I had a great conversation with cs about EE's.  I told them that I felt they a ee should nto count against you max schollie $.  Example right now you max at 6.  SO if you graduate 4 and have 4 ee's your screwed.  So i tossed the idea that you should in this case have $ for 8 but still be maxed at signing 6 fr.  They were game and ssid he would look into it.  I want thoughts and if you all like maybe give feedback or let cs no.  I have had this happen and it sucks.

I think that would be a VERY bad idea.
THe EE is a way of preventing the elite teams from getting TOO far ahead. .that would essentially get rid of that penalty/

What do ee have to do with elites?  At a low level school I have ee's  but how can i compete with top conf's if they take all my players and dont let me have $ to replace them.  I think your misguided.

Also it doesnt help top teams stay at top because most 1-3 year players are not good players and are generally far from home and dont run your sets so it is still tough to keep a roster full.  Maybe i dont understand y u dont like it. 

The EE gives you a prestige bump which makes the money you have go farther already. 

a b do you have any d1 teams?

ok you do now but its your first season.

Yes, I do have one. but thats besides the point.  THink about it as a logical exercize:  The EE's are going to be largely(Not entirely but largely) be concentrated in the elites - the dukes and the like, who allready have a ton of postseason money, and then you will stack this on top of it, you are actually going to end up FATHER behind as a low division one than you woudl have been before.

Posted by brip87 on 8/12/2010 8:03:00 PM (view original):
ok you do now but its your first season.

nnnooo. .its not my first season, actually.  Its my first season at St Louis.

And besides which, that is completely irrelevant to trying to prove your point and is a distraction.

Its not a distraction its the fact you have no experience with ee's.  EE's are not only at the elites.  Just the good programs with good coaches.  Why should a team be penalized for recruiting well?  In its current state this helps offset the penalty but in no way do teams get stronger because of it.

Whatever you want to think;  just logically its going to end up making the rich get richer.  THose teams with EE's seem to keep having EE'sm so it looks like they aren't having trouble replacing them already.

I agree with a-b, I think it's a really bad idea that would (for the most part) just make the rich get richer.

brian, you're letting your one experience at NAU color your opinion too much rather than looking at the bigger picture. I lost some early entries at Montana, too, and it sucked, but I'm very against what you're proposing. The big boys already have enough of an increased advantage in the new engine, adding to it in such a hugely meaningful way would be disastrous.

Im not saying to get money for all ee's just when they combined with graduates exceed 6.  So if you graduate 6 and have one ee you get $ for 7.  Nothing huge and the 1-3 years good players are almost always battled for and rarely close to home.  If someone has 3 graduate and 2 EE's they get no extra $ its only when the 2 combined are greater then the current 6 cap.  I respect your thoughts girt since you know what you are a proven winner.