I’m assuming it’s Gray. Tough loss. He did have a number of indicators, though.

Top 5 guys by position (legit guys, not the flukey overrated guys) are very likely to leave early, often after their soph year.
His ath/spd/def core averages 90.
No glaring weaknesses at his position.
LP/Per combo above 140.

I suspect if his passing stayed under 80, or his LP stayed around 50, he wouldn’t have drifted up so close to the top 100. There were just too many guys ahead of him passing it up, that’s how it sometimes gets down to those guys sitting just off the board.

Posted by mamxet on 4/13/2018 9:14:00 AM (view original):
Surprising EEs are annoying - like when they are on the fence and 90 on the big board - or likely staying

And only one rating of 90 or better, so I thought he would not interest NBA.....likely last pick in second round or perhaps he wants to play in Itay

REALLY annoying when a guy leaves early who wasnt on the big board at all - thought we were okay for next season at St Johns, but the best laid plans.....

I agree this is annoying and my #1 beef with the EE system (much more than not getting resources until 2nd session). It hasn't even happened to me and I realize how stupid it is for someone to lose a player not on the big board but someone with a top 10 pick stays. All due to a RNG roll.

Annoyance is valid. Calling it stupid is not. It’s much more intelligent to have a simulation of choice based on probability rather than determined absolutes.

It is annoying and I would argue it isnt good for the game. The randomness within the big board - some likely going players stay and vice versa - is okay. The way recruiting works that can be really bad if you get hit with a bad bunch of EE RNG results

But, in the interest of game play, I would design the system so that if your guy isnt on the Board he wont go. Some things should be knowable. I think that is one - just my opinion.

Posted by fd343ny on 4/13/2018 11:26:00 AM (view original):
It is annoying and I would argue it isnt good for the game. The randomness within the big board - some likely going players stay and vice versa - is okay. The way recruiting works that can be really bad if you get hit with a bad bunch of EE RNG results

But, in the interest of game play, I would design the system so that if your guy isnt on the Board he wont go. Some things should be knowable. I think that is one - just my opinion.

I’d much rather not have the Big Board be an absolute. Coding it so a player has to be on the board to leave would require a completely different system; alternatively, you could just expand the Big Board to 125. I doubt it ever gets as far as 125. I don’t like the idea, and wouldn’t support it, but I could live with it. I’d rather the game retain its complexity and ambiguity at that level. Speculative prospecting - including discerning between players who may possibly leave early, and deciding if and how to prepare for it - is currently an important part of recruiting and team planning, and it’s good for the game.

One thing I’ve always pushed for is adding a preference on academic vs. pro ball, which could be used to gauge how likely a player is to leave early (assuming his attributes are draft worthy). It would keep the ambiguity and complexity, but would give coaches another avenue for assessment.

I don't care about the big board not being an absolute, but lottery players should all go. And those not on the big board, not go. For the rest, it is what it is.

It is annoying when someone not on the board gets drafted, however when you have the #32 player overall on the board, as a junior, not get drafted, then you're glad that part of the game exists.

Posted by zorzii on 4/13/2018 12:39:00 PM (view original):
I don't care about the big board not being an absolute, but lottery players should all go. And those not on the big board, not go. For the rest, it is what it is.

i agree that lottery players should all go. this might also limit off-the-board EEs.

i also hate off-the-board EEs.

Thoughts on the big board being eliminated all together? It’s only been around a couple years and seems to cause more headaches than doing good.

Posted by bathtubhippo on 4/13/2018 1:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 4/13/2018 12:39:00 PM (view original):
I don't care about the big board not being an absolute, but lottery players should all go. And those not on the big board, not go. For the rest, it is what it is.

i agree that lottery players should all go. this might also limit off-the-board EEs.

i also hate off-the-board EEs.

Yeah definitely. Why would this ever been considered a BAD thing? Let the RNG handle the players in the middle area but keep the randomness out of the very top or very bottom.

Also I'm waiting for someone to say... "but that's what happens in real life!!!"

Yeah, maybe that can happen in real life. And a player can commit to your school and then later decide to go to the G league instead. Want to introduce that piece of realism? Of course not.

Posted by zorzii on 4/13/2018 12:39:00 PM (view original):
I don't care about the big board not being an absolute, but lottery players should all go. And those not on the big board, not go. For the rest, it is what it is.

agree

Posted by darnoc29099 on 4/13/2018 1:53:00 PM (view original):
Thoughts on the big board being eliminated all together? It’s only been around a couple years and seems to cause more headaches than doing good.

All for it.

the Big Board helped alleviate complaints about EEs and improved game play

It is especially important in 3.0 where planning for EEs is vital because of the timing of the 2 stages of recruiting.

Eliminating it would open nasty cans of worms.

And, a guy in our conference who was likely going and #16 on the Board stayed....aarg