I could have guessed without even looking that you've never had an EE in your life. How do you know the challenges that the top DI coaches have to go through?

Posted by seble on 7/24/2016 12:10:00 PM (view original):
I was willing to make adjustments to the recruiting schedule, but the results of the poll didn't indicate that it was a high priority.

http://test.whatifsports.net/whatifsports/forums/Posts.aspx?topicID=420445&threadID=3421850#l_3421850

Seble - one suggestion that "seems" the simplest is to let them declare before round 1 of recruiting starts.

The ONLY thing you would be changing is removing the impact of post season results.
"Seems" like not a huge deal but would
1) still allow for 2 recruiting sessions
2) still allow for EEs
3) open up the roster slots and recruiting money when it's actually needed.

Is there a another negative that I would be missing?

Posted by mullycj on 7/24/2016 2:53:00 PM (view original):
I could have guessed without even looking that you've never had an EE in your life. How do you know the challenges that the top DI coaches have to go through?

I read the forums and the coaches have been telling me of the challenges.

Posted by oldresorter on 7/23/2016 8:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by skinzfan36 on 7/22/2016 7:51:00 PM (view original):
let's just get rid of them. too much issues involved with EE's in this new system.

yep - with the recruits spread out now, the reason that EE's was created went away. Plus EE's were invented to declaw the top franchises, in many ways, it never really worked anyhow as the top guys just reloaded, now that will be much harder. EE's mostly hurt the mid and lower franchises, who were lucky enough to get a top ten guy, then had to let him score 15 plus ppg right away, and usually lost the player, while the top guys would barely play the same player or lets say barely let the same player shoot much, hence that player was more likely to stay longer.

So I'd be fine with dumping EE's.

agree with everything, just want to note - it was about 5 years ago that stats stopped affecting EEs. the problem you describe is exactly what happened 5 years ago but now its just about ratings and stuff like team success in general. still, the difference in the chance of a quality player leaving off an A+ championship team and a B+ round 2 team is way too small.

i'm good with dumping EEs. unfortunately i was out of town for our 5th anniversary during the last recruiting session and missed it, and lost my team, so i may not even be able to post this anymore? guess i'll know soon enough.

It's fine to say coaches need to have backup options. However, I'm sure my situation wasn't all that unusual from what we'll see from others moving forward. I had one opening. Signed my second backup (options 1 & 2 signed elsewhere). No money left. I signed him for a scholarship offer and APs, so that should tell you the caliber of player. Then, I had 2 guys on the draft board - 1 was staying, the other was likely staying. Not only was it not possible to have a backup due to running out of money, had I actually MADE a backup (a backup, mind you, for a player who was likely staying), I would have signed no one in the first cycle. I didn't have APs to spare for the unlikely event that my likely staying player was not, in fact, staying. This will happen to many others as well. I'm beginning to believe bakerbarnett in the Phelan coaches' corner when he says this new version is sounding the death knell for the full court press. It is now so difficult to sign a D1 player with only 1 opening after an EE, with aggressive sims jumping on recruits and signing them out of the blue while you're still trying to unlock visits, and this EE problem, I will most certainly scrap the press in both worlds I'm in. IMO, the FCP is not effective without 12 decent players. I'll look forward to next round. I should have another EE and I'll try something different. That's why the beta is good. I can start making changes on my other teams to take into consideration that walkons are now going to be a major part of this game. Not quite the direction I was hoping for when the changes were announced, but that's the reality of it. On the plus side, it may make D2 and D3 a helluva lot more fun and competitive. We may see a migration of coaches to D2 where there are no EE worries.

Just for comparison sake, I searched through every Big 6 team News to find out which teams had EEs, still had a human coach to see how they fared trying to replace the player(s) that left (I'm also making some assumptions which some of these recruits aren't just recruits being signed with funds from period #1 but just signing late):

Duke (ACC), A+ Prestige: 3 EEs, replaced so far with Curtis Yarbrough (2 yr Juco) and Dennis Treiber (3 yr Juco)
Seton Hall (Big East), A- Prestige: 1 EE, no replacement (my 1 signee was a Late signer which I had gotten with my original 1 opening from period #1)
Minnesota (Big Ten), A+ Prestige: 3 EEs, Joseph Potter (2 yr JUCO) and Tommy Lassiter (#10 overall)
Michigan St. (Big Ten), A+ Prestige: 1 EE, no replacement
Oregon (Pac 10), A+ Prestige: 1 EE, no replacement
Arizona (Pac 10), A Prestige: 1 EE, no replacement
USC (Pac 10), B Prestige: 1 EE, Dustin Fisher (#55 overall) won the roll as High vs. VH (Chap's Dartmouth)
Tennessee (SEC), B+ Prestige: 1 EE, Travis Biggers (#22 overall) won the roll as High vs. VH

That's all I could find and I didn't look outside the Big 6 but out of the 12 EEs above, 2 got lucky with their random rolls, and other than those two, only the defending NC Minnesota was able to properly replace one of his EEs with a elite recruit so far.

Now that I understand preferences a little better, I may be able to plan for the unexpected EE a little better. But 2 out of 10 is a pretty poor average.

At syracuse, two seasons in a row I have had unexpected EEs. Replaced both with weak players - but did better this season.

Posted by mullycj on 7/24/2016 2:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 7/24/2016 12:10:00 PM (view original):
I was willing to make adjustments to the recruiting schedule, but the results of the poll didn't indicate that it was a high priority.

http://test.whatifsports.net/whatifsports/forums/Posts.aspx?topicID=420445&threadID=3421850#l_3421850

Seble - one suggestion that "seems" the simplest is to let them declare before round 1 of recruiting starts.

The ONLY thing you would be changing is removing the impact of post season results.
"Seems" like not a huge deal but would
1) still allow for 2 recruiting sessions
2) still allow for EEs
3) open up the roster slots and recruiting money when it's actually needed.

Is there a another negative that I would be missing?

Doesn't look like anyone has commented on this suggestion, but I will. It looks like a useful idea for Seble to scrutinize closely. You may have hit upon a good solution.

Posted by CoachSpud on 7/24/2016 9:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 7/24/2016 2:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 7/24/2016 12:10:00 PM (view original):
I was willing to make adjustments to the recruiting schedule, but the results of the poll didn't indicate that it was a high priority.

http://test.whatifsports.net/whatifsports/forums/Posts.aspx?topicID=420445&threadID=3421850#l_3421850

Seble - one suggestion that "seems" the simplest is to let them declare before round 1 of recruiting starts.

The ONLY thing you would be changing is removing the impact of post season results.
"Seems" like not a huge deal but would
1) still allow for 2 recruiting sessions
2) still allow for EEs
3) open up the roster slots and recruiting money when it's actually needed.

Is there a another negative that I would be missing?

Doesn't look like anyone has commented on this suggestion, but I will. It looks like a useful idea for Seble to scrutinize closely. You may have hit upon a good solution.

I recommended that like almost 2 months ago.

Seble already commented on it here.

Same here - the poll about recruiting time changes wasn't the best question to apply to when should EE's declare. Maybe that should be the poll questions. mully, keep working. Uncovering and helping making the finished product a good one.

Posted by snewell12 on 6/14/2016 11:28:00 AM (view original):
I've not played at a high level D1 (barely any experience at low level D1) so I'm just wondering if EE's are causing so many issues with recruiting why do they even need to exist in the game? It would certainly leave really good players on a roster much longer (which could be a huge issue?) but just a thought as I read post after post trying to figure out the best way to handle EE's.

If that doesn't work then they simply declare at the beginning of the season so the owner knows and is given the opportunity to replace as they would a senior.

*Meant to say uncovering and offering solutions

By the way, since I don't have any experience I'm now curious how many per year are we talking about leaving early on average?

Posted by snewell12 on 7/24/2016 9:59:00 PM (view original):
By the way, since I don't have any experience I'm now curious how many per year are we talking about leaving early on average?

Seble would have the best data but my best guess is approx half the NBA draft consists of non-seniors (so about 30 players leave per season). Those are spread over lots of teams and most teams lose between 1 to as high as 6 depending on how many seniors you have on your roster. With more random roll loses, and the HV cap, it is more likely teams will carry walk-ons now and those don't count versus the limit so rosters could indeed be way down (i.e. needing more than 6 recruits).

Thanks. It just seems like it creates a lot of headaches for very little actual benefit that could be solved with a simple solution. Mully (and a few others) seems to have his attention now so maybe there will be a fix.