I think LP/PER has a lot to do with it. I looked at the last RUPP draft and 31/34 underclassmen had an 84 or more in LP or PER. One dude had a 78 LP but he was like 905 overall and the other two were SF's with overalls in the 870's. They both had PER and LPs in the 60s.

I checked Allen as well. The magic # there was like 86, 28/31 has a LP or PER over that. One of the dudes was like 990 OVR another one was in the 870's and the last guy was only 815.

Interesting enough 4/6 who didn't have a super high scoring stat were SF's. The other two were a C and PG.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 3/15/2018 5:23:00 PM (view original):
I checked Allen as well. The magic # there was like 86, 28/31 has a LP or PER over that. One of the dudes was like 990 OVR another one was in the 870's and the last guy was only 815.

Interesting enough 4/6 who didn't have a super high scoring stat were SF's. The other two were a C and PG.

This is why it's flawed. We will start not practicing lp or per but none will transfer even they know something fishy. Ees is not working as intended. Losing five (i lost four and three two times) is just impossible to make up for. If Calipari loses five, he will recruit.

There was a time when a small bunch of us advocated for everyone to get the same number of APs and $ every season. We lost that argument. And now this is the game we have.

Posted by kcsundevil on 3/15/2018 6:10:00 PM (view original):
There was a time when a small bunch of us advocated for everyone to get the same number of APs and $ every season. We lost that argument. And now this is the game we have.

Yep

Posted by zorzii on 3/15/2018 5:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 3/15/2018 5:23:00 PM (view original):
I checked Allen as well. The magic # there was like 86, 28/31 has a LP or PER over that. One of the dudes was like 990 OVR another one was in the 870's and the last guy was only 815.

Interesting enough 4/6 who didn't have a super high scoring stat were SF's. The other two were a C and PG.

This is why it's flawed. We will start not practicing lp or per but none will transfer even they know something fishy. Ees is not working as intended. Losing five (i lost four and three two times) is just impossible to make up for. If Calipari loses five, he will recruit.

I understand that it is hard to recover from multiple EEs, it has happened to me too, but you have to look at it objectively, which is hard to do when you are impacted. It makes sense that the top 60 players would go to the NBA every season regardless of whether they are Fr, So, Jr or Sr. The reason you are having so many leave is because you are signing elite level players at an extraordinarily rate. You know at the time those players sign that they are a risk to leave early.

Think about what a limit on how many EEs you can lose in one seasons would look like. It would mean players that are not in the top 60 talent wise would start getting drafted and teams with less talented players would experience more EEs, which makes no sense at all. I know this is just a sim-game and will never match real life 100%, but a limit like that is very unrealistic.

In my opinion you just have to adjust to it. If you have a class of 4 openings and you don’t want to risk the volatility of losing multiple players early in one season, then don’t sign four 4/5 star players. I know that sounds counterintuitive but you have to have balance. You don’t have to have a team full of 5 star players to have success or win a national championship. I can provide multiple personal examples. Neither of my HD 3.0 National Championship teams had more than one 5 star player and my most recent run to the championship game with Washington in Wooden this week was with a team that only had two 5 star players and they were both freshman, so they were not the catalysts of the run.

In addition to mixing in lower ranked players into my recruiting classes, I have also switched all of my teams away from playing exclusively press. They all now either play a press/zone combo or just zone. This is a direct result of the environment HD 3.0 has created with more promised minutes and more walk ones.

Posted by shoe3 on 3/15/2018 2:09:00 PM (view original):
High reward comes with high risk. If you don’t like the risk, recruit other types of players.

well said shoe, you said it better with a lot fewer words than I did.

Posted by drichar138 on 3/15/2018 7:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/15/2018 2:09:00 PM (view original):
High reward comes with high risk. If you don’t like the risk, recruit other types of players.

well said shoe, you said it better with a lot fewer words than I did.

To be honest, I agree with you with ees leaving but there is too much random, first some teams will lose players not even on the big board, second some teams won't lose any getting to the final four or more.

Finally, the recruiting system is not designed for teams losing that many, one is doable, two if you plan carefully, three impossible.

5? Come on.

It’s not random. It’s based on probability. The process is understandable and predictable, especially the part about recruiting someone projected to be an elite level player. The number a team loses should be, and largely is, a representation of how many elite players that team successfully recruits. If you don’t want to lose 5 EEs, don’t have 5 EE caliber players on your team at once. Otherwise you will be at risk of losing 5.

The following is my speculation, I don’t know for sure it’s exactly like this, because I didn’t program it, but I am sure it is along these lines. The big board only shows us the top 100, but of course the ranking goes much farther down than that. Each player is evaluated and ranked, and then assigned a certain probability based on attributes, and class. Graduating players are obviously 100%. Everyone else is somewhere between 0 and 99%. At the time of the draft, the system will move down the list, each player in succession determining if he will leave or not, until it gets to 60 yes. The better the system thinks the player is, the higher he will be on the draft board, and the more likely he will be - relative to his class - to leave. If there are more than 40 no among the big board players, it moves to player #101.

Posted by shoe3 on 3/15/2018 8:40:00 PM (view original):
It’s not random. It’s based on probability. The process is understandable and predictable, especially the part about recruiting someone projected to be an elite level player. The number a team loses should be, and largely is, a representation of how many elite players that team successfully recruits. If you don’t want to lose 5 EEs, don’t have 5 EE caliber players on your team at once. Otherwise you will be at risk of losing 5.

The following is my speculation, I don’t know for sure it’s exactly like this, because I didn’t program it, but I am sure it is along these lines. The big board only shows us the top 100, but of course the ranking goes much farther down than that. Each player is evaluated and ranked, and then assigned a certain probability based on attributes, and class. Graduating players are obviously 100%. Everyone else is somewhere between 0 and 99%. At the time of the draft, the system will move down the list, each player in succession determining if he will leave or not, until it gets to 60 yes. The better the system thinks the player is, the higher he will be on the draft board, and the more likely he will be - relative to his class - to leave. If there are more than 40 no among the big board players, it moves to player #101.

“The number a team loses should be, and largely is, a representation of how many elite players that team successfully recruits. If you don’t want to lose 5 EEs, don’t have 5 EE caliber players on your team at once. Otherwise you will be at risk of losing 5.”

It really is this simple.

That's not really the point. And many of you are missing the point...and the argument about EEs.

It's not that teams are losing 3 EEs a season, its that teams are losing EE's that SHOULDNT be leaving while other EEs that are higher rated stay.
This would not be as much of a problem if Seble made ANY of the changes that have been suggested to fix this problem. (ie - EEs declare during the 1st recruiting session).

Assuming he never addresses the root problem...
I think EEs should be similar to the current post season projection report. If there are 35-40 EEs a season then the 1st 35-40 players on the draft big board should go. To have the 95th player on the big board go while the 40th player stays is moronic and only increases user frustration and an inability to maintain customers.

(so glad we finally got another EE thread this month!!)

Good lord, I'll hate myself for asking but....

When you say "higher rated" what criteria are you using?
Are you breaking them down by position/class?

I never used the term "higher rated" so not sure if you are responding to my post.
In case you are. The Draft Big Board already adjusts the chance to leave by class so that is covered. I am fine with keeping a little ambiguity based on positions, so that the 43rd rated guard might leave while the 37th rated C/PF might stay. But certainly not variable to the extent it is right now.

But I would also be OK with no further adjustments by position. Maybe some years the NBA is looking for more guards while others they are looking for more SFs. Or maybe NBA teams are just grabbing the best player available and adjusting rosters through free agency or whatever.

Mully’s idea makes the game less intelligent and easier to game. You should never know exactly what a kid is going to do. Good coaching means understanding the probabilities and managing contingencies.

This isn't real life. A good internet game means understanding what drives people to keep playing and what causes users to leave.