I was hoping I could post a poll about this, but I don't see an option to post a poll anymore. I did post this on the Beta forum too.

I wanted to see if doing away with EEs something Seble would consider. That would solve the whole problem with the two recruiting periods. And based upon what I am reading on the Beta forums, the idea may have a lot of support.

I don't see any really good arguments about keeping them other than it is realistic, which is usually something I am strongly for. However in the case of EEs, I think the enjoyment of the game is hurt by players who lose the EEs, and by coaches who miss out on getting the top recruits because the powerhouse schools have so many scholarships due to EEs.

It would also level the playing field a bit more in recruiting. Here's why:
If I have 2 EEs a year, then over a 4 year cycle, I am replacing 20 players instead of 12. If I replace less players, then there are more top tier players to go around.

It also makes it a lot easier to plan your team. EEs is one of the most frustrating things for me as a coach. In Tark, Season 90, I won the NT at Kentucky. Looking back I believe I won with a roster of 9-10 players. At the end of the year, I had 6 EES, and I believe that left me with 3 players coming back. It was almost like starting from scratch.

I also really like having a player on my team for 4 years to give a great player a chance to break records, which is something I look at, just for fun.

I still like the draft because it's just kind of cool, and I don't see anything wrong with draft picks bumping up prestige.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on EEs in general?

I think it's an "easy" thing to have to replicate, the problem is 2 signing periods, but that seems to be something seble wants and new coaches want so they are trying to "fix" the problems in the game because of adding 2 signing periods

The game already is behind with not a lot of 1 and done players, it would become even less realistic simulation when it's nothing but 4 year players.

Also recruit Gen would need an absolute overhaul moreso than it currently does because with no EE's midmajor and non major teams would be recruiting elite guys because the top level schools would just not have any openings. It would probably almost close the gap between big 6 and mid/non major but then the game becomes even less realistic.

I'm against eliminating Ee's that would be another major thing I would absolutely hate with a burning passion

It's literally the embodiment of cut the arm off because the elbow is broken. Fix the actual problem.

Posted by viva_il_re on 6/28/2016 8:06:00 PM (view original):
I think it's an "easy" thing to have to replicate, the problem is 2 signing periods, but that seems to be something seble wants and new coaches want so they are trying to "fix" the problems in the game because of adding 2 signing periods

The game already is behind with not a lot of 1 and done players, it would become even less realistic simulation when it's nothing but 4 year players.

Also recruit Gen would need an absolute overhaul moreso than it currently does because with no EE's midmajor and non major teams would be recruiting elite guys because the top level schools would just not have any openings. It would probably almost close the gap between big 6 and mid/non major but then the game becomes even less realistic.

I'm against eliminating Ee's that would be another major thing I would absolutely hate with a burning passion

It's literally the embodiment of cut the arm off because the elbow is broken. Fix the actual problem.

+1 You do that, you just killed mid-majors forever.

No you don't Z.
Currently mid majors can never get top DI players because the top teams are CONSTATNLY reloading due to EEs. their best chance is to catch them when the Mid Maj has 4-5 openings and the elites only 1-2 and then go all out.

In the current system that NEVER happens because EE ensure the top teams never only have 1-2 openings.

That's my thinking too. Also, with the example I used, a top team has 20 openings over 4 years, and a mid major has only 12. So, they are always outgunned.

CoachSpud will be here soon to drop some compelling analysis directly into your eyeball on this one.

LOL - But which way will he weigh in?

I can translate..

Blah blah blah entitled DI coaches blah blah DII teams should get 700 rated players blah blah blah...what do you mean I cant get to Duke in 7 seasons.....blah blah.

Posted by kcsundevil on 6/28/2016 8:30:00 PM (view original):
CoachSpud will be here soon to drop some compelling analysis directly into your eyeball on this one.

lmao

I know that EE's promote "realism" in the game, but why have them at all? Hell, getting rid of EE's altogether might actually "help" mid-majors sign some elite talent because the BCS schools wouldn't have to be replacing those guys every year therefore leaving extras for the mid tier schools.

Just realized I posted in the wrong thread, so will bring it here where it belongs.

During the last NBA draft in Phelan there were 29 underclassmen taken. Assuming they eliminate the early entries, the mid majors still get left out of the elite talent. It's an advantage for the A/A-/B+ teams, midmajors still could get slightly better players, because of the players the A/A-/B+ teams normally get will fall to the B/B-/C+ teams and so on. Only way the midmajors can compete for these extra 29 players is if the prestige gap is narrowed. I don't have a problem with how prestige works, but some of the elite players might be "too elite" and could be scaled down a bit.

After thinking over the whole scenario, assuming they don't close the prestige gap, it would appear the major teams that get to keep the EE's would have the advantage. Think of an A+ prestige team getting to keep 3-4 All American seniors that would've normally declared early for the draft. The midmajors would stand less of a chance.

you can run but you can't hide

yes but talent drops down, maybe not to midmajors fully, but to non power schools who are able to bring in more recruits because the heavy EE teams cannot continuously recruit them because they don't have so many openings.

The power schools aren't losing/gaining talent because they would have the same talent as before just more upperclassmen. they would've just recruited the next 3-4 All americans that would've been EE's so they get better but not as much better as non power "power" schools and midmajors

It would also depend on population the less coaches the better it is for mid/non majors to become close to power conference stength

and prestige gap has been closed decently as well as "random signings".....

viva, your 2nd comment/paragraph is confusing. It sounds like you're putting fully developed seniors on the same level as incoming freshman, did I understand that correctly? And yes, I understand, in most cases, incoming, elite freshman won't improve as much as the average incoming freshman, because they're usually in red or already in the 80s and 90s in a certain attribute.

Yes the elites *are getting better*, but it's marginal compared to the benefit it brings to non elite Big 6 and midmajor programs get and would close the gap.

Without EE's the only difference for the elites is they keep players longer and can have more upperclassmen instead of generally having a lot of underclassmen.

non elite big 6 and midmajors however are now getting the elite recruits that aren't recruited by the elites since they are full as well as competing for the top players in the classes because now the elites don't have as many openings as well as their prestige(as well as boost from EE) is not booster and "lowered" in the advantage.of recruiting with the emphasis on preferences.

If we're really concerned about low or mid-majors being able to compete, why don't we look at why it may be unreasonably difficult to do so (I think CUSA Rupp shows it's possible, and Allen's Summit had a decent run, so I won't say it can't be done). I know that conference tournament money is an item that always gets blamed, but there has been the same money before DI became so top-heavy. IMHO, here are the bigger issues:

1) Prestige. Displaying everyone's current prestige has definitely made it easier to get a good idea of your chances in a battle. But even more important is the downward pull of baseline and conference prestige. At Manhattan in Tark, I had a ten year run with a 284-43 record, 9 straight Sweet-16 or better runs, an undefeated national championship season, and coming off an Elite 8, Tarek told me I was capped at A- because of the rest of the conference.

2) Potential - this is probably a bit controversial, but by defining how good every recruit can be and making it easily known, it makes it harder for really good players to slide down. I developed a national championship team at Maine with only 2 players who had 3 or more stars, but by taking decent players with good-great WEs and molding them into studs. This isn't possible now.

3) Recruit Generation - This is the biggie. Seble made the decision to make the best recruits better and everybody else worse. This is what really made DI so top heavy. It's been mentioned over and over that this is when mid or low majors really started having a hard time, but isn't going to be changed.