You play D3 Mike. Guys with significant flaws can be great at D3. One of the things I love about it. But D1 isn't like that.

Same as ever, elite commodities are volatile. If you're only going after elite talent, you have to deal with the headache of replacing them. It means possible down seasons, or at least playing a smaller rotation sometimes. That's the consequence of your choice. It's both realistic, and makes for good, competitive gameplay.

Does Coach Cal have to worry about replacing EEs? No. But every other team in any given year does. IRL, nobody replaces elite talent without working and competing for it.

The value of the 0-2 star players with potential, the guys you can be sure will stay 4 seasons, and will be legitimate big 6 players after a couple seasons of hiding, has increased. If you're a big 6 team, and you're not trying to lock in at least a couple of those local guys every few seasons, you are abdicating a lot to mid-majors.

Posted by Benis on 3/13/2017 12:35:00 PM (view original):
You play D3 Mike. Guys with significant flaws can be great at D3. One of the things I love about it. But D1 isn't like that.

Sure it is. It's relative, but it's the same game. And everyone is in the same boat, everyone is competing under the same rules.

Posted by bathtubhippo on 3/13/2017 12:33:00 PM (view original):
meh, I disagree. i don't consider what's left on the final day to be replacement-level for D1. for D2, absolutely. but not for D1. I'm looking right now in Tark....I have 3 scholarships open for my SC team...and I don't consider any of the guys left to be worth signing. to me replacement level for a solid D1 team means they should be at least able to get around 80 in most cores. otherwise, I will do better off taking the walk-ons and having 3 more scholarships open to start the next season with more AP.

OK, disregard my previous question. This was what I was getting at. Those 150 ranked guys COULD fill in for a season, 8 minutes a game, but you don't want them for 4 seasons. So you'd rather take a walk on. You're making choices.

My point, doing the math, is that there are 700+ PG in D1. A 150 guy, every year, could be in D1(4x150) but the elite teams don't want that 150 guy even as a back-up. And they don't have to play that game because the talent is NOT distributed even vaguely even. They want the #7 backing up the #2. The catch is those guy declare early.

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.

Everyone knows WifS sought to "level the playing field". That could be loosely translated to "give more teams the opportunity to win". We're working under the assumption that WifS sees the same problem as we, somewhat, do. They very well may not.

I don't know how long it takes to move from D2 to D1. But I'm assuming nothing will change with regard to EE by the time I get there. I'm trying to formulate a plan to deal with the current situation while I work my way to D1.

To me, that's more productive than complaining at the end of every season. But that's just me.

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.

I know I've brought this up a few times, and at risk of sounding like "I told you so", I'm going to mention it again. I've been singing the same tune since the idea for 3.0 was first disclosed, and people started worrying about EEs. I wish more people would have joined me then. The fight shouldn't be on resources. That's always been a losing fight. Mike is right about this part, WIS wanted more open competition, more team with a chance to go deep every year. So people arguing for more resources earlier are on the wrong horse. If they get what they want, the game will be worse, and the whole point of the competitive revamp of 3.0 will have been lost.

We should be talking about making sure a rational number of top level recruits are waiting long enough to accept effort from teams with early entries. More top 300 OVR recruits should have the late and whenever preferences. At least 40% each, of that subset of elite recruits. No more than 40% of elite recruits should be signing in the first period. More guys need to wait. That late preference should be tied to elite players the same way a preference for success and strong conference are. You fix the "problem" through making sure the preferences are rational. Make more elite recruits want to sign late, and make late mean the last 5-6 cycles.

I don't think anyone is advocating that their players shouldn't have gone EE, they are just saying that they want the resources before session 1. I don't see what the issue with that is...

With the current setup they could also recruit transfers. There are usually some good ones out there.. When I moved from CSU to Vandy I signed Albarran, Gray, and Daniel in 2nd session. But I think the best fix would be two parts. 1. No signings right away 2nd session as most people agree. 2. Increase the amount of Late preferences (nothing dramatic but more than there are now. 76/100 top recruits in Phelan have already signed.

Posted by pkoopman on 3/13/2017 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 3/13/2017 12:35:00 PM (view original):
You play D3 Mike. Guys with significant flaws can be great at D3. One of the things I love about it. But D1 isn't like that.

Sure it is. It's relative, but it's the same game. And everyone is in the same boat, everyone is competing under the same rules.

No way.

Posted by MonsterTurtl on 3/13/2017 1:18:00 PM (view original):
I don't think anyone is advocating that their players shouldn't have gone EE, they are just saying that they want the resources before session 1. I don't see what the issue with that is...

The issue is that it reduces competitiveness for top talent, makes it more likely that some teams will be able to go back to snowballing their way to classes filled with 5 4-5 star players every year, because no one wants to fight them for anyone.

Im not opposed to announcing early for planning purposes, provided they can get the coding right removing post-season success from the equation, without any bad unintended consequences (like increased instances of teams not even making the NT losing EEs). I'm very much opposed to altering the way resources are handled, unless we're talking about further limits. Recruiting shouldn't be about resources and bidding, it should be about preferences, prestige, and promises.

Posted by Benis on 3/13/2017 1:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 3/13/2017 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 3/13/2017 12:35:00 PM (view original):
You play D3 Mike. Guys with significant flaws can be great at D3. One of the things I love about it. But D1 isn't like that.

Sure it is. It's relative, but it's the same game. And everyone is in the same boat, everyone is competing under the same rules.

No way.

Way. Same game. Weird, right? It's just that "significant flaw" for D3 is a post player with under 50 rebounding, whereas for D1, it's under 80. You can find uses for both players in their respective division, if they have good skills or talent elsewhere.

Sure, everyone is competing under the same rules, however the problem is with the randomness of EE's and VH vs VH or H. That amount of randomness shouldn't have that much of an impact on the game. There is a reason several coaches left since the implementation of 3.0.

Posted by thewizard17 on 3/13/2017 1:40:00 PM (view original):
Sure, everyone is competing under the same rules, however the problem is with the randomness of EE's and VH vs VH or H. That amount of randomness shouldn't have that much of an impact on the game. There is a reason several coaches left since the implementation of 3.0.

What you mean to say is that the game should be more deterministic, and less probabilistic. Maybe, according to your tastes. But that's not univresal. Some coaches left because of the move to probability from hard determinism. Other coaches left prior to the change because of the reverse. The amount of probability involved in both areas - recruiting, and EEs declaring - is a gameplay feature to simulate the free choice that kids have in real life. Users in this version of HD, like coaches in real life, can't control the commodities. They have to compete for them, and react to their decisions.