star against a Sim. He actually isn't good but wanted to see if I could get him. I was VH to moderate after 1 cycle. VH to H after 2 cycles. VH to VH after 3 cycles. He's gaining on me.

Unless I'm reading it wrong, you had 4 in S90 and 1 in S91. I expect that's what I'd see on most teams.

Edit: AZ team.

sure, it will probably be less of an issue as we go in HD3, but that's not the point i am addressing with that data. what i'm presently concerned with is that the majority of "Late" preference guys are still signing too early. one of the retorts to people citing EEs or coaching switches as an issue is that they should target "Late" preference guys, that the solution to this issue is really already built in. but if the "Late" guys mostly sign right away in Session 2, this point doesn't hold a lot of water.

plus, having the "Late" guys sign deeper into Session 2 will foster more competition and reduce the amount of dead time in session 2.

I was just commenting on your response to spud. Like it or not, EE will be less of a problem because the talent will spread out. He and I have been saying that for two months(he might have been saying it earlier for all I know).

Late signees signing early in RS2 is a problem. I don't think that's an EE problem though. That's a signing logic problem.

agree, it is. but it's a signing logic problem that will help further dispel the EE complaints.

Yeah, it is. I'm not an "EE whiner" sympathizer, obviously, but they are starting behind, justifiably so IMO, but this is another handicap. It's one thing to tell Alabama football that they can only play D in the first half but it's another to say "Yeah, I think we're only going to let you use 9 offensive players in the 2nd half."

You've yammered on about back-up plans and, if I'm not mistaken, the best way to form one is to drop a few AP in RS1 on "late" signees. If they're going away early in RS2, that's just too much. And I have no reason to suspect anyone is lying about them signing early.

I'm pretty sure my argument, whether I'm using that or not, has merit. As I said, you've yammered on about "Have back-up plan" since I joined the site. If dropping a few AP on "late" recruits isn't the answer for "have a back-up plan", do tell what it is.

If it's something retarded like "Put 5 AP on 50 recruits", save it or, better yet, use it when you get to D1.

Posted by CoachSpud on 1/11/2017 2:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/11/2017 10:41:00 AM (view original):
I was just commenting on your response to spud. Like it or not, EE will be less of a problem because the talent will spread out. He and I have been saying that for two months(he might have been saying it earlier for all I know).

Late signees signing early in RS2 is a problem. I don't think that's an EE problem though. That's a signing logic problem.

"Late" signees sign 0% in recruiting period 1 and 100% in recruiting period 2. That's what "late" means in the context of this game. This is not a "problem."

mike's point totally has merit, which is why i posted some data to support it.

spud's argument is basically predicated on the current iteration of HD being perfect and infallible, which is ridiculous.

It saddens me that I've been thrown in with you. If I'm asked a question, I'll answer it. You pick and choose partial posts and respond. It's hard to be a coward on the internet but you're proving it can be done.

Congrats?