I had a significant back-and-forth with him after this, but that neatly summarizes WIS's position on the matter.

And their intent is not even produced on a consistent basis. Tweaks indeed.

In Phelan, the National Champ lost 4, the runner up lost 3 more, and 6 of the 8 elite 8 teams lost at least one. I wonder if that is about the avg.

Georgia lost 0 when they won the title last year.

Do you know how many seniors that GA squad had? I'm not saying I agree with it, but if my assumptions is right, did that have more than 4?

Quote: Originally Posted By berm on 11/10/2009Do you know how many seniors that GA squad had? I'm not saying I agree with it, but if my assumptions is right, did that have more than 4

Yes I believe so. I know that you are right that the fewer Seniors that you have the more likely you are to get ravaged by EE's. It makes no sense, penalizing a coach for being successful, yes I do think that EE's have a place in the game but to take 33% of someones team to 'level the playing field' is not the answer.

If they are trying to level the playing field, I am surprised that they haven't considered lowering prestige (instead of increasing it) for successful post season teams or taking away recruiting dollars for tournaments wins instead of adding it. That would probably work better than EE (though coaches would dislike it just as much).

I know you're being sarcastic, but nothing is as crippling as losing multiple stud players early. I'd trade some recruiting cash to have impact seniors back any day.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

That doesn't sound right to me. So that means in any given year, there could be lots of players who randomly decide to go early, and a bunch could go undrafted? Not sure, but that doesn't sound accurate.

dalt, I read it to be a little different then that, not that players that EE could not be drafted (I am fairly certain all are guaranteed to be drafted). I think what I am being told is that a players EE chance is completely dependant on himself, not the rest of the other possible EEs.

To clarify since there was some misunderstanding in the above referenced ticket:

A player looks at where he'll be projected to be picked based on other potential draftees, but beyond that he decides on his own. Where a player projects DOES factor in other players, but the player DOES NOT completely make the decision based on that.

So two players could both be projected as draftable and one might stay while the other goes, even if the one who stays is a better player. So it doesn't make sense to look at a player who decides to go and a player who stays and ask why that happened.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Thank you seble. You beat me to the punch

Quote: Originally Posted By seble on 11/10/2009To clarify since there was some misunderstanding in the above referenced ticket:

A player looks at where he'll be projected to be picked based on other potential draftees, but beyond that he decides on his own. Where a player projects DOES factor in other players, but the player DOES NOT completely make the decision based on that.

So two players could both be projected as draftable and one might stay while the other goes, even if the one who stays is a better player. So it doesn't make sense to look at a player who decides to go and a player who stays and ask why that happened.

All of that is well and good until this statement. That's a cop out at best, misleading at worst.

Where a player projects and how good that player is is part of the process. So why does it not make sense to compare? Obviously if two players are very close or one is just slightly better that's one thing, but when there's a clear cut difference between a guy that declares and numerous others at his position who stay, then I absolutely think it's relevant to compare.