I believe there is something amiss with the EE system the way it's currently constructed. Reading what Zorzii and some of the others have changed my mind to an extent. I do think that something should be done, but not all that have been mentioned. Either giving EE resources in the first cycle or if not that, restrict the signings of the second period a cycle or maybe two. But definitely not both. I think there should be some deterrent to loading up on top talent while lower tier schools fight for the scraps.

I do play at D3 exclusively. However, I wanted to move up to D1 from the start, but found the past system too weighted towards the power teams who, once a guy landed at them, camped out and gobbled up top talent like me at an all you can eat buffet. Also, for everyone who cried for realism, sending something like 80 plus home visits a cycle seemed way out of line. They still haven't addressed the hiring and firing process, so I'm biding my time until they've fixed it before moving up.

Posted by supersloth33 on 3/13/2017 6:01:00 PM (view original):
I believe there is something amiss with the EE system the way it's currently constructed. Reading what Zorzii and some of the others have changed my mind to an extent. I do think that something should be done, but not all that have been mentioned. Either giving EE resources in the first cycle or if not that, restrict the signings of the second period a cycle or maybe two. But definitely not both. I think there should be some deterrent to loading up on top talent while lower tier schools fight for the scraps.

I do play at D3 exclusively. However, I wanted to move up to D1 from the start, but found the past system too weighted towards the power teams who, once a guy landed at them, camped out and gobbled up top talent like me at an all you can eat buffet. Also, for everyone who cried for realism, sending something like 80 plus home visits a cycle seemed way out of line. They still haven't addressed the hiring and firing process, so I'm biding my time until they've fixed it before moving up.

Interesting what your credentials to move up to division 2/ division 1. I am not qualified for division 1 yet and do want to learn everything so I will eventually move up to big 6. I was thinking something a long the lines like when 3.5 or 4.0 comes out is when some people might change there teams to accordingly.

Posted by johnsensing on 3/13/2017 4:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 3/13/2017 4:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by reinsel on 3/13/2017 4:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 3/13/2017 1:58:00 PM (view original):
Some things bear repeating:

"With very few exceptions, EE possibilities on the projected big board are top 20 in their class at their position. The majority of EEs actually declaring are top 12 in their class/position. If you're recruiting a guy from roughly the top 100 overall who projects to 90+ in the cores for his position, chances are he's going to end up on the Big Board before his senior season. Can you predict precisely who will go when you recruit? No. Can you predict who might go? Absolutely."
So, sorry but saying (as someone has in this thread) "to me, the issue is the total randomness" is just a stupid and totally false thing to say.

"If you have 34k in funds, you have 34k in funds. Manage your 34k well and you need no postseason cash. Manage it poorly, and your team will be poor, as deserves to be the case."

I just lost the #36 PG to EE. He was about 200th overall.

He was redshirted, so he was a 4 year player.

I'm not sure you understand how the game works. That post was sarcastic, right, koop?

Not sarcastic, and yes, I understand the game. He was on campus 4 years. In the question of "exceptions" to the "rule" of top 20 per class/position for EE, the fact that reinsel redshirted the player is an important piece of information that should be noted. There are a few exceptions of players outside the top 20 per class/position that I've seen on the big board (I don't recall seeing one drafted, but I'm sure it happens). This isn't an example of that, because he could have played the player for 4 years, the player had 4 years of development.

Posted by johnsensing on 3/13/2017 12:54:00 PM (view original):
The issue with EEs (and it's a sad commentary on WIS management that we're still beating this topic however many months after 3.0 rolled out) is that apparently some users -- and WIS, I suppose -- like the "realism" of EEs, but don't like the "realism" of a multiple-EE school being able to replace those EEs with functional high-DI players (140/160 ranked DI players that fall to DIII definitionally aren't functional high-DI players). If we care about "realism," then you have to give the EE-school a chance to replace -- if we don't, why have EEs at all? Right now, if you have 1 or 0 open schollys, then get multiple EEs, you are screwed -- there is just no realistic way to bridge the gap, and the vast majority of the functional DI players are gone by the time you can really give yourself a chance. There are easy fixes that would mitigate some of this (no second session signings before 5 am the second day first and foremost) -- I remain disappointed that WIS has not implemented them.

"and the vast majority of the functional DI players are gone by the time you can really give yourself a chance"

So those players did exist, but your strategy focused on EE talent to pair with EE talent? Someone mentioned -- shoe? pkoop? -- if your strategy is depth and full well rounded team, then those players exist. If your strategy is EE or bust, then sometimes you bust.

Posted by jt2xTTU on 3/13/2017 7:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 3/13/2017 12:54:00 PM (view original):
The issue with EEs (and it's a sad commentary on WIS management that we're still beating this topic however many months after 3.0 rolled out) is that apparently some users -- and WIS, I suppose -- like the "realism" of EEs, but don't like the "realism" of a multiple-EE school being able to replace those EEs with functional high-DI players (140/160 ranked DI players that fall to DIII definitionally aren't functional high-DI players). If we care about "realism," then you have to give the EE-school a chance to replace -- if we don't, why have EEs at all? Right now, if you have 1 or 0 open schollys, then get multiple EEs, you are screwed -- there is just no realistic way to bridge the gap, and the vast majority of the functional DI players are gone by the time you can really give yourself a chance. There are easy fixes that would mitigate some of this (no second session signings before 5 am the second day first and foremost) -- I remain disappointed that WIS has not implemented them.

"and the vast majority of the functional DI players are gone by the time you can really give yourself a chance"

So those players did exist, but your strategy focused on EE talent to pair with EE talent? Someone mentioned -- shoe? pkoop? -- if your strategy is depth and full well rounded team, then those players exist. If your strategy is EE or bust, then sometimes you bust.

Keep in mind that it was zorzii, in another thread a couple of weeks ago, who felt that he should get partial refunds of the recruiting money he spent when he loses a battle. That adds some context to what zorzii expects from HD. There's a pretty big sense of entitlement under the covers of his posts.

Posted by jt2xTTU on 3/13/2017 7:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 3/13/2017 12:54:00 PM (view original):
The issue with EEs (and it's a sad commentary on WIS management that we're still beating this topic however many months after 3.0 rolled out) is that apparently some users -- and WIS, I suppose -- like the "realism" of EEs, but don't like the "realism" of a multiple-EE school being able to replace those EEs with functional high-DI players (140/160 ranked DI players that fall to DIII definitionally aren't functional high-DI players). If we care about "realism," then you have to give the EE-school a chance to replace -- if we don't, why have EEs at all? Right now, if you have 1 or 0 open schollys, then get multiple EEs, you are screwed -- there is just no realistic way to bridge the gap, and the vast majority of the functional DI players are gone by the time you can really give yourself a chance. There are easy fixes that would mitigate some of this (no second session signings before 5 am the second day first and foremost) -- I remain disappointed that WIS has not implemented them.

"and the vast majority of the functional DI players are gone by the time you can really give yourself a chance"

So those players did exist, but your strategy focused on EE talent to pair with EE talent? Someone mentioned -- shoe? pkoop? -- if your strategy is depth and full well rounded team, then those players exist. If your strategy is EE or bust, then sometimes you bust.

All D1 contending teams have ees unless they build a 6-6 class structure or a 6-0-6 and they will compete every four years. It's like you are saying, there is an amazing player but do get a weaker so he does not turn pro. We all take these players also as back-ups and they help as jrs and srs if they do not transfer as sophs. Two defeats can get you out of the nt. Sometimes a single frosh is your entry. I had an incredible team, but did not get pass second round (maybe it was my coaching decisions). So there is more parity now and mid-majors go deeper every season. Heck some who moved to big six could be having less success. But Ees us not the reason why there is parity. The openess of the recruiting period is the reason. So why not have them declare early. They will still be a huge hit and a hell of a lot tougher to recover from than 2.0 cause you are not protected by your prestige anymore.

That is silliness. It's disingenuous and proves that you're not arguing "good for the game." You're arguing "good for zorzi."

The way to be a top team is to accumulate top talent. When you lose top talent and can't replace it with similar talent, you drop back into the pack. That's EXACTLY the EE situation.

If you want to complain, at least be honest about your complaint.

Posted by tecwrg on 3/13/2017 8:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jt2xTTU on 3/13/2017 7:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 3/13/2017 12:54:00 PM (view original):
The issue with EEs (and it's a sad commentary on WIS management that we're still beating this topic however many months after 3.0 rolled out) is that apparently some users -- and WIS, I suppose -- like the "realism" of EEs, but don't like the "realism" of a multiple-EE school being able to replace those EEs with functional high-DI players (140/160 ranked DI players that fall to DIII definitionally aren't functional high-DI players). If we care about "realism," then you have to give the EE-school a chance to replace -- if we don't, why have EEs at all? Right now, if you have 1 or 0 open schollys, then get multiple EEs, you are screwed -- there is just no realistic way to bridge the gap, and the vast majority of the functional DI players are gone by the time you can really give yourself a chance. There are easy fixes that would mitigate some of this (no second session signings before 5 am the second day first and foremost) -- I remain disappointed that WIS has not implemented them.

"and the vast majority of the functional DI players are gone by the time you can really give yourself a chance"

So those players did exist, but your strategy focused on EE talent to pair with EE talent? Someone mentioned -- shoe? pkoop? -- if your strategy is depth and full well rounded team, then those players exist. If your strategy is EE or bust, then sometimes you bust.

Keep in mind that it was zorzii, in another thread a couple of weeks ago, who felt that he should get partial refunds of the recruiting money he spent when he loses a battle. That adds some context to what zorzii expects from HD. There's a pretty big sense of entitlement under the covers of his posts.

I am searching for solution. If I screw up, I won't whine. I screwed up a lot in recruiting don't worry, and you never heard me complain... I am just saying some people quit when they lose a 75% to a 25%... But my idea wasn't that good, I admit.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/14/2017 9:42:00 AM (view original):
That is silliness. It's disingenuous and proves that you're not arguing "good for the game." You're arguing "good for zorzi."

The way to be a top team is to accumulate top talent. When you lose top talent and can't replace it with similar talent, you drop back into the pack. That's EXACTLY the EE situation.

If you want to complain, at least be honest about your complaint.

Not true at all. I am just saying ees is allright. I would just like to see something that helps people prepare for it whether it's through resources or other things. But Mike, don't you know when you get ees, you get weaker players for sure? It's a sure thing. You are trying to discredit me, but to be honest, I am just looking for the good and the fun of the game. If I am not enjoying something because I screwed up, it's my own fault. But when I get three random ees going, while someone has nobody going with some likely going in it, I feel a bit unlucky. But I swallow it up. I know it's meant that way and sometimes you lose, sometimes you win. Just saying, can we do something for these EES? Teams in D1 do not have the same prestige as before. Getting top players is not as easy for my A- team than it was when others were playing...

"But Ees us not the reason why there is parity."

That is what I was calling silliness. EE are a big part of leveling the playing field. You lose really good players. You cannot replace them with really good players. And you claim it's not the reason for parity? It's a huge part.

Then, in your response, you say "Just saying, can we do something for these EES? Teams in D1 do not have the same prestige as before. Getting top players is not as easy for my A- team than it was when others were playing..." That indicates YOU KNOW EE are playing a big part in parity.

To me, this seems silly. If you sign a 4 or 5 star recruit, you run the risk of them becoming an EE. There are surprises as well, and for the most part if you have a stud player, you have an idea on if he would be pro worthy or not.

It really sucks trying to replace them, that is a fact...but its a KNOWN fact at this point.

So you have options, you can build your team off these 4-5 star recruits knowing you could get burned, or you try and build your team around maybe 1 or 2 of those studs and then fill the rest out with (god forbid) 1-3 star recruits.

Everyone is in the same boat, its not like the Sim is picking on certain schools with EEs.

I personally like it, you get to see what coaches are made of if they only have 1 or 2 studs in the rotation and have to balance the rest out with role players and put players in their best positions to succeed.

Just my 2 cents, not trying to antagonize, but at some point we just have to deal with it and act accordingly.

That's the problem, crabby. A vocal minority want the game to work they way they think it should work. They're playing the same way and, every 6 weeks, come back to complain about how the game plays like they didn't have the same problem 6 weeks ago.

And WifS doesn't help by stating "We're working on it."

It is a known fact and people think its one that is unrealistic and dumb.

I don't know if you have ever played D1 competitively but feel free to go ahead and build a team around 1-2 EE players and fill out a team with other players. I'll give you a hint it isn't going to work well.

Everyone is in the same boat, it just happens to be completely random that 2 identical teams could be hit with 3 EE's and 0 EE"s where the first ends up being much much worse next season while the 2nd team ends up being the NC favorite. There was no skill no nothing just straight luck on how it's determined who is hit with EE's and not. it's completely random, impossible to predict and can take a team from NC contenders to being knocked out in the 1st or even not even making the NT.

Except you aren't seeing what coaches are the best at making the most of only having 1-2 studs, you still have a majority of coaches aiming for majority EE caliber players and then the RNG decimating some of those with EE"s while leaving others alone so randomly the same strategy turns 1 team into trash and the other is gonna make a deep run.

If EE's were replaceable most of the time with good talent and it wasn't completely random how EE's were selected then you might start to see coaches who are actually really nice and not just everyone going after the same recruits and letting RNG decide who gets to have a strong returning team next season and who doesn't.

OK, I'll help you out. Again, since you're following me around like a lovesick puppydog. I blocked you a month or so ago. If tec doesn't quote you, I don't see a word you type. So, if you're trolling me for a response, you're wasting your time.

What you should do it create another username and quote yourself. It will take me 5-6 posts before I realize what's going on so you'll like get the attention from me you deeply crave for about 5-6 posts. You're welcome.

WAIT a second!

If you block me you shouldn't be responding or seeing my posts!!!!

"So, if you're trolling me for a response, you're wasting your time."

Except I think almost every single post today you have responded to directly or in general too?

Didn't you jjust make a thread calling people out for the exact thing you just did. Yet you've responded to basically every single post I've made

You are hilarious you troll the forums and do a bad job at it. Make posts insulting people for doing things and then go ahead and do those things.

I'm glad you finally caught on, I follow you around you latch on and then realized what you did, make a statement about not falling for it anymore and then fall for it again the next day.

I'm the hot stove your mother tells you not to touch and you keep touching it over and over and over while everyone laughs at you.