All good ideas. If only they would be implemented.

One session is enough....

Posted by zorzii on 10/1/2017 8:06:00 PM (view original):
One session is enough....

haha

Posted by zorzii on 10/1/2017 8:06:00 PM (view original):
One session is enough....

Truth.

Posted by zorzii on 10/1/2017 8:06:00 PM (view original):
One session is enough....

Amen.

Posted by zorzii on 10/1/2017 8:06:00 PM (view original):
One session is enough....

One session AFTER JOBS

chapel's UConn team has signed the #3, #8, and #46 overall players in the country, plus a strong international from Montreal. By my count, which could be wrong, he might have to take two walk-ons.

This is coming off a 29-3 season with a sweet 16 and #7 national ranking.

I'm at a loss to understand what chapel is complaining about here.

Posted by kcsundevil on 10/1/2017 10:29:00 PM (view original):
chapel's UConn team has signed the #3, #8, and #46 overall players in the country, plus a strong international from Montreal. By my count, which could be wrong, he might have to take two walk-ons.

This is coming off a 29-3 season with a sweet 16 and #7 national ranking.

I'm at a loss to understand what chapel is complaining about here.

This is just an example. Chapel's class is good but that's not the point.

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/History.aspx?tid=3352

Posted by kcsundevil on 10/1/2017 10:29:00 PM (view original):
chapel's UConn team has signed the #3, #8, and #46 overall players in the country, plus a strong international from Montreal. By my count, which could be wrong, he might have to take two walk-ons.

This is coming off a 29-3 season with a sweet 16 and #7 national ranking.

I'm at a loss to understand what chapel is complaining about here.

The main complaint is that an A+ team should not lose a recruit at a D2 team if they really want them. I am all about realism.

Your assessment about the team is correct. I had a good recruiting period this time, but I could have missed on a couple of the ones I got, and then I would have had 4 walk-ons. I just think that it needs some kind of fix. This is especially true for someone taking over a new team after a job change.

At Illinois, I have 6 players that could go EE and have two openings. It's going to be very difficult if I get hit as hard as I think. And again, going back to realism, if a team has 6 players turn pro, it would be a program that a lot of players would want to come to in real life, and if they started getting calls and letters from the program, and a scholarship was about to be offered, they would not just sign with a D2 team.

But you didn't really want the third cycle recruit -- they were far down your priority list -- and the D2 team really wanted the recruit. At some point in the process it's reasonable for a recruit to refuse to change their plans just because of a last-minute invitation from Roy Williams to be the last man off UNC's bench.

I actually used to completely agree with your perspective. But the more weak dog-whistle arguments I see from entitled coaches about EEs, the more I'm becoming a 3.0 convert.

This guy was actually pretty good. He probably would have been a starter by his Junior year, and also for his senior year. And this is not just about EEs. It also really affects a coach that takes over a team.

The broader point here is that a player like Singletary is fairly easy to get for a high level program - sometimes with no fight whatsoever - if he's a target from the start.

I'm a proponent of realism, too. I want the game to feel as real as possible, with allowances made for good, competitive and non-tedious gameplay. Because gameplay is the real priority for me, and I think for the game developers. And in basically 2 years of arguments about 3.0, I haven't seen a compelling argument for changes needed to make it easier for high level programs to stay at a high level in perpetuity. That's essentially what this is.

I think the game wants you to adjust your gameplay - or at least to think harder about it.

All that said, I do think there's an argument to be made for making job changes a little less harrowing. A few new jucos appearing in the second session would be a start, and I'd also like to see a new coach preference to counter the long term coach preference, and maybe a separate prestige factor that follows the coach success instead of the school.

"And in basically 2 years of arguments about 3.0, I haven't seen a compelling argument for changes needed to make it easier for high level programs to stay at a high level in perpetuity. That's essentially what this is." That bears repeating.

Posted by shoe3 on 10/2/2017 5:15:00 AM (view original):
The broader point here is that a player like Singletary is fairly easy to get for a high level program - sometimes with no fight whatsoever - if he's a target from the start.

I'm a proponent of realism, too. I want the game to feel as real as possible, with allowances made for good, competitive and non-tedious gameplay. Because gameplay is the real priority for me, and I think for the game developers. And in basically 2 years of arguments about 3.0, I haven't seen a compelling argument for changes needed to make it easier for high level programs to stay at a high level in perpetuity. That's essentially what this is.

I think the game wants you to adjust your gameplay - or at least to think harder about it.

All that said, I do think there's an argument to be made for making job changes a little less harrowing. A few new jucos appearing in the second session would be a start, and I'd also like to see a new coach preference to counter the long term coach preference, and maybe a separate prestige factor that follows the coach success instead of the school.

I think a lot of the recruiting angst in 3.0 would go away if the second session featured new jucos.