Posted by tianyi7886
Sure, Kentucky won the NC, so they should be losing as many EE as Kansas.
I meant this is as a hypothetical example, not to mimic real life.
So again, I believe that a stacked Ohio State team in a weak Big Ten and an equally stacked/successful UCLA team in a loaded Pac-10 should have the same chances of losing an EE. Agree or disagree?
But we are not really comparing apples to apples here. A great big sky team is never to be at the same level as a great BCS conf team, but the rate of EE for great players in weaker conf is higher.
That is not true. Why do you say that?
I believe that EE system should be based on player rating, team success, player stats, player awards, with things like # of wins and awards in context of conf strength.
That is basically how it does work now. What we can quibble over is the weights and how they're applied. Core ratings are the most important, which makes sense. Team success is next. I do basically agree with your point that they take success for non-BCS teams out of context and penalize them too much for it. That's really the one item in the criteria that I think is awry. And I think the easiest, most straightforward solution to that end would be to simply make it harder for non-BCS teams to lose EE's. It's simply much, much harder for them to recover from the loss of a player like that, and they should take that into account.
Right now, the EE system is looking at these factors in isolation, where conf strength doesn't seem to matter much.
I'm starting to understand (I think) that you don't really mean conference strength as a whole, but rather BCS vs. non-BCS. If that is the case, we're in agreement. If you think that a stacked Ohio State team should be less likely to loss an EE if the Big Ten happens to be down, then I couldn't disagree more.
From what I'm seeing, a 90/90/90/90/90 big on a 30 win midmajor has a higher probability of leaving than a similar player on a middling ACC/top BCS conf, because the big on the midmajor is going to win alot of conf awards, and his team is going to win alot of games.
I think conference awards make no difference. National awards do help. But yes, a BCS team that doesn't make the NT is more protected from EE's than a mid-major that does, and that is due to team performance.
The main reason I can see for them staying is that their team won much fewer games, and the players didn't win any awards.
Again, it's mostly team performance.
You seem to agree to this when you said to the St. Francis coach, a player who played on a 29 win team and won multiple awards going EE isn't really that puzzling.
I wasn't surprised because I understand how the system works. I didn't say that I agreed with it. (I don't.)
So under this logic, it's better to make the NT with fewer wins and even distribution in terms of fewer EE.
No, not really. If you make the NT, you're susceptible to EE's.
So not only does BCS teams have baseline prestige edge, conf strength leading to more playoff cash and recruiting advantage (and the ability to replenish EE), they are further rewarded with the fewer EE because they don't have to get to 25+ wins to make the NT and the ability to play a limit their stars stat output? That's a little unfair.
Again, you seem to be putting way, way, way too much important on overall wins. If a non-BCS team went 28-1 and missed the NT, they would almost certainly not lose an EE.