Posted by jskenner on 5/8/2012 2:22:00 PM (view original):
Ok, so explain how CUSA Rupp gets hurt by no EEs. It seems they get their share of studs, as much as many BCS conferences. And with no EEs, then BCS teams will start to go through normal fluctuations in open spots, making it arguably more doable for CUSA coaches to snag top talent. As it is now, it seems A+ and A programs average about 5 open spots each year. If that average dropped to 3, this would leave more openings for quality mids and mid conferences. Again, I'm not trying to take a position for the sake of it, and if you can tell me what I'm missing, I'll change my stance.
Well, first, I simply offered C-USA as an example of current non-BCS success.
But to answer your follow-up, if there were no EE's, it would be nearly impossible for non-BCS teams to meaningfully contend. The BCS teams would just be way too stacked.
Saying that the elite programs average five openings a year is an overstatement. But even if it's four and that's reduced, the small handful of top players that would've gone to one of them would now mostly go to B/B+/A- BCS programs that generally have large monetary advantages.
At this point, we're not signing BCS talent throughout the conference. There are probably two teams that consistently do, and a couple others that mix top talent in with some secondary talent. The rest is well-mined secondary talent. A few extra top recruits in a particular geograpphic region each year might
help a little bit, but it would be far outweighed by the negative of having the BCS teams even more stacked than they are now.
Ask any good BCS coach if he'd rather be guaranteed no EE's, or lose EE's but have some more recruiting cash. Anyone worth their salt would opt for no EE's -- and that right there tells you that overall it's advantageous for the BCS conferences.