i have no idea if you're serious or not

Don't understand what this has to do with socialsim, maybe I'm missing something. This is something that SHOULD be arbitrary, because it is very arbitrary in real life as well. Look at the kid from OK State, he was a guaranteed top 5 pick if he declared for the draft this year, but decided to stay. He's an example of a 900 rated kid coming back, but then you have many worse players than him leave early.

If you play D1 long enough you will get chewed up by EEs, it's the nature of the game.

If you're missing something I am as well. I don't blame mully though, socialism might be the most misunderstood ideology in the nation. 

Mully, I'm not disputing your claim(BTW I coach the elite 8 team that lost 0 players this season)but WIS also punishes teams like mine.Back to back elite 8s, sweet 16 and 2nd rnd.the 2 seasons before.And we cant move above A prestige.Also this is the 1st.season of 6 that we haven't had a EE and 4 of those 6 we had 2 or more.You know there are teams in Smith with A+s that cant compare to our body of work.The simple fact that Miss.St.is not a high core school like Duke, UNC, Gtown ect.we suffer.In your case you did get raped this season.It happens to a couple teams every season.At least you keep you A+.:)Best of luck recruiting and ******* off blud and the boys with all that extra $.

i think everyone who has coached as long as mully gets a pass on at least one or two of these =) i do agree that EEs can be improved, but to hit 3 EEs on an A+ is inevitable when you coach this long. don't take it too hard, mully. when i started this game, the first time i had an EE, only my 3rd BCS season, i had 3 of them, all guards, and was devastated. the second i had a record setting (at the time, since been passed) 5, and wanted to quit the game - i thought i had set myself up better than the first time, was ready to go for a back to back title, but despite having 2 seniors, found myself with 7 openings. then i realized you just have to game the system. recruit guys who suck, and you will have no more trouble :)

BTW ...this is the 2nd time in the past 3 seasons I've lost 3 players.   

I went to WIKEPEDIA and still think Socialism is the term I was thinking of.     If anyone who knows what I'm saying here has the correct term please post it..  

Socialism sounds somewhat correct to me. Perhaps there is a better term, because it isn't exactly redistribution of wealth (since no one else gets your EE), but it is a way of making sure the rich don't get richer and the poor have a chance to compete. 

Posted by caesari on 10/22/2013 8:48:00 AM (view original):
Socialism sounds somewhat correct to me. Perhaps there is a better term, because it isn't exactly redistribution of wealth (since no one else gets your EE), but it is a way of making sure the rich don't get richer and the poor have a chance to compete. 

I think a more appropriate term might be "Plutocracy".  If it were true socialism, my mid-level D1 team would gain by penalizing the elites. 

For that to happen, every time an elite loses an EE, I'd get $10,000 budget for the following year. 

Now that I think about it ...

Sounds like we need Robinhood!

Posted by ethan66 on 10/22/2013 11:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by caesari on 10/22/2013 8:48:00 AM (view original):
Socialism sounds somewhat correct to me. Perhaps there is a better term, because it isn't exactly redistribution of wealth (since no one else gets your EE), but it is a way of making sure the rich don't get richer and the poor have a chance to compete. 

I think a more appropriate term might be "Plutocracy".  If it were true socialism, my mid-level D1 team would gain by penalizing the elites. 

For that to happen, every time an elite loses an EE, I'd get $10,000 budget for the following year. 

Now that I think about it ...

isn't it the exact opposite of plutocracy? i mean, in general, HD d1 is sort of a plutocracy, because the elite get everything. but the thing mully is complaining about, EEs, take away from the wealthy - which the wealthy would never allow. a plutocracy is where a small group of elites run things. its really more of an idea than a practical system, i would compare it to communism run by a council or political party instead of a dictatorship.

OK, Robinhood vs. Stalin

Posted by gillispie1 on 10/22/2013 1:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ethan66 on 10/22/2013 11:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by caesari on 10/22/2013 8:48:00 AM (view original):
Socialism sounds somewhat correct to me. Perhaps there is a better term, because it isn't exactly redistribution of wealth (since no one else gets your EE), but it is a way of making sure the rich don't get richer and the poor have a chance to compete. 

I think a more appropriate term might be "Plutocracy".  If it were true socialism, my mid-level D1 team would gain by penalizing the elites. 

For that to happen, every time an elite loses an EE, I'd get $10,000 budget for the following year. 

Now that I think about it ...

isn't it the exact opposite of plutocracy? i mean, in general, HD d1 is sort of a plutocracy, because the elite get everything. but the thing mully is complaining about, EEs, take away from the wealthy - which the wealthy would never allow. a plutocracy is where a small group of elites run things. its really more of an idea than a practical system, i would compare it to communism run by a council or political party instead of a dictatorship.

Oligarchy?

literally the only 'potential' system improvement i could see for EE's (beyond massive changes) is going back to personality tests being used to predict EE's