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.
Nothing wrong with your words. So everything you said is true, planning, thinking, etc, but it doesn't counter the FACT that schools that face EE's are recruiting with less resources in the first round, than schools that don't, when they lose EE's in the second round. Those planned replacements are being recruited for less than a buck on the dollar or so, in some cases, for pennies on the dollar, if the wrong things happen, planned for or not.
Sometimes I feel like some of you are like the French Revolutionaries, and you are looking to behead all of us vet coaches. You've already won the war, recruiting as we know it is gone, recruits will be evenly spread out, honestly, it will work. But why behead us, don't you want to try and win fair and square with us alive and breathing to compete against?