I understand what you are doing.
An issue with that is it underpowers the EE teams the 1st cycle and overpowers them for the second.
The simplest solution (which has been suggested numerous times) is just have them declare before the 1st cycle starts.
Then everyone has the exact same resources to replace players, whether they graduated or went EE.

(craig removed/edited his suggestion so this post doesn't make sense anymore)

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/1/2017 10:31:00 AM (view original):
First, four is crippling. It sucks and, if it were up to me, I'd program it so no one would ever have four. Of course, that might mean a hidden "capping" how many A+ recruits you can have on your team(and no one would like that). But four is too many.

Second, the program is working as intended. ******** about it every time is pointless. I don't think the program is changing any time soon. Suck it up, buttercup.

Finally, it seems to be that the top players would also learn how to play an O/D faster than some #187 at his position guy. IOW, it seems like their IQ growth would be accelerated. That should be a part of the game so the team using, and losing, EE would benefit more while they're still part of the team. Lessen the sting of losing them early.

Some have suggested that some top recruits also come in with higher IQs. I agree this would lessen the sting as it would be almost like bringing in a JUCO for 2-3 seasons.

That's not the intention. The design intention is to bring the top teams back to the pack. Because it's a SIM GAME.

Until everyone understands, and accepts, this simple fact, there can be no middle ground.

Everyone never has the exact same resources.

Posted by mullycj on 11/1/2017 10:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/1/2017 10:31:00 AM (view original):
First, four is crippling. It sucks and, if it were up to me, I'd program it so no one would ever have four. Of course, that might mean a hidden "capping" how many A+ recruits you can have on your team(and no one would like that). But four is too many.

Second, the program is working as intended. ******** about it every time is pointless. I don't think the program is changing any time soon. Suck it up, buttercup.

Finally, it seems to be that the top players would also learn how to play an O/D faster than some #187 at his position guy. IOW, it seems like their IQ growth would be accelerated. That should be a part of the game so the team using, and losing, EE would benefit more while they're still part of the team. Lessen the sting of losing them early.

Some have suggested that some top recruits also come in with higher IQs. I agree this would lessen the sting as it would be almost like bringing in a JUCO for 2-3 seasons.

Higher starting IQ or accelerated IQ growth. Either/or. It makes sense that top players understand the game better.

So why bring back the pack just for D1? What's in the SIM that prevents long-time good coaches camped at D2/D3 pull in great recruits season after season and be dominant?

The whole reasons for EEs back in 2.0 was that the D1 powerhouses had huge cash resources that when they went unchallenged in one recruiting session, rolled over into the following season. Both of those are gone and now we have preferences to level the playing field even more plus splitting the recruiting into two makes recruiting replacement players even toiugher.

Even if WIS marked the recruits as saying "Leaving after his JR season" or "One and Done", then at least we know ahead of time that what we are getting into but if you want to compete with the likes of the UCLAs of the world, you better come prepared.

Elite talent is a commodity. It costs what it costs. You know the risks when you recruit elite talent, and everyone plays under the same conditions. It is not unfair. You may prefer a less competitive game where it’s easier to sustain success in perpetuity. You’re entitled to your preferences. You’re not entitled to a game that caters to them.

"You’re not entitled to a game that caters to them."
And YOU are entitled to a game that caters to yours?

Posted by mullycj on 11/1/2017 11:01:00 AM (view original):
"You’re not entitled to a game that caters to them."
And YOU are entitled to a game that caters to yours?

Obviously.

Posted by mullycj on 11/1/2017 11:01:00 AM (view original):
"You’re not entitled to a game that caters to them."
And YOU are entitled to a game that caters to yours?

It doesn’t cater to my preferences. If it did, there’d be no scholarship resources, no bidding, everyone would have the same number of APs, recruits would make decisions based on prestige, promises, and preferences, with levels of weight on each varying by recruit.

Do EEs declare solely based on their ratings, or does game performance factor into the decision as well?

For example, assuming the same ratings, does a guy who scores 25ppg have a better chance of leaving than a guy who scores 15ppg?

Posted by slayterhill on 11/1/2017 11:10:00 AM (view original):
Do EEs declare solely based on their ratings, or does game performance factor into the decision as well?

For example, assuming the same ratings, does a guy who scores 25ppg have a better chance of leaving than a guy who scores 15ppg?

Mostly on ratings. Performance (primarily post-season awards and team tournament success) can have some effect. But the effect is hard to notice, because it probably only adjusts the probability a few percentage points, max. Whereas a high potential player with good work ethic and a coach that isn’t trying to hinder his development to keep him another year can move up the board quite a bit.

Posted by slayterhill on 11/1/2017 11:10:00 AM (view original):
Do EEs declare solely based on their ratings, or does game performance factor into the decision as well?

For example, assuming the same ratings, does a guy who scores 25ppg have a better chance of leaving than a guy who scores 15ppg?

Supposedly postseason awards and team postseason success can impact this.. but I'm not really sure this is true based upon the data I've collected. I saw a team go to the FF and keep both potential EEs ranked in the top 20 while another team lose in the 1st round and lose a guy who wasn't even on the board and was only honorable mention within his conference.

I still think this is the bigger issue (to me), guys who have no business staying, not leave early while others who have no business leaving, leave early. Plus not even being on the big board.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/1/2017 9:44:00 AM (view original):
The "issue", IMO, is that users believe they should A) make the NT every season or, even better, make a deep run in the NT every season B) get the best players with no consequences DESPITE KNOWING about the best players potentially leaving early.

Everyone, trust me when I say EVERYONE, knows how EE works. So what's the big shocker here?

Losing four did not mean I was going NT next season... I had to rebuild the team. But at least, give a chance to do it on equal footing. I am not a top owner, by any means, so I am top 40, top 20 sometimes, given the skills I have. But not top 165... I am only top 165 this season because EES are not fair.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/1/2017 9:58:00 AM (view original):
I fully understand the issue. Again, this is NOT some science that requires 8 years of HD college. Don't overestimate the intelligence required to understand HD.

The design, and I hope you know this, is to level the playing field and make it very difficult for the same 10 users to be in the Elite Eight every season. While you may or may not agree with that design, it's there. And it's there because this is a SIM GAME. You can't market a SIM GAME with the concept being "Try really hard, for many seasons, and maybe you can become one of those 10." You might call it Participation Trophy, and while I don't totally agree with that, there is some validity to it. WifS is trying to sell a game that will be enticing to new users who don't want to toil as a bottom feeder for real life years. Personally, I think they're doing a poor job of it, it takes over a year to even reach D1, but that's the concept.

Please tell me you understand. You don't have to agree but, hopefully, you understand.

The problem is that some will get lucky, others won't. Where is the fairness in this? If you want to penalize owners for drafting a top 20 players at his position or a top 10... Give everyone the same punishment, don't make random decide who gets the luck and wins the NT and which ones go to hell.

Posted by pkoopman on 11/1/2017 10:47:00 AM (view original):
Elite talent is a commodity. It costs what it costs. You know the risks when you recruit elite talent, and everyone plays under the same conditions. It is not unfair. You may prefer a less competitive game where it’s easier to sustain success in perpetuity. You’re entitled to your preferences. You’re not entitled to a game that caters to them.

You don't see the point. I mean, I am talking apples, you are talking oranges.