That guy was a RS so he's been around 4 seasons. He plays for the only human coached team in the conference. He is without a doubt the best player in the conference..... and he's pretty friggin good period.
Now should C+ Delaware lose an EE... I dunno, prolly not.
Would this kid even start for most good BCS teams... I dunno, prolly not.

In the real world... would he have drawn attention to himself and probably left early?... absolutely.
I hate to see the EE process become 100% predictable. But if this case is a rare event... across 10 worlds... I don't have a huge problem with it.
If it becomes common place... it's messed up... BUT, Delaware WILL get a bump in prestige... prolly to a B-. They WILL continue to dominate this sim conference....
I'm not so sure it's not a mild blessing in disguise here for them.

And... just to belabor my point a bit more... I don't think the OP was here to whine about losing his stud player.... he was just looking for a little compensation.
Mostly it's the rich who come on here and cry of the horrible injustice.... we little guys are actually kinda shocked / proud we had a player good enough to play in the NBA!

That guy was a RS so he's been around 4 seasons.
That just tells you he was not a high-rated recruit.
He plays for the only human coached team in the conference. He is without a doubt the best player in the conference..... and he's pretty friggin good period.
He's a very solid player. To say that he's the best player in a conference of sims ... I don't think that's material to this conversation.
Now should C+ Delaware lose an EE... I dunno, prolly not.
IMHO, I'd say definitely not (unless perhaps the guy was an outrageous stud).
Would this kid even start for most good BCS teams... I dunno, prolly not.
That's a huge point. He's not even a starter for most good BCS teams. That's not an early entry.

In the real world... would he have drawn attention to himself and probably left early?... absolutely.
Totally disagreed. We just agreed he's not good enough to even start for most good BCS teams. (Regardless, real life EE's and HD EE's really don't have anything to do with one another.)

I hate to see the EE process become 100% predictable.
It would not make it 100% predictable in any sense. It would make it a tiny bit more predictable in that it might be harder for lower level teams to lose guys early. Otherwise, still the enormous amount of unpredictability that exists today.

If it becomes common place... it's messed up... BUT, Delaware WILL get a bump in prestige... prolly to a B-. They WILL continue to dominate this sim conference....
I'm not so sure it's not a mild blessing in disguise here for them.
Oh, sweet Jesus. That's crazy talk. They get a tiny, temporary prestige bump (that might not even be visible in the letter grade, in which case the tangible impacy is greatly reduced) vs. getting him back for his final season. That's not even remotely close.

But mostly, I think you have to be careful not to look at EE's in a vaccum. The game right now is stacked against the little guy in DI ... so I'm all for encouraging something that levels the playing field just a bit. Plus, keep in mind that we want people to feel encouraged in the non-BCS jobs and like they have a prayer of competing. This type of thing discourages that. Bad news all around.

Like a posted a month ago... I lost a JR PF which was barely over 800 at the time (with very little growth left) to EE:

http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerHistory/Default.aspx?pid=1974626

Was a C+ prestige school at the time which had only won 1 PI game in my 4 seasons up to that point in a conference which I hadn't won the CT even up to when he left.  He wasn't even close to the best player in the conference at the time he left (and probably wasn't going to be even if he stayed).

Instead I went into this year's NT with a PF who scored 0 pts for me in my first round NT game so out I went....

I'm going to try and move onto a BCS conference if I can just because I think its already stacked against teams like mine without all of this EE stuff added on.

budd ... you should basically copy and paste this post and send it to seble. (And really make sure it gets to seble ... push through the first level of CS crap.) 

I'm glad my original post caused some discussion.  I was not complaining, per se, in my original post.  I do think the guy is not good enough to leave early, but I assumed he might.  He was 3rd team All american his sophmore year and was the only sophmore who was an All-american that season.  I would have liked him to have stayed, because I would have had 6 seniors this year and hope to have a good season, game prestige, and have a lot of money to recruit the next season.  Ultimately, I probably won't recruit anyone this year with his open slot and will end up in the same place anyway.

Also, Delaware is my alma mater and I live 5 minutes from the campus, so I just want to make them the best I possible can.  I am happy that a player I recruited will get drafted.  My first time, so that's sort of neat.  I try to remember this is just for ***** and giggles.

Posted by professor17 on 1/20/2012 8:29:00 AM (view original):
I also agree that the demarcation shouldn't be as black and white as BCS vs. non-BCS. That's too artificial/contrived a fix, IMO. I'd rather that EE's be tied strongly to post-season success, which would essentially accomplish the same thing without making different rules for different schools, depending what conference they are in. This would also ensure that conferences like the A-10 and CUSA, which have been very strong in some worlds, don't receive protection from having any EE's simply because they are not BCS conferences, despite having had strong success.

It's already very strongly tied into team success -- very strongly.

Posted by girt25 on 1/20/2012 8:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by professor17 on 1/20/2012 8:29:00 AM (view original):
I also agree that the demarcation shouldn't be as black and white as BCS vs. non-BCS. That's too artificial/contrived a fix, IMO. I'd rather that EE's be tied strongly to post-season success, which would essentially accomplish the same thing without making different rules for different schools, depending what conference they are in. This would also ensure that conferences like the A-10 and CUSA, which have been very strong in some worlds, don't receive protection from having any EE's simply because they are not BCS conferences, despite having had strong success.

It's already very strongly tied into team success -- very strongly.

There is a correlation now, but if one of the intents of EE's is to help level the playing field between the big schools who can sign the elite players, and the mid-major schools who can't, then that correlation is not nearly strong enough, IMO, and there is still too much random variability. There are simply too many cases of schools that go out early losing multiple EE's and championship game teams losing no one, for it to be an effective, meaningful formula.

I've been watching this pretty closely since the rise of the ACC in Phelan a few seasons back, and until this season, the ACC has really come off easy on EE's, despite routinely putting multiple teams in the E8 and F4. A few seasons ago really caused me to throw up my hands and declare EE's to be just too random. That season, multiple teams that went out in the 2nd round lost 3 guys each; a D2 team lost an EE; and neither team in the championship game lost anyone; I lost my 768 backup PG, while a conference mate who went farther in the post-season kept their 1000+ rated NPOY PG. This was all in the same season.

If we want EE's to help level the field (which is a completely debateable point), I say make post-season success more than a correlation; make it deterministic. If you miss the NT, you are guaranteed to lose no one. If you go out in the 1st or 2nd round, you can't lose more than 1 EE. Make the S16 or E8, you can lose 2 or 3, and are almost certain to lose 1. Make the F4 or farther, and there's no limit to what  you can lose, and you are almost certain to lose at least 2. Something along those lines anyway.

We lost our (TCU) best player to EE in Phelan after a "brilliant season" including a loss in the first round of the PT, 4th place finish in our division in conference, a 104 rpi and a C prestige.  Englehardt did make 3rd team AA, but if you look at the current list of all-americans in post-season awards there were 6 Jrs. Two of them went early, 1 from Stephen F Austin (1st team AA, nonBCS, 1st Rd NT, C+ prestige), 1 from TCU (3rd team AA, nonBCS, 1st Rd PT, C prestige). The other 4 stayed in school, all from BCS schools (Alabama, Iowa, TX A&M, Arizona), all with higher prestige, two of the schools made the Sweet 16, the other two the NT.  Pretty hard to build up a non elite program.

I'd be curious to see the number of seniors on those four teams listed above.

A&M - 5 Srs, AA was their best player, no other EEs
Iowa - 2 Srs, perhaps 2 other EEs. AA is their best remaining player
Arizona - 4 SRs, AA was best player, no other EE
Alabama - 3 Srs, AA best player, no other EE

EE does appear to have some link to post season success but IMO it's minimal.

My Michigan State team in Allen lost more EE (3), after a first round NT exit, than the 4 Final Four teams combined.
Although ironically my top rated player (and top player in the BigTen) stayed.

To close the loop on my original post, my player was drafted at the very bottom of the second round and my prestige rating did not go up, at least as reflected in the letter grade.