The ACC as a conf, suffers no real dmg due to the 5 players rule, and their weaker teams (weak only because they play each other 16 times in conf) don't have 20+ wins...nice.

Tiany:

1. You know it's not fair to talk about overall. There are five important categories for big men, and he's great in all of them.
2. Re: the terrible five player rule: Send. A. Ticket. Please.

But the problem here is not just core v. overall. The following bigs are from the ACC, teams without 5 SRs:

Robert Shuttlesworth

Jr.

C

96

55

96

95

99

96

65

57

79

79

76

35

C-

928

Alton Lansford

Fr.

C

92

44

90

85

81

91

16

41

27

64

70

49

C-

750

Scott Anderson	Jr.	C	96	49	97	95	77	70	61	31	49	65	82	73	B-	845
Michael Hunsucker	Jr.	SF	100	66	82	99	51	99	77	71	60	90	84	61	C-	940

Steve Washington

Jr.

C

100

62

99

100

90

75

57

65

68

80

83

65

C

944

James Nix

So.

PF

90

68

85

95

83

96

70

52

60

52

84

58

B-

893

The problem here seems that # of overall wins play a major factor in EE. This significantly favors mid level teams in power conf, who makes the tourney with 14-18 wins, and still have the ability to make it deep into postseason play. 

Meanwhile, the most successful team in a minor conf will easily be 20-25 game winners (and sometimes, 25 wins gets bubbled out so you need to win more games). 

The win disparity is what drove my guy to leave early over those guys listed above. 

Edit: I guess stats disparity also mattered here, which again favors major conf. They have extremely deep teams and can lower players stats while still winning games. Other teams cannot. 

Well I wouldn't say that tianyi... I just went 17-13 this season, had a favorable NT draw so I made it to S16 but had an EE of my centre (who didn't win any awards but his uncle says he's a first round lock...LOL)

Albert Landgraf
C|Junior|7'0"|262 lbs.|2.9 gpa
Sugar-Salem HSSugar City, ID|Recruited By: buddhagamer

well it seems now the idea is to recruit bigs with mediocre lp. bigs with 90ish ath/reb/def/blk/lp are leaving early. 

here's a thought, why don't they just eliminate EEs?

I lost a sophomore big with 60-ish LP a few seasons ago. 

Posted by jslotman on 4/24/2012 11:37:00 AM (view original):
I lost a sophomore big with 60-ish LP a few seasons ago. 

that's gross. i thought maybe having one of the core big categories be low can prevent EE. Seaborn going early forces me to play this guy more, whom will probably leave in his JR year as well. All in all, my team is effed up with this EE: http://whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=2125331

Does anyone here think there is a practical value for EE? Is there any downside to removing it as a feature?

I don't see a downside aside from making the game slightly less true to real life.  Especially if recruit generation remains the same. 

if you got rid of EE, you would have to consider some super level of demand for playing time that elite players would want

and even so I would fear that without EEs the elite teams would have - or be seen to have - another big edge

Posted by metsmax on 4/24/2012 12:10:00 PM (view original):
if you got rid of EE, you would have to consider some super level of demand for playing time that elite players would want

and even so I would fear that without EEs the elite teams would have - or be seen to have - another big edge

My suggestion is get rid of EE, and maybe up the playing time demand, which increases the % of player that would transfer due to insufficient PT. The current EE system is devastating to mid majors who get hit, or mid tier BCS teams trying to build up prestige. LSU in Phelan just got hammered with 2 EE, and now is extremely thin in the front court. He also has 0 SRs this season and was banking on 2x postseason cash to capitalize on his prestige boost this coming season, which is now both gone. 

Another idea is to have EE but have it be more aligned to conf success + team success, while removing the 5 player rule. The 5 player rule has created huge demand for 1 year SRs to reduce EE, which have increased the # of EE from weaker conf. 

Here is the Phelan EE breakdown:

ACC	3
Big 12	4
Big 10	5
Big East	0
Pac 10	4
SEC	2
Non-BCS	4
MWC	1

This breakdown is wrong to me, with ACC having 6 of 8 elite 8 teams, 3 of 4 FF, and both the NC and runner up. 

I think the biggest problem with EEs is the inability to predict them...Im all for the "buyer beware" idea that comes with recruiting, but when you recruit a 3-Star or 4-Star with a ton of potential, then those types of guys simply shouldnt leave. Im the LSU team that he is referring to in the post above and it is devastating to a team like mine (that I took over with a C- prestige) to lose two guys that were respectively 3-star and 4-star players...It is absurd that the ACC who has 900+ rated players and just had 3 of the 4 FF teams along with 6 of 8 E8 teams only loses 3 as an entire conference...That is where the problem is IMO the unpredictability and inconsistency.