Posted by CoachSpud on 8/27/2016 12:02:00 PM (view original):
“For example let's say I have 1 opening and 3 likely early entries.”
Maybe structuring your classes so that you only have one opening is the bad idea here, nothing to do with EE’s. Also, 3 likely EE’s in a single season appears to be a thing of the past, so it looks like this "problem" resolves itself without any further artificial, arbitrary action by Seble..

“This is clearly a disadvantage to only the best teams…”
The passing of an advantage (studs on your roster) is not a disadvantage, it is merely the passing of an advantage. BTW, this is an advantage available to only a select few teams, unless the field opens up in 3.0.

"That's a big gamble, and it's supposed to be. If you choose to go after the best of the best, you are playing a high-stakes game. If you can't tolerate that risk, find a different method."
Exactly. It looks like the D1 recruiting culture is necessarily changing, from piling on massive riches and untold dozens of HV's and CV's to one of strategizing carefully and avoiding the minefields (something D2/D3 coaches have always had to do since they never have had massive riches). All change involves some pain. That doesn't mean we avoid all change.

How can one "structure classes" when multiple players might leave early? You claimed there was no reason for concern then dismiss legitimate concerns.

Posted by CoachSpud on 8/27/2016 12:02:00 PM (view original):
“For example let's say I have 1 opening and 3 likely early entries.”
Maybe structuring your classes so that you only have one opening is the bad idea here, nothing to do with EE’s. Also, 3 likely EE’s in a single season appears to be a thing of the past, so it looks like this "problem" resolves itself without any further artificial, arbitrary action by Seble..

“This is clearly a disadvantage to only the best teams…”
The passing of an advantage (studs on your roster) is not a disadvantage, it is merely the passing of an advantage. BTW, this is an advantage available to only a select few teams, unless the field opens up in 3.0.

"That's a big gamble, and it's supposed to be. If you choose to go after the best of the best, you are playing a high-stakes game. If you can't tolerate that risk, find a different method."
Exactly. It looks like the D1 recruiting culture is necessarily changing, from piling on massive riches and untold dozens of HV's and CV's to one of strategizing carefully and avoiding the minefields (something D2/D3 coaches have always had to do since they never have had massive riches). All change involves some pain. That doesn't mean we avoid all change.

Many, many of the changes employed here are for the better, I agree to that. I just can't be convinced otherwise that the 2nd cycle doesn't need more work.

Case in point - I was able to sign 1 top 50 player in the first cycle and set myself up to sign another 3 top 50 players early in the second cycle from effort created in the first. I'm at a D1 team that I took over last year which still has some scrubs. I cut two players which opened up 60 attention points and ~$6k + in recruiting budget. Which basically put me in the camp of an EE effect. There was still a good 10 players I was interested in, some only considering lower level D1 teams. Yet I tried to go all-in on 4 different players over the past 24 hours and each cycle one signed before I could allocate enough points to open them up. I would move all in on the next and then the next and then the next.
I had what will be a top 10 class most likely yet the 2nd cycle is so poor/random that I literally couldn't even get to a point to spend 1 cent of my budget which is a major issue. i think the weight of players signing first cycle over the 2nd is personally backwards. Despite me having a lot of success here so far in this beta this is a major flaw that will halls he my resolve of sticking through the game without further tweaks.

"The passing of an advantage (studs on your roster) is not a disadvantage, it is merely the passing of an advantage. BTW, this is an advantage available to only a select few teams, unless the field opens up in 3.0."

Right now 39 teams in Naismith could have EEs. I guess in Spudtard's world that means "a few".
No use arguing with him Kobo. You are better off conversing with a house plant. He's typed the same crap since day 1 of BETA and is a true cancer on this forum.

Well, recruiting went ok. I already had signed a top 50 player before the EE's. It was a little difficult to get traction but I was able to find a few serviceable players and a project. My issues was that I have 6 to be SR on the squad and could not keep a walk on or two. I would say that EE's benefit your team more than hurt it and I had a lot compared to what I expect in a normal world after a few years of HD 3.0. I say before we go solving the worlds problems, lets figure out after a few seasons if there is one.

Aidiamo, I agree there can be some tweaks. Ideas I could get behind for the second session include more elite prospects with the late preference, at least one signing-free cycle for those with late preference, and a number of moderately good jucos (think 650-700 range, with some potential) created to be unleashed for the late period. Maybe half as many jucos as early entries lost. All of those could be tried, and some combo may end up improving the experience. But I don't think they should be catering to players whose interest is to continue to be able to replace early entries with players of equivalent value.

What experience does spud have at Div 1 HD? I have played almost exclusively in Div. 1 and the goal has always been to improve your team's prestige therefore putting yourself in a position to land a better job at a more exclusive school. I agree that built in prestige was awful and I'm glad to see that North Carolina(for example) will no longer keep an A+ despite years of sub-par results. But this insane punishment of successful teams cannot be something that any sensible coach with Div 1 experience wants. I only have one team now and it is not an A+...but I don't want to be handed parity with the elite teams in Naismith, I want to earn it and believe that my team is on it's way to achieving that goal. That is my beef with this EE nonsense and really the whole nature of HD III.

Posted by shoe3 on 8/27/2016 6:55:00 PM (view original):
Aidiamo, I agree there can be some tweaks. Ideas I could get behind for the second session include more elite prospects with the late preference, at least one signing-free cycle for those with late preference, and a number of moderately good jucos (think 650-700 range, with some potential) created to be unleashed for the late period. Maybe half as many jucos as early entries lost. All of those could be tried, and some combo may end up improving the experience. But I don't think they should be catering to players whose interest is to continue to be able to replace early entries with players of equivalent value.

Why shouldn't it be possible to replace ees with players of equivalent value? I don't see why a successful Div 1 coach should be disadvantaged solely based on his ability to recruit elite players. Perhaps a new preference could be added. Something like "Wants to play at a school which produces NBA players" (but less wordy lol). These players would be looking specifically for teams which send players to the NBA and ees would be an advantage with them. Not only would it help to alleviate the discrimination against success in Div 1...but it is a preference that has some basis in reality.

Posted by kubasnack on 8/27/2016 5:30:00 PM (view original):
Well, recruiting went ok. I already had signed a top 50 player before the EE's. It was a little difficult to get traction but I was able to find a few serviceable players and a project. My issues was that I have 6 to be SR on the squad and could not keep a walk on or two. I would say that EE's benefit your team more than hurt it and I had a lot compared to what I expect in a normal world after a few years of HD 3.0. I say before we go solving the worlds problems, lets figure out after a few seasons if there is one.

This is not legit recruiting in a competitive environment. I'm glad that you found some serviceable players and a project in beta. You might have that kind of luck when people are giving max effort in a pay-to-play environment. Trying to superimpose anything that is happening here to what will happen in production is dubious at best.

Posted by Benis on 8/27/2016 12:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 8/27/2016 11:51:00 AM (view original):
I think I am beginning to understand.

Christmas is a wonderful holiday. It is so wonderful that only a few people get to enjoy it -- the rest have no Christmas.

But after Christmas I am sad and angry. I don't appreciate the fact that I had Christmas, and I am sad and angry that every day cannot be Christmas. I had Christmas once and therefore I am entitled to Christmas again. Maybe even again and again.

Therefore I propose two possible solutions to my "problem." (1) No more Christmas for anybody. (2) Give me Christmas every day of the year.

Yeah, I think I am beginning to understand.

Oh phew. I saw a Spud post and I thought it wasn't going to be condescending. Great to see that I was wrong.

I saw a benis post and figured it was 50/50, either a contribution or the usual dreck. Turns out to be the usual dreck. And in so doing (incorrectly) you failed to comprehend the post and missed the point entirely.

"Why shouldn't it be possible to replace ees with players of equivalent value?"
No one says it isn't possible, the argument seems to be that it should be automatic. How about because every season there would be more and more NBA-worthy players automatically generated for the benefit of the few at the top [yes, FEW, 10% or so according to the fifth grader math offered above] until there were hundreds of them. Every time a new team got an EE and was entitled to a new one each succeeding season, the number would grow.

"How can one "structure classes" when multiple players might leave early?"
Sign the right number of frosh, JUCO's, transfers, etc. Just like every other coach does.

Posted by kobo on 8/27/2016 9:57:00 PM (view original):
What experience does spud have at Div 1 HD? I have played almost exclusively in Div. 1 and the goal has always been to improve your team's prestige therefore putting yourself in a position to land a better job at a more exclusive school. I agree that built in prestige was awful and I'm glad to see that North Carolina(for example) will no longer keep an A+ despite years of sub-par results. But this insane punishment of successful teams cannot be something that any sensible coach with Div 1 experience wants. I only have one team now and it is not an A+...but I don't want to be handed parity with the elite teams in Naismith, I want to earn it and believe that my team is on it's way to achieving that goal. That is my beef with this EE nonsense and really the whole nature of HD III.

I don't think baseline prestige has been eliminated.

I've said it before, but I'll throw it out there again --- in my opinion, the playing field at D1 shouldn't be level. Otherwise it just becomes like D2/D3 with name recognition (UK, etc). That was the beauty of the HD 2.0 - it was hard. Personally, I think it would have been okay to dial it back a little bit, but I think the developers have gone too far.

Yeah, I wasn't addressing you coachspud.

Posted by brianxavier on 8/28/2016 12:56:00 AM (view original):
I've said it before, but I'll throw it out there again --- in my opinion, the playing field at D1 shouldn't be level. Otherwise it just becomes like D2/D3 with name recognition (UK, etc). That was the beauty of the HD 2.0 - it was hard. Personally, I think it would have been okay to dial it back a little bit, but I think the developers have gone too far.

With elimination of postseason cash and rollover combined with reducing impact of prestige, the pendulum has probably swung too far.

Posted by CoachSpud on 8/27/2016 11:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/27/2016 12:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 8/27/2016 11:51:00 AM (view original):
I think I am beginning to understand.

Christmas is a wonderful holiday. It is so wonderful that only a few people get to enjoy it -- the rest have no Christmas.

But after Christmas I am sad and angry. I don't appreciate the fact that I had Christmas, and I am sad and angry that every day cannot be Christmas. I had Christmas once and therefore I am entitled to Christmas again. Maybe even again and again.

Therefore I propose two possible solutions to my "problem." (1) No more Christmas for anybody. (2) Give me Christmas every day of the year.

Yeah, I think I am beginning to understand.

Oh phew. I saw a Spud post and I thought it wasn't going to be condescending. Great to see that I was wrong.

I saw a benis post and figured it was 50/50, either a contribution or the usual dreck. Turns out to be the usual dreck. And in so doing (incorrectly) you failed to comprehend the post and missed the point entirely.

"Why shouldn't it be possible to replace ees with players of equivalent value?"
No one says it isn't possible, the argument seems to be that it should be automatic. How about because every season there would be more and more NBA-worthy players automatically generated for the benefit of the few at the top [yes, FEW, 10% or so according to the fifth grader math offered above] until there were hundreds of them. Every time a new team got an EE and was entitled to a new one each succeeding season, the number would grow.

I'm shooting for 70% dreck so looks like I have a little more work to do.

I don't think the "Produces NBA Players" is a good option. That means EE coaches are automatically guaranteed NBA talent every year and that should not be the case. I do believe what would help is adding a "DEAD" period after the season where you have 24hrs to scout and recruit before any players start signing. This will let an EE coach somewhat catch up on top recruits that are left. Right now, they start signing right away and many top recruits sign before you can even give them any attention.