Early Entry Sophomore bench player? Topic

cburton23
Posts: 496 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 289 3
Prospect
I mean in general, not just your example.  My feeling is that IQ plays too much of a role.  There are frosh all over the country who come in and contribute right away and their IQ by the end of 1st semester is probably a B+
5/8/2012 1:22 PM
ike1024
Posts: 410 (0)
Hall of Famer
59
Prospect
I agree that IQ is weighted slightly on the heavy side.
5/8/2012 1:32 PM
professor17
Posts: 366 (0)
Hall of Famer
222 13
Rookie
The major concern I would have with reducing the role of IQ is that it would widen the gap between the BCS schools and mid-majors by an even greater extent than it already is. EE's would no longer hurt BCS schools so much, and mid-majors wouldn't really be able to take advantage of having more upperclassmen.
5/8/2012 1:40 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
jslotman
Posts: 303 (0)
Hall of Famer
126 9
Prospect
I was about to criticize girt for stashing guys on his bench, but then I realized that the top 25 recruit he stashed on his bench who played sparingly in his two seasons at UNC ended up leaving early.  That's some poetic justice right there. 
5/8/2012 1:57 PM
jskenner
Posts: 246 (0)
Hall of Famer
249
Prospect
Now maybe some would argue, "no EEs would cause this or that problem." Maybe so. But it couldn't be worse than it is now, and while they were turned off, WIS could work on a better EE system. And until then, NO CUSTOMER would get frustrated and drop teams because of this one issue. For myself, I have dropped all but 2 teams, and as soon as I get jilted EE-wise, I'm dropping them, too. Life's too short keep paying to try to build a computer simulated program while regularly coming up against this sort of issue.
5/8/2012 2:00 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
No EEs could definitely be worse.  That would guarantee mids no chance at ever competing, especially if a world ever became full.

I think there is at least an argument right now that mids, coached by good coaches can compete.  Getting rid of EEs, which predominantly affects major conference teams, would be significantly more detrimental to mids than anyone else.

The problem still lies in recruit generation, however, and the huge gap between the first and second-tier recruits.
5/8/2012 2:04 PM
jskenner
Posts: 246 (0)
Hall of Famer
249
Prospect
That could be remedied with improved recruit generation, and the way I see it, mids have pretty much no chance now. I just don't see how it could get worse for mids. If you can show me evidence of how mids compete now, and how that could be ended with no EEs, I'll happily concede your point. I'm not trying to be argumentative, isack. I really am open to evidence that contradicts my current perception. But I just have not noticed that evidence, if it's out there.
5/8/2012 2:08 PM
girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
Posted by jslotman on 5/8/2012 1:57:00 PM (view original):
I was about to criticize girt for stashing guys on his bench, but then I realized that the top 25 recruit he stashed on his bench who played sparingly in his two seasons at UNC ended up leaving early.  That's some poetic justice right there. 
I'll have you know, he played like 15 mpg his soph season!

He would've stayed four seasons had he ended up at UT, no doubt.
5/8/2012 2:08 PM
girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
Posted by jskenner on 5/8/2012 2:08:00 PM (view original):
That could be remedied with improved recruit generation, and the way I see it, mids have pretty much no chance now. I just don't see how it could get worse for mids. If you can show me evidence of how mids compete now, and how that could be ended with no EEs, I'll happily concede your point. I'm not trying to be argumentative, isack. I really am open to evidence that contradicts my current perception.

js ... C-USA Rupp!

5/8/2012 2:09 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Posted by jskenner on 5/8/2012 2:09:00 PM (view original):
That could be remedied with improved recruit generation, and the way I see it, mids have pretty much no chance now. I just don't see how it could get worse for mids. If you can show me evidence of how mids compete now, and how that could be ended with no EEs, I'll happily concede your point. I'm not trying to be argumentative, isack. I really am open to evidence that contradicts my current perception. But I just have not noticed that evidence, if it's out there.
Ha, this is probably the least argumentative response in the history of HD message boards!

Girt's point is my point, I guess.  No question that it's extremely difficult now, but I think there are a couple of conferences proving that it can be done with good coaches.

I think EEs (with a small tweak) would be fine if recruit generation was fixed.  I think if you fix recruit generation AND eliminate EEs, it's still anti-mids.  Why not fix recuit generation and keep EEs, which both help mids to some extent.
5/8/2012 2:17 PM
jskenner
Posts: 246 (0)
Hall of Famer
249
Prospect
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.
5/8/2012 2:22 PM
jskenner
Posts: 246 (0)
Hall of Famer
249
Prospect
I hear you, isack. But have you considered the fact of reduced open spots for teams who regularly have 5 or 6 openings? Now some teams could go the "sign 4 with 6 spots" route, but then they'll never have big carryovers. As much as you guys are thinking about this, I think you're not throwing ALL factors in for consideration. Of course, it could be ME that's doing that, so continue to enlighten me if you see the need. I do enjoy a productive discussion.
5/8/2012 2:27 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Posted by jskenner on 5/8/2012 2:27:00 PM (view original):
I hear you, isack. But have you considered the fact of reduced open spots for teams who regularly have 5 or 6 openings? Now some teams could go the "sign 4 with 6 spots" route, but then they'll never have big carryovers. As much as you guys are thinking about this, I think you're not throwing ALL factors in for consideration. Of course, it could be ME that's doing that, so continue to enlighten me if you see the need. I do enjoy a productive discussion.
You're right to a large extent, but I don't know that it matters so long as there are two or three conferences getting $60K per team each season in post-season money.  With more upperclassmen, those major programs will continue to dominate the post-season. 

You may be right, maybe reducing spots would allow more mids to get higher-end recruits, and would allow them to compete at a higher level with more post-season success.  But I fear that eliminating EEs would only mitigate a good change to recruit generation by allowing majors to keep their studs longer, when the now better second-tier guys playing for mids could beat ther youger majors.
5/8/2012 2:53 PM
girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
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.
5/8/2012 3:30 PM
◂ Prev 123 Next ▸
Early Entry Sophomore bench player? Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.