Posted by acn24 on 9/7/2016 7:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by pkoopman on 9/7/2016 6:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by acn24 on 9/7/2016 6:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by pkoopman on 9/7/2016 5:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by oldresorter on 9/7/2016 5:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by pkoopman on 9/7/2016 5:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by buddhagamer on 9/7/2016 5:23:00 PM (view original):
Why not just have WIS mark the players who will leave and when? Then I can buy your argument and access the risk properly if I want to recruit someone or not. But as long as it is random and this is how EEs are treated, then I guess we might as well just get rid of prestige and hey we can all start every season on an even playing field like you want.
It's not random. As I said earlier, of the 60 EE candidates on the board in Allen, all but 4 were in the top 15 at their position when they were recruited. I know this isn't exactly the assessment you're looking for, because we can't view HS ratings post-draft, but it's not going to be a big discrepancy. Top 10 in class is a pretty decent risk he'll consider. Top 11-20 much smaller, but still a risk. We're not flying blind here.
but it is unfair, EE schools and players, even if it was 100% known who would declare (which I agree, I feel like I have a pretty good idea if I'm losing someone or not), don't get all the resources every one else does in the first cycle. It is punitive in that sense, my words now - punitive because I'm recruiting for players that I don't have resources given to me that other schools have. Why not simply let them declare b4 recruiting starts and let's all move on to the next issue, rather than let this one fester and create for want of a better pair of words, bad blood. Obviously, there is enough of that already, isn't there? Bad blood, like punitive, again, my words.
I don't think you can say it's unfair if everyone is playing with the same risk. That's part of the risk. The consequence is attached to the player, not the program (I know team postseason success also plays a role, but presumably a small one relative to the players attributes). If you're recruiting that player, which you know is going to be an EE candidate, you are accepting the risk, right? Why is it unfair then when he leaves, and you only get the - very valuable - associated assets to allocate after he leaves? That's part of the risk, you have to plan, and you may need to scramble.
The reason I don't advocate WIS capitulating and having them declare early (and especially not eliminating EEs altogether) is because I think it is a good thing, a feature, not a bug, to make all teams, regardless of where they're perched, think and plan before they go after the best of the best. I don't think it's good to have teams in a commodity game enabled to hoard elite commodities year after year.
So you don't like having risk recruiting a 4 or 5 star recruit at a B prestige Big East school, but you're fine with moving risk to other coaches? As long as we know this is about your self-interest too.
You also glossed over that high DI schools have a huge advantage because of changes seble made, not because of the current recruiting mechanics or postseason bonus. Prior to recruit generation being tweaked, it was possible to compete nationally from Big Sky schools, Horizon schools, Ivies, or Patriot League schools.
I'm not sure what you're referring to. Rutgers has a guy on the big board this year, and it will hurt us more than anyone in the ACC if he goes. What's your point?
And I don't really care about changes made in the past. I care about the game I'd prefer to play now. Also pretty ambivalent to having small conference teams compete nationally. Should be possible, but very tough, and I think that's probably true now anyway.
I was referring to you complaining about BC beating you for a recruit. You don't mind the risk for schools to have multiple EEs, but you seem upset that when you risked going after a stud with your B school and were beaten by a higher prestige school.
So if you're not for leveling the playing field, why are you excited about it? Hasn't that been the driving force in this whole thread and in 3.0 been to reduce the advantage that high DI schools have in the current game? You'll have to excuse my feeling put out when the guy who created the imbalance can't be bothered to come up with a response to a serious issue beyond "Eh, we'll see what happens."
So who should be able to compete nationally? More than the current 10-15, but not including small schools? Only BCS? BCS, A-10, and a few others?
1) No, you're projecting. I don't mind that risk at all. I gamble for recruits all the time. One of the things I appreciate most about 3.0 is that it encourages the battles. The risk of not getting a recruit is fine. Believe me, I'm used to it. What annoys me is the sniping, and the fact that *all those scholarships*, far more than the prestige, is the reason why no one battled BC for those other recruits. Because no one battled him for the other recruits, he could confidently dump right before the signing cycle, and disappear the effort and assets I had invested. In the real world, there is no reason at all why the #9 center in the country, right in my back yard, would be considered a reach for a B level big 6 team. Especially when BC had also just signed a higher rated center, and another top 10 big man. Leading to...
2) I like a lot about 3.0. It's more fun, recruit decisions are more rational (see above) or at least can be. Reducing the power of elite D1 teams to get what they want unchallenged is not the equivalent of leveling the playing field. I'm not interested in absolute parity (as I've said many times) but I am interested in a game where coaches don't feel like they need to join a cartel to legitimately compete for elite commodities. I dislike mob/cartel games, and thatis basically what high D1 is in 2.0.
3) Everyone should be *able* to compete nationally. But it should be a long, hard road, and take a lot of luck and creativity for those outside big 6. And it should never be static over dozens of seasons. It's not in the game's interest, because then you're back to a few handful of coaches who don't pay and are happy, and the rest who do pay and are frustrated. The best scenario, I think, is a game that rewards good planning, creativity, and some luck/risk-taking, and requires the same to stay at or near the top.