Boo hoo. Top talent comes with risk.

Wow, that's rough.

Depends on who you ask. 88.2% of HD users will say "One is too many".

In my opinion, at 3 and up, it's unfair. Impossible to make up for it. You will not recover, it will take you four seasons to get past this. And you will hear all the comments... and they'll tell you : it's your fault for recruiting four or five stars recruits and getting a random outcome that is ridiculous while another one has kept is two likely going players.

The game is designed to give more people a shot at winning. Whether or not that's a good thing is for you to decide. You had a LOT of success over the last several seasons. Odds are you'll have a LOT of success in the future. You just may have to tolerate a down season or two a long the way to that future success. That's the game design.

Posted by kcsundevil on 3/15/2018 11:40:00 AM (view original):
Boo hoo. Top talent comes with risk.

You'd expect this type of response from Mike or a guy who after 50+ seasons cant break 60% win % in a game filled with SIMs.

Posted by goodtymes31 on 3/15/2018 11:32:00 AM (view original):
Because at my Michigan St team in Wooden, I just had 5 in one season, including 2 "Likely Staying's" and 2 "On the Fence". I feel like there should be some kind of mechanism to keep from entirely wrecking someone's team in one off season, given the impossible nature of Phase 2 recruiting.

Yes! Great idea! A mechanism should be in place to prevent that much talent being accumulated on one team. Spread the wealth.

Posted by mullycj on 3/15/2018 12:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 3/15/2018 11:40:00 AM (view original):
Boo hoo. Top talent comes with risk.

You'd expect this type of response from Mike or a guy who after 50+ seasons cant break 60% win % in a game filled with SIMs.

Love you too mully

I mean, I am not upset or complaining in the sense where I think it's unfair. I just think that in the sense that this is a game that we pay to play, if you are going to make it possible to get this crushed by EE's at once, that you should also make it possible to somewhat bounce back, and not put that team in a place where they have to play 6 or 7 players deep the next season

I think there is a rule where you can't lose more than 6 players (Sr.'s and EE, walkons don't count). Did you have more than 1 Sr?

Also, you didn't lose enough! All the friggin "on the fence" and "likely staying" PF's made their "I want to stay" rolls so I lost my Jr. PF who wasn't even in the top 100. Damn these friggin cyber kids who want to stay in school. Don't they know they are one injury away from costing themselves millions!

Posted by Trentonjoe on 3/15/2018 1:55:00 PM (view original):
I think there is a rule where you can't lose more than 6 players (Sr.'s and EE, walkons don't count). Did you have more than 1 Sr?

and senior - one year - transfers dont count either

High reward comes with high risk. If you don’t like the risk, recruit other types of players.

I actually believe that one of the keys to success in HD 3.0 is to recruit talented players that have one glaring flaw. That one flaw will typically keep them from going as an EE and you can make up for their shortcomings by balancing the talents of your other players.

A recent example for me is Tommy Foster. Great big man but his poor rebounding is what kept him in school I think https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=3747229

My favorite example of all time is Paul Salisbury. Great Point Guard, but couldn’t shoot a lick and therefore stayed all 4 years and won national player of the year as a senior
https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerHistory/Ratings.aspx?&pid=3594451