I agree with the concern for EEs that are unlikely departures - in particular multiple unlikely departures.

various possible tinkers could make it better - include announcing earlier - we are almost at the one year anniversay of the admin (prior admin) statement that they were working on a couple of things, including announcing EEs earlier.....

Yeah, good idea, they should declare before the 1st period of recruiting starts.

at minimum no one should go EE if they aren't even on the big board.

"I think the original intent of the way EEs were set up was to make it more competitive and to give lower level teams a chance to compete. But I think the recruiting process in and of itself already does this."

Basically what I said 10 months ago. For those that want to take a stroll down memory lane - see below

"Now the pendulum is swinging ALL the way back around. It's gone too far in my opinion."

Only 3 chap? I think I might get *FIVE* this upcoming season (I have 7 players on the board right now with the first 3 all likely going, 2 on the fence and 1 likely staying).

I will have to try and do recruiting in the first session with only a single opening of resources so trying to spread out 40 AP to recruit what might be 6 players.

I thought I would never have to say this, but I might not be competitive for a few seasons in Phelan after this season which is really weird considering the run UCLA is presently on.

Posted by chapelhillne on 9/26/2017 4:00:00 PM (view original):
After 3.0 has been in effect for a good while, I do believe that something needs to be done about the EE situation. I just got hit with three this morning on my Connecticut team. I had 3 openings and filled all three in the first cycle and have another player I should win easily in the second cycle. However, Once again I have two spots that will probably go unfilled.

I think the original intent of the way EEs were set up was to make it more competitive and to give lower level teams a chance to compete. But I think the recruiting process in and of itself already does this.

I think that players should declare early and at that point teams should go ahead and get recruiting resources for the players that they are going to lose. The EEs can really decimate a program, and you have no way of recovering under the current system.

Of the three EEs, one was likely going, and was ranked very high, so I figured he was gone. Another was on the fence, so I was not all that surprised he was going. The third player was not even on the board.

It really has me discouraged with the game, which I never thought I would say. Something needs to change in my opinion

Your Illinois team is about to get HAMMERED.

Posted by cubcub113 on 9/26/2017 4:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by chapelhillne on 9/26/2017 4:00:00 PM (view original):
After 3.0 has been in effect for a good while, I do believe that something needs to be done about the EE situation. I just got hit with three this morning on my Connecticut team. I had 3 openings and filled all three in the first cycle and have another player I should win easily in the second cycle. However, Once again I have two spots that will probably go unfilled.

I think the original intent of the way EEs were set up was to make it more competitive and to give lower level teams a chance to compete. But I think the recruiting process in and of itself already does this.

I think that players should declare early and at that point teams should go ahead and get recruiting resources for the players that they are going to lose. The EEs can really decimate a program, and you have no way of recovering under the current system.

Of the three EEs, one was likely going, and was ranked very high, so I figured he was gone. Another was on the fence, so I was not all that surprised he was going. The third player was not even on the board.

It really has me discouraged with the game, which I never thought I would say. Something needs to change in my opinion

Your Illinois team is about to get HAMMERED.

Yes - Just looked at that 7 on the big board, 6 of whom are possible EEs. I will have two openings to try to get 6 players, since I guess the most EEs I can have is 4. Makes it just about impossible to stay competitive.

In my view, EE issues could be fixed by two (relatively simple) tweaks: (1) significantly increase the number of players with a late signing preference, especially in the top 250/300 players; and (1) significantly decrease the "strength" of APs compared to HV/CVs, so that their main effect is for "unlocking" recruits. That would allow someone like chapel/buddha to unlock more players in phase 1, and they don't have a (nearly) insurmountable AP lead to overcome in phase 2.

While I personally like chapel's early declaration idea, it seems like that would involve more coding/changes to the game engine (that said, I'm not a computer programmer, so maybe I'm wrong about that).

Posted by chapelhillne on 9/26/2017 5:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 9/26/2017 4:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by chapelhillne on 9/26/2017 4:00:00 PM (view original):
After 3.0 has been in effect for a good while, I do believe that something needs to be done about the EE situation. I just got hit with three this morning on my Connecticut team. I had 3 openings and filled all three in the first cycle and have another player I should win easily in the second cycle. However, Once again I have two spots that will probably go unfilled.

I think the original intent of the way EEs were set up was to make it more competitive and to give lower level teams a chance to compete. But I think the recruiting process in and of itself already does this.

I think that players should declare early and at that point teams should go ahead and get recruiting resources for the players that they are going to lose. The EEs can really decimate a program, and you have no way of recovering under the current system.

Of the three EEs, one was likely going, and was ranked very high, so I figured he was gone. Another was on the fence, so I was not all that surprised he was going. The third player was not even on the board.

It really has me discouraged with the game, which I never thought I would say. Something needs to change in my opinion

Your Illinois team is about to get HAMMERED.

Yes - Just looked at that 7 on the big board, 6 of whom are possible EEs. I will have two openings to try to get 6 players, since I guess the most EEs I can have is 4. Makes it just about impossible to stay competitive.

Call me Spud, I guess, but come on.

If you're reaping the benefits of 6 EE players, it's hilarious you would then complain about the subsequent inconvenience. Plan better.

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/26/2017 5:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by chapelhillne on 9/26/2017 5:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 9/26/2017 4:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by chapelhillne on 9/26/2017 4:00:00 PM (view original):
After 3.0 has been in effect for a good while, I do believe that something needs to be done about the EE situation. I just got hit with three this morning on my Connecticut team. I had 3 openings and filled all three in the first cycle and have another player I should win easily in the second cycle. However, Once again I have two spots that will probably go unfilled.

I think the original intent of the way EEs were set up was to make it more competitive and to give lower level teams a chance to compete. But I think the recruiting process in and of itself already does this.

I think that players should declare early and at that point teams should go ahead and get recruiting resources for the players that they are going to lose. The EEs can really decimate a program, and you have no way of recovering under the current system.

Of the three EEs, one was likely going, and was ranked very high, so I figured he was gone. Another was on the fence, so I was not all that surprised he was going. The third player was not even on the board.

It really has me discouraged with the game, which I never thought I would say. Something needs to change in my opinion

Your Illinois team is about to get HAMMERED.

Yes - Just looked at that 7 on the big board, 6 of whom are possible EEs. I will have two openings to try to get 6 players, since I guess the most EEs I can have is 4. Makes it just about impossible to stay competitive.

Call me Spud, I guess, but come on.

If you're reaping the benefits of 6 EE players, it's hilarious you would then complain about the subsequent inconvenience. Plan better.

Please explain how to "plan better" for 6 EEs when you have 2 openings under the current system.

Posted by johnsensing on 9/26/2017 5:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/26/2017 5:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by chapelhillne on 9/26/2017 5:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 9/26/2017 4:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by chapelhillne on 9/26/2017 4:00:00 PM (view original):
After 3.0 has been in effect for a good while, I do believe that something needs to be done about the EE situation. I just got hit with three this morning on my Connecticut team. I had 3 openings and filled all three in the first cycle and have another player I should win easily in the second cycle. However, Once again I have two spots that will probably go unfilled.

I think the original intent of the way EEs were set up was to make it more competitive and to give lower level teams a chance to compete. But I think the recruiting process in and of itself already does this.

I think that players should declare early and at that point teams should go ahead and get recruiting resources for the players that they are going to lose. The EEs can really decimate a program, and you have no way of recovering under the current system.

Of the three EEs, one was likely going, and was ranked very high, so I figured he was gone. Another was on the fence, so I was not all that surprised he was going. The third player was not even on the board.

It really has me discouraged with the game, which I never thought I would say. Something needs to change in my opinion

Your Illinois team is about to get HAMMERED.

Yes - Just looked at that 7 on the big board, 6 of whom are possible EEs. I will have two openings to try to get 6 players, since I guess the most EEs I can have is 4. Makes it just about impossible to stay competitive.

Call me Spud, I guess, but come on.

If you're reaping the benefits of 6 EE players, it's hilarious you would then complain about the subsequent inconvenience. Plan better.

Please explain how to "plan better" for 6 EEs when you have 2 openings under the current system.

Overloading a roster with top level talent is a choice and a gamble. There are other less risky strategies one could choose.

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/26/2017 6:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 9/26/2017 5:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/26/2017 5:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by chapelhillne on 9/26/2017 5:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 9/26/2017 4:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by chapelhillne on 9/26/2017 4:00:00 PM (view original):
After 3.0 has been in effect for a good while, I do believe that something needs to be done about the EE situation. I just got hit with three this morning on my Connecticut team. I had 3 openings and filled all three in the first cycle and have another player I should win easily in the second cycle. However, Once again I have two spots that will probably go unfilled.

I think the original intent of the way EEs were set up was to make it more competitive and to give lower level teams a chance to compete. But I think the recruiting process in and of itself already does this.

I think that players should declare early and at that point teams should go ahead and get recruiting resources for the players that they are going to lose. The EEs can really decimate a program, and you have no way of recovering under the current system.

Of the three EEs, one was likely going, and was ranked very high, so I figured he was gone. Another was on the fence, so I was not all that surprised he was going. The third player was not even on the board.

It really has me discouraged with the game, which I never thought I would say. Something needs to change in my opinion

Your Illinois team is about to get HAMMERED.

Yes - Just looked at that 7 on the big board, 6 of whom are possible EEs. I will have two openings to try to get 6 players, since I guess the most EEs I can have is 4. Makes it just about impossible to stay competitive.

Call me Spud, I guess, but come on.

If you're reaping the benefits of 6 EE players, it's hilarious you would then complain about the subsequent inconvenience. Plan better.

Please explain how to "plan better" for 6 EEs when you have 2 openings under the current system.

Overloading a roster with top level talent is a choice and a gamble. There are other less risky strategies one could choose.

You didn't really answer my question. "Recruit crappier players" isn't much of a plan. He's got 6 potential EEs, and only 2 openings -- is "gee, you shouldn't have won all those recruiting battles a few seasons ago" really your best answer?

Did you really expect him to give you something of substance?

3.0 was designed to punish teams that rely too much on EE talent. Whether that makes for a better game is a matter of personal taste.

Yes, "recruit crappier players" is the more sustainable strategy. Most schools don't want to be Kentucky.