EE's are getting out of hand Topic

paul0613
Posts: 77 (0)
Hall of Famer
63 13 28
Prospect
I'm just going to vent.  I lost an EE for the 4th year in a row.  This year I lost 2, both juniors.  Neither will be a 1st round pick.  As a matter of fact out of the 5 EE's I've had in the last 4 years the highest drafted was 28th overall.  There is no way an 811 rated JR PF with zero upside would declare early.  The 905 rated JR C with zero upside is hard to take, but at least its borderline believable.  Not once in the 4 years have I finished ranked in the top 25, 2 of the 4 years I made the NT making the 2nd round one time. This is not a storied dynasty pumping out NBA stars, players leaving early from this mid-level Big 6 should be the exception not the rule.
4/19/2012 8:46 AM
alblack56
Posts: 3329 (0)
Hall of Famer
490
Pro
I don't play DI,  in part because of EE's.  But I emphasize with your frustrations,

It'd be interesting to compare percentages.  What percentage of WIS players leave early compared to real life?
4/19/2012 8:54 AM
reinsel
Posts: 927 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 130
Rookie
I think the latest rule change to eliminate EEs if you have 5 or more seniors was a bad one, and forces more EEs from weaker teams.
4/19/2012 9:02 AM
kmasonbx
Posts: 847 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect
Posted by reinsel on 4/19/2012 9:02:00 AM (view original):
I think the latest rule change to eliminate EEs if you have 5 or more seniors was a bad one, and forces more EEs from weaker teams.
Do you know the second part of this to be a fact, or is this an assumption? Not being a sarcastic, I'm just curious as to if there is a minimum requirment for EEs every season.
4/19/2012 10:23 AM (edited)
trobone
Posts: 615 (0)
Hall of Famer
73 12 10
Rookie
there is no requirement I know of when it comes to EEs....
4/19/2012 10:13 AM
girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
Posted by paul0613 on 4/19/2012 8:46:00 AM (view original):
I'm just going to vent.  I lost an EE for the 4th year in a row.  This year I lost 2, both juniors.  Neither will be a 1st round pick.  As a matter of fact out of the 5 EE's I've had in the last 4 years the highest drafted was 28th overall.  There is no way an 811 rated JR PF with zero upside would declare early.  The 905 rated JR C with zero upside is hard to take, but at least its borderline believable.  Not once in the 4 years have I finished ranked in the top 25, 2 of the 4 years I made the NT making the 2nd round one time. This is not a storied dynasty pumping out NBA stars, players leaving early from this mid-level Big 6 should be the exception not the rule.
First, you should ignore the "no upside" part. Almost all of the guys with 90+ ratings who go EE are down with any significant improvement. (And further, just think of this as their ceilling in college ... guys continue to improve once they go pro.)

The 905 guy is more than borderline believable -- he's 94+ in reb, def, bl, lp. He's a stud, and studs on NT teams always have the potential to leave. The other guy isn't as great, but still damn good and can't really be considered a huge surprise (his overall isn't as high, but having categories like 99 lp, 99 ath, 96 def matters; the fact he has a 12 pe and 37 bh really doesn't).

But the bottom line is that you've run into some bad luck with EE's the last few years. Over time, that luck does even out, and hopefully it will for you sooner rather than later!
4/19/2012 10:31 AM
girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
Posted by reinsel on 4/19/2012 9:02:00 AM (view original):
I think the latest rule change to eliminate EEs if you have 5 or more seniors was a bad one, and forces more EEs from weaker teams.
I hate the rule change -- it's a rich-get-richer mistake by seble that he somehow doesn't get. It's kind of insane, actually.

I don't think it's had a major overall impact on EE's, but there are probably a few each season that it does impact (and that's enough).
4/19/2012 10:33 AM
professor17
Posts: 366 (0)
Hall of Famer
222 13
Rookie
Part of the problem is that there is a heavy bias towards big men in the draft/EE logic. Iv'e evaluated a sample size of over 1,200 drafted players and have found that only half as many guards get drafted/go EE as you would expect, if all positions were treated equally. (I've informed CS of this, they say it shouldn't work that way, and it's on their list of things to fix).

So because of this bias towards big men, a lot of elite guards on elite teams end up staying in school, while a lot of borderline big men on non-elite teams end up declaring early. If the draft/EE tendencies were equally balanced by position, you'd see more elite teams losing guards, and fewer non-elite teams losing big men early, than you do now.
4/19/2012 10:55 AM
jslotman
Posts: 303 (0)
Hall of Famer
126 9
Prospect

A question I've never seen answered is whether the EE per team cap change was made in conjunction with a change in overall EE"s per world per season.  I believe the answer to be "no," meaning when the system goes through the BCS teams and figures out EE's and there are gaps between the cap number and the overall number of EE's, lesser teams are almost automatically going to lose more players.  Ergo, B+, not particularly highly-rated, first round NT loser Gonzaga loses two in Allen and C+, not highly rated at all, first round NT loser Marist loses one. 

Seriously, Marist lost as many early entries as one final four team (Texas - capped) and more than runner-up Arizona (wait for it...also capped).  Just doesn't make any sense. 

4/19/2012 11:12 AM
bow2dacowz
Posts: 1135 (0)
Hall of Famer
20 40 390 1 1
Prospect
If they balanced out the bias towards big men you might actually see fewer EE's anyway because there are probably some graduating seniors at the 1/2/3 positions that might get picked up instead
4/19/2012 11:17 AM
jslotman
Posts: 303 (0)
Hall of Famer
126 9
Prospect
Posted by bow2dacowz on 4/19/2012 11:17:00 AM (view original):
If they balanced out the bias towards big men you might actually see fewer EE's anyway because there are probably some graduating seniors at the 1/2/3 positions that might get picked up instead
IF that is how the programming works, and I'm not positive it does. 
4/19/2012 11:33 AM
coach_billyg
Posts: 2072 (0)
Hall of Famer
92
Pro
Posted by kmasonbx on 4/19/2012 10:23:00 AM (view original):
Posted by reinsel on 4/19/2012 9:02:00 AM (view original):
I think the latest rule change to eliminate EEs if you have 5 or more seniors was a bad one, and forces more EEs from weaker teams.
Do you know the second part of this to be a fact, or is this an assumption? Not being a sarcastic, I'm just curious as to if there is a minimum requirment for EEs every season.
it depends. players take into account their draft stock, if ineligible players not being in the draft raises their draft stock, then yes, it definitely causes more EEs from weaker teams. if the ineligible players are in the mock draft, then it shouldnt really affect the decision of the other guys, and we should just see an overall decline in EEs.
4/19/2012 11:49 AM
reinsel
Posts: 927 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 130
Rookie
Posted by coach_billyg on 4/19/2012 11:49:00 AM (view original):
Posted by kmasonbx on 4/19/2012 10:23:00 AM (view original):
Posted by reinsel on 4/19/2012 9:02:00 AM (view original):
I think the latest rule change to eliminate EEs if you have 5 or more seniors was a bad one, and forces more EEs from weaker teams.
Do you know the second part of this to be a fact, or is this an assumption? Not being a sarcastic, I'm just curious as to if there is a minimum requirment for EEs every season.
it depends. players take into account their draft stock, if ineligible players not being in the draft raises their draft stock, then yes, it definitely causes more EEs from weaker teams. if the ineligible players are in the mock draft, then it shouldnt really affect the decision of the other guys, and we should just see an overall decline in EEs.
I do not know the 2nd part for sure, but I beleive that certain players are coded to go EE if they are 1st round picks and others are coded to go if they are 2nd round picks.  Less eligible draftees some teams means more EEs on other teams. 

The 5 part of the rule is just dumb.  If you want to cap it at 6-7 players or 2 EEs per team, that would be reasonable.
4/19/2012 12:25 PM
teamrc
Posts: 70 (0)
Hall of Famer
77
Prospect
Posted by jslotman on 4/19/2012 11:12:00 AM (view original):

A question I've never seen answered is whether the EE per team cap change was made in conjunction with a change in overall EE"s per world per season.  I believe the answer to be "no," meaning when the system goes through the BCS teams and figures out EE's and there are gaps between the cap number and the overall number of EE's, lesser teams are almost automatically going to lose more players.  Ergo, B+, not particularly highly-rated, first round NT loser Gonzaga loses two in Allen and C+, not highly rated at all, first round NT loser Marist loses one. 

Seriously, Marist lost as many early entries as one final four team (Texas - capped) and more than runner-up Arizona (wait for it...also capped).  Just doesn't make any sense. 

as coach of the Zags, I have lost 7 in the last 6-7 seasons.
The C who left was a 734 overall rated junior, let me repeat that for those who missed it........That's seven hundred and thirty friggin four. 
A 734 rated junior leaving a Big-6 team would be a joke... there are tons of better players to lose than him.
For us to lose him was a deal breaker.
Not here to rant.
It's just time to do something less frustrating.
4/19/2012 4:37 PM
kmasonbx
Posts: 847 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect
Posted by coach_billyg on 4/19/2012 11:49:00 AM (view original):
Posted by kmasonbx on 4/19/2012 10:23:00 AM (view original):
Posted by reinsel on 4/19/2012 9:02:00 AM (view original):
I think the latest rule change to eliminate EEs if you have 5 or more seniors was a bad one, and forces more EEs from weaker teams.
Do you know the second part of this to be a fact, or is this an assumption? Not being a sarcastic, I'm just curious as to if there is a minimum requirment for EEs every season.
it depends. players take into account their draft stock, if ineligible players not being in the draft raises their draft stock, then yes, it definitely causes more EEs from weaker teams. if the ineligible players are in the mock draft, then it shouldnt really affect the decision of the other guys, and we should just see an overall decline in EEs.

This explanation definitely makes sense.

4/19/2012 7:54 PM
1|2|3...10 Next ▸
EE's are getting out of hand Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.