I think a more frustrating problem is when really awesome players don't go EE while marginal players do go. Since there is this variability, it makes more sense to go for these EE type players since there is a chance that they won't go even when they should.

Also, I just had a guy 37 on the big board go EE and then he doesn't even get drafted. WTF? I don't even get the prestige bump for the draft pick now. Pretty dumb.

that def sucks benis but its realistic , guys do leave early every year that dont get drafted, i know not everyone wants realism but it def does happen all the time

Yeah it does happen but I'm not sure we need to replicate real life here. So much of the game is already different than real life already. Plus there are so many factors that would cause a player to go EE in real life even if they weren't going to get drafted - new top recruits coming in, sick of being in school, already has degree, has kids they need to support etc etc. None of those are represented in HD.

just because a player is not drafted in real life tho doesnt mean they wont make it, it would be alot better if there was an actual pro league to follow our players

Actually, check that!

When I clicked on the NBA Draft email it automatically brought me to the previous season's draft for some reason. False alarm. Mr Corey Vitiello is now a proud member of the Sacramento Kings.

Posted by Benis on 9/27/2017 8:49:00 AM (view original):
Actually, check that!

When I clicked on the NBA Draft email it automatically brought me to the previous season's draft for some reason. False alarm. Mr Corey Vitiello is now a proud member of the Sacramento Kings.

On my home PC I can't ever check the draft results, conference awards, or national awards. Since the rollout of 3.0 those links always brings me to another world (usually Tark, which I'm not even in). I've cleared cookies, cache, etc, but nothing seems to help.

The arguments are all basically the same as they were a year ago, even if some of the voices have changed.

Chapel, JS, mully, I have total respect for your opinions, but I think you're totally wrong. This is a commodity game, the most valuable commodities need to come with high cost and volatility. Making it easier and simpler for the top 5-10 programs to stay on top every year is not a compelling argument.

I think there are some good ways to improve gameplay in this area, but it's on the player preference side, not the team resource side. Most elite players should want to wait until the top programs have their full resources available to make decisions, so most of them should have the late signing preference. And players with the late preference should not sign for the first two late (at least) cycles. Late should mean LATE. I also like an academic vs. pro-ball preference. I also like the idea of having the ability to siphon off some APs to try to convince a kid to stick around another year; maybe make promises available to him as well.

Can we agree on a few basics:
(1) We probably have an overcorrection punishing teams with multiple EEs?
(2) An easy solution would be to have them declare before 1st recruiting and give AP and $$ accordingly. This is easy, if unrealistic, but it might move us too close to the position of dynasties for Seble's tastes. I disagree, I think it's right, but it's his call with his customers' input.
(3) A second easy solution is to make most of the top talent sign late and give makeup AP and $$ (or shift the value to more $$ from AP). This would be more drastic.
(4) A third easy solution is to cap EEs at 1 or 2 a season per team, so that even when all goes to hell, it's only maybe 3 walk-ons. I don't like this, but it could work.
(5) No one wants to be Kentucky. Everyone wants that kind of success. Everyone, even people in Kentucky, want to do it someplace else.
(6) The biggest fail of the 3.0 rollout was the announcement that they recognized the problem and were going to fix this and then just going silent.
(7) There has been time for this to shake out. Seble, you are up.

Thanks for listening.

Can anyone provide a couple of examples of a team, under the same coach/user, that made an Elite 8, lost 3 or more EE, then failed to make the NT the next season? I keep reading "hard to remain competitive". First, it should be hard. Second, this is a consumer product. The same 15 users making the E8 every season is fun for 15 users, not so much for everyone else. So maybe "good competitive" isn't E8 every year. Maybe it's a NT appearance with the OPPORTUNITY to make E8.

Posted by lakevin on 9/27/2017 11:27:00 AM (view original):
Can we agree on a few basics:
(1) We probably have an overcorrection punishing teams with multiple EEs?
(2) An easy solution would be to have them declare before 1st recruiting and give AP and $$ accordingly. This is easy, if unrealistic, but it might move us too close to the position of dynasties for Seble's tastes. I disagree, I think it's right, but it's his call with his customers' input.
(3) A second easy solution is to make most of the top talent sign late and give makeup AP and $$ (or shift the value to more $$ from AP). This would be more drastic.
(4) A third easy solution is to cap EEs at 1 or 2 a season per team, so that even when all goes to hell, it's only maybe 3 walk-ons. I don't like this, but it could work.
(5) No one wants to be Kentucky. Everyone wants that kind of success. Everyone, even people in Kentucky, want to do it someplace else.
(6) The biggest fail of the 3.0 rollout was the announcement that they recognized the problem and were going to fix this and then just going silent.
(7) There has been time for this to shake out. Seble, you are up.

Thanks for listening.

1-no
2-no
3-kind of. I don't know that it's "easy". And the value is already highly in favor of $$ over APs, but I'm fine if they give APs diminishing returns after unlocking the actions; frankly, that's how I would have designed it in the first place.
4-no
5-sure. But there's only one UK in real life. Most teams, even the ones that populate the top 25 most consistently, have to struggle and plan to stay on top. Most of them also sign lots of guys who never play professionally.
6-eh. Having them declare early is one thing, so teams can plan. I'm all for that (just not for resources until the second session). But I think people maybe misjudged how simple this tweak was going to be, because it requires re-working how the EEs are done in the first place. Every change I can think of will have a consequence, probably unintended, that would also require a fix. This issue was probably always best addressed by users adjusting expectations and gameplay. But yes, WIS should not have issued a nebulous announcement that they were working on a fix, and then neglect to give any details, updates, or indication that they were following up. That was dumb.
7-welcome back, seble!

I hate responding to Mike, but look at my team -- UCLA Crum, Season 88. Had five guys drafted, including 3 EEs (and lost a 6th guy too). Was unable to reload materially, lost an EE in 89, three EEs in 90, and one in 91. Went from a championship contender to 2nd round (10 players), then 2nd round (10 players), then 1st round (9 players -- losing 76-24 and 66-34 "flips"), and now bubble (with 8 players -- after losing two approx. 2:1 "flips"). Hopefully will finally get talent to compete this year. But the problem when you lose 8 EEs in a 4 year period is you never get to restock the cupboard.

For those of you who want to keep the penalty of recruiting elite level talent, I still have to hear *ANYONE* provide an argument on why it should not then apply to ALL divisions then.

Posted by lakevin on 9/27/2017 12:02:00 PM (view original):
I hate responding to Mike, but look at my team -- UCLA Crum, Season 88. Had five guys drafted, including 3 EEs (and lost a 6th guy too). Was unable to reload materially, lost an EE in 89, three EEs in 90, and one in 91. Went from a championship contender to 2nd round (10 players), then 2nd round (10 players), then 1st round (9 players -- losing 76-24 and 66-34 "flips"), and now bubble (with 8 players -- after losing two approx. 2:1 "flips"). Hopefully will finally get talent to compete this year. But the problem when you lose 8 EEs in a 4 year period is you never get to restock the cupboard.

You answered my question. You made the NT every season. You're good at the game. You figured out a way, despite losing EE over and over again, to make the NT.

Now can anyone provide a couple of examples of schools that went to the E8, lost 3+ EE and missed the NT the following season?

Posted by buddhagamer on 9/27/2017 12:05:00 PM (view original):
For those of you who want to keep the penalty of recruiting elite level talent, I still have to hear *ANYONE* provide an argument on why it should not then apply to ALL divisions then.

I suggested long ago that D3 and D2 players should move up IF a D1 would take then. Transfers. But it's really more of a "We're getting shafted at D1. Let's stick it to D2/D3 as well!!!!" motivated change.

Posted by lakevin on 9/27/2017 11:27:00 AM (view original):
Can we agree on a few basics:
(1) We probably have an overcorrection punishing teams with multiple EEs?
(2) An easy solution would be to have them declare before 1st recruiting and give AP and $$ accordingly. This is easy, if unrealistic, but it might move us too close to the position of dynasties for Seble's tastes. I disagree, I think it's right, but it's his call with his customers' input.
(3) A second easy solution is to make most of the top talent sign late and give makeup AP and $$ (or shift the value to more $$ from AP). This would be more drastic.
(4) A third easy solution is to cap EEs at 1 or 2 a season per team, so that even when all goes to hell, it's only maybe 3 walk-ons. I don't like this, but it could work.
(5) No one wants to be Kentucky. Everyone wants that kind of success. Everyone, even people in Kentucky, want to do it someplace else.
(6) The biggest fail of the 3.0 rollout was the announcement that they recognized the problem and were going to fix this and then just going silent.
(7) There has been time for this to shake out. Seble, you are up.

Thanks for listening.

1. No its fair , elite talent should leave , I myself am coach at UNC A+ presitge Tark, and coach at Penn St A prestige Allen , I dont have too much elite talent and there is no problem ive been very successful recruiting both elite talent and non elite talent and have a good balance between them. i have had at most 2 EE's a year which i fully expect i have never been caught off guard having a player leave when they shouldnt have, any 4 to 5 star player i fully expect to leave in 2-3 years , sometimes even 1.

2. No they should declare after the season is over

3. There probably should be a few more on Late pref's and like alot have said , take another 1-2 cycles before actually commiting.

4. TERRIBLE IDEA

5. The problem is most expect to be like Kentucky, how many teams in real life ( we always go back to this) have 2-3 guys leaving a year...... Not very many handful at best, there is way way more here.

6. They did do fixes , the lessened the impact of the actual prefs , vs prestige

7. A few tweeks here and there could make it more enjoyable for most, but will never satisfiy these " top coaches that constainly complain about the same song and dance , but have yet to actually change what they are doing"