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?

And, no, prestige means everyone doesn't recruit on even footing. Would you like to do away with prestige and recruit on even footing with Western Carolina?

That statement clearly shows you don't understand the issue. Having never played DI that is not surprising. Sometimes you really sound like spud.
Again...he's not complaining about LOSING EEs, the issue is how you are punished in the current recruiting cycle.

How about your next recruiting session I take away 1,440 of your APs and we will see how good you do. I doubt you will be very successful. Because that's what HDs version of EEs did to zorzi. If you think that is fair "punishment" for being successful then you are really not worth debating with.

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.

Yep - understand and don't agree. See ya in 2018.

Ok, good, now we can hold rational discussions on EE. Because we both understand the design and the pointlessness of zorzii's complaint.

I hear this, "something unexpected happened, I wasn't prepared, as a result, my team suffered."

Y'all might feel my opinion is invalid because I haven't coached D1 yet, but consider this:

My 6th man, and sometimes starter, was developing nicely, his performances improving in each game. I knew at mid-terms his grades were struggling, and I adjusted by maybe adding 1 minute of SH time, but I was greedily licking my chops as he got better in cores. Grades. 1.9 GPA. Ineligible. I wasn't prepared, and my team has suffered.

Nothing to do with EE?... Maybe.

We are playing a game with set rules and potential land mines. But again, I hear: "I got greedy, something unexpected happened, I wasn't prepared." The degree of difficulty is the highest at D1, and EE is one of the main factors to that. The game designers have intentionally made D1 difficult to play. That makes logical sense to me, seeming as how you've earned your place as a D1 coach.

How is it "greedy" to have a player on your roster ranked 90th on the big board go EE because the random dice generator came up with a 5% roll while 25 players above him and better than him didn't go. Is it greedy to recruit players that are equal to the rest of the good players recruited by top25 programs?

Is it better to pick a bunch of mediocre players, go to the PIT every season and be happy there are no EEs?
EEs are a punishment by themselves. You only get 2-3 years out of an important piece of your team and he leaves before he can heavily contribute because the IQs haven't gotten to "A" yet. But then HD/Seble boned everyone by denying them the same resources to replace him as every other team gets...

Damn you zorzi......I really hate this subject.

Are you comparing grades to recruiting? If so then you need to change your practice plan so your players only Improve 10 sessions while mine improve 32 sessions then let’s see how that works out. Sound like a good plan.

20x10 att points for an EE = 200 att points
20x32 att points for everyone else = 640 att points

just make it even, when you’re EE bolts you get 64 att points instead of 20, sounds easy to enough to fix. Obviously they can do adjusted points since transfers are a thing.

EE sounds difficult. I'm looking forward to developing my own strategies when I coach D1.

The second I see my player listed on the Big Board, I'll be working to implement those strategies. I don't care if he's 100 on the Big Board, judging by all the EE posts, if he's on there, I'm at risk. That sounds difficult.

If coaching D1 isn't fun for me because I can't figure out how to recruit top-notch players with a high probability of EE... then I'll stay at D3 where I'm having a blast in the most competitive conference in Naismith.

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.