"Dalt, we're in about 98% agreement. I think what's happened is that the recruit-generation change has exacerbated a lot of formerly small (or non-) issues. Conference prestige is one example. Where you and I don't seem to agree is that I think another is the determination of early entries. It hasn't really changed; however, now that there are players who are start out so far ahead of everyone else, the randomness that's always been part of the EE process serves to help the big boys even more by not hitting them as hard as it should."

I'm not looking at where guys start out, I'm looking at where they're at right now and whether there are a bunch of players in the ACC who were clearly early entry guys who were passed over. That would have to be the case to legitimize the notion that more EE's should've come from the ACC, and that just isn't the case.

"Your point about the unique situation in Allen is also spot on. But in a way, it makes my point: Because the Big East and the SEC are so weak, the ACC coaches as a group pretty much get any 4- and 5-star player east of Lake Erie they want. That's a huge percentage of the world's top-rated players. The offset to that should be that the ACC has a lot more EE's than everyone else. But that doesn't seem to be happening. This season, for example, the PAC 10 had the same number of guys go early as the ACC. "

The PAC-10 signs every 4/5 star from the mountain region over. They have some absolutely loaded rosters. The biggest difference is that the bottom half of their conference is worse than ours. But the top teams (Stanford, UCLA, AZ, OR) are every bit as talented as the ACC -- and that's where the PAC 10's early entries came from.

Beyond that, the Big East had zero early entries and the SEC had a grand total of two (both from LSU, one a screamingly obvious, 900+ rated, NPOY) ... so again, I just don't see this particular gripe as being justified or steeped in reality. The highly-talented players have a shot at leaving early, particularly when they play for successful teams.

Posted by girt25 on 4/30/2011 5:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by reinsel on 4/30/2011 5:01:00 PM (view original):
- The powerful effects of conference prestige (it means too much, IMHO, but that's a subject for another time) and huge NT-driven recruiting budgets give Big 6 teams a huge advantage over everyone else in getting the top-level recruits;


This +1

Big 6 teams should have better coaches on average and be able to win without massive subsidies to maintain the status quo.

We're getting circular here, but make no mistake: The problem is recruit generation.

WIS had the same NT money structure for years, and the non-BCS teams were extremely powerful -- much more powerful than they are in real life, and it wasn't even close. That speaks volumes, and tells you that the NT money structure isn't the problem, because non-BCS teams had previously thrived under the very same system. The tide only turned once seble mucked up the recruit generation. It remains crystal clear what the real problem is here.

What cracks me up is that Allen is now being held up as the prime example of everything that is wrong at DI, when Allen's history is that the mid-majors were stronger there than anywhere else.  Even as an established world with fully populated BCS conferences, Allen, starting in Season 29 with a Maine over Weber St. national title game, seasons 34-37 where the National Champs were UNLV, Boston University, Cleveland State and Yale and then in Season 40 Southern won it.  This doesn't count a Montana team that had a 6 season run of Elite-8, Elite-8, Final Four, Final Four, Sweet-16, Elite-8.

All that last paragraph tells me is that dalt couldn't win the big one when he was a mid-major (unlike some of the rest of us).  Logic follows that he's therefore a mediocre coach and his dominance in the ACC is solely related to imbalances in the game and not his coaching ability.  

The PAC-10 signs every 4/5 star from the mountain region over. They have some absolutely loaded rosters. The biggest difference is that the bottom half of their conference is worse than ours. But the top teams (Stanford, UCLA, AZ, OR) are every bit as talented as the ACC -- and that's where the PAC 10's early entries came from.

So the few teams in the PAC-10 that have ACC-level talent lost the same number of guys the entire ACC did, in other words. 

"What cracks me up is that Allen is now being held up as the prime example of everything that is wrong at DI, when Allen's history is that the mid-majors were stronger there than anywhere else.  Even as an established world with fully populated BCS conferences, Allen, starting in Season 29 with a Maine over Weber St. national title game, seasons 34-37 where the National Champs were UNLV, Boston University, Cleveland State and Yale and then in Season 40 Southern won it.  This doesn't count a Montana team that had a 6 season run of Elite-8, Elite-8, Final Four, Final Four, Sweet-16, Elite-8."

So much has changed in HD since those mid-majors were powers that I am not even sure their success is relevant anymore.  The recruiting problem is most evident in Allen, but exists in all worlds.

To use an appropriate Star Wars reference to describe Allen ACC coaches perspective on early entries:  

"Uh, everything's under control. Situation normal.   Uh, we had a slight weapons malfunction, but uh... everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here now, thank you. How are you?"