"but this thread would be better if you actually contributed something factual or based on experience"

I checked out Dartmouth in Rupp, this team has to be one of the 5  best mid-major around....two elite eights and a FF in the last 4 years.  Dnichols has had 16 players drafted in the last 16 years.  Only two of them have played less than 4 years.  He didn't lose his 963 AA from last year's elite eight team.

Maybe EE decision logic has something to do with conference prestige, it seems like everything else does.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 9/16/2011 11:22:00 AM (view original):
Here's my point.   

The guys on the top complain about losing EE because it hinders their ability to stay on the top.     The guys on the bottom (or more accurately the middle) have very little chance.   

I find it rather funny that the select few who have the elite teams can complain that the system is broken when the system is designed to keep them where they are.

To me it's like complaining it's hot when is 73 degrees.

You're arguing with the wrong guy.  I made it a point in my initial post to say I wasn't complaining and am probably one of the biggest supporters you'll find for the idea that mid-majors are screwed.  I only wanted to correct some of the bull$hit comments being thrown around and posted as "forum facts" that were blatantly wrong or so wildly exaggerated that they sounded stupid.

My position on this is that having 4 EEs in one season from one team is crap but I think its not worth complaining about when the mid-majors have it much tougher.  Bottom line is that I have been at mid-majors and have been successful at them.  But I chose to leave them, even knowing about the EE issue, to move up to a BCS conference because it is absolutely easier. 

There is no doubt that prestige and recruit generation need some serious work to make the mid-majors a rewarding experience.  But to say that those flaws somehow justify Big6 schools being unpredictably impacted by EEs makes no sense at all.  Let's focus on fixing the things that need to be fixed regardless of who they impact.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 9/16/2011 11:46:00 AM (view original):
"but this thread would be better if you actually contributed something factual or based on experience"

I checked out Dartmouth in Rupp, this team has to be one of the 5  best mid-major around....two elite eights and a FF in the last 4 years.  Dnichols has had 16 players drafted in the last 16 years.  Only two of them have played less than 4 years.  He didn't lose his 963 AA from last year's elite eight team.

Maybe EE decision logic has something to do with conference prestige, it seems like everything else does.

Maybe.  Here's my sample size of one counter:  I had two guards go early in the same year from a Tulsa team that I coached in Phelan.  That conference had a few good teams but overall was a fairly mediocre.

"My position on this is that having 4 EEs in one season from one team is crap...."

Did all 4 get drafted?  If they did; I don't see an issue with it.

Three guys left from Duke, Kentucky (+ the European guy who never was eligible), and Texas last year in RL.

Hell, 5 guys declared in 2010 from Kentucky (although I don't know how many actually got drafted).

"Did all 4 get drafted?  If they did; I don't see an issue with it."

Yes, all EEs are guaranteed to get drafted. I can't begin to guess what you're using as the rationale for not seeing an issue with it but if you can't, then I'm not sure there's a point in discussing this. And honestly, the fact that you don't know that all EEs get drafted means you probably shouldn't really have as strong of an opinion as you do because you don't have any experience in dealing with it.

I think the issue here, in general, is not the fact that the deep run teams have more EE's, it's the quantity, quality and inconsistantcy. In the FF recently in Phelan we had 4 of the 5 top rated teams. Cheez and I's teams didn't make the final, but are losing a total of 14 players between EE and seniors. The two in the finals are losing 7, all seniors. That is the inconsistancy I'm talking about.

As for quantity, again using Miami and Stanford as an example, both are most likely going to have at LEAST 5 players drafted, I'm looking at maybe 7, which in either case is absurd. Tell me one time in the NBA where 5 or more guys were drafted from one team? And my 822 guy goes towards the quality.

the final thought I have on this is something I mentioned before. The current process of making EE's heavy on the deep run teams is something the mids shouldn't like either. Again taking Stanford. We are now an good A+, with 5-7 players drafted I'm going to be a deeper A+ and am now short 8 players. That means myself, cheez and any other deep team is going to now be taking recruits that others would have and the pool of good talent gets even smaller for the mids. EE hurts more than it helps, IMHO, by forcing the deep run teams to pull more talent every year from the pool.

My rationale is that it happens in RL.   Frequently.

And if you have 4 of the top 60 players why shouldn't they get drafted?  That's what happens in RL pretty consistently.   If Johnny Power Forward thinks he's a 1st round pick, more often then not he is declaring. 

Now if you want to argue the decision tree on what makes the  best  players that's a different can of worms but to state you shouldn't lose 4 players is silly.   It happened last year AND the year before that in RL.

Team prestige does impact EE's. Not sure if conference prestige does, but I don't think so.

"Tell me one time in the NBA where 5 or more guys were drafted from one team? "

The 2010 draft set a record with five players being drafted from the same school in the first round. The players were John Wall (first), DeMarcus Cousins (fifth), Patrick Patterson (fourteenth), Eric Bledsoe (eighteenth), and Daniel Orton (twenty-ninth), all from the University of Kentucky.

And my 822 guy goes towards the quality.

I just had a 760 drafted.  Numbers don't mean everything.

Posted by girt25 on 9/16/2011 1:22:00 PM (view original):
Team prestige does impact EE's. Not sure if conference prestige does, but I don't think so.

I just submitted a ticket to find out.  

Posted by Trentonjoe on 9/16/2011 1:19:00 PM (view original):


My rationale is that it happens in RL.   Frequently.

And if you have 4 of the top 60 players why shouldn't they get drafted?  That's what happens in RL pretty consistently.   If Johnny Power Forward thinks he's a 1st round pick, more often then not he is declaring. 

Now if you want to argue the decision tree on what makes the  best  players that's a different can of worms but to state you shouldn't lose 4 players is silly.   It happened last year AND the year before that in RL.

Again, stop.  You're embarrassing yourself.  You can't have it both ways.

If the rationale is that it happens in RL, therefore its good.  Then stop with the woe is me mid-major attitude.  In RL the mid-majors suck. Outside of Memphis (which I'd argue is due largely to cheating), give me a "mid-major" that's been able to compete at a level beyond what we've seen from mid-majors in HD.  I think its actually easier to find successful teams in HD out of the mid-major ranks than it is in RL. 

Posted by Trentonjoe on 9/16/2011 1:19:00 PM (view original):


My rationale is that it happens in RL.   Frequently.

And if you have 4 of the top 60 players why shouldn't they get drafted?  That's what happens in RL pretty consistently.   If Johnny Power Forward thinks he's a 1st round pick, more often then not he is declaring. 

Now if you want to argue the decision tree on what makes the  best  players that's a different can of worms but to state you shouldn't lose 4 players is silly.   It happened last year AND the year before that in RL.

Well, it does happen in real life, but four EE's from one team is fairly rare.

But honestly, the "it happens in real life" rationale just isn't applicable. There are so many things in this game and even specifically related to EE's that have nothing to do with real life, it kind of invalidates the real life card.

It's about what is best and makes the most sense for HD. (And I'm not even saying this one is cut-and-dried ... although I don't think we should be seeing teams in HD losing four EE's, I do see both sides of this one.)

Posted by cheeznsweet on 9/16/2011 1:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 9/16/2011 1:19:00 PM (view original):


My rationale is that it happens in RL.   Frequently.

And if you have 4 of the top 60 players why shouldn't they get drafted?  That's what happens in RL pretty consistently.   If Johnny Power Forward thinks he's a 1st round pick, more often then not he is declaring. 

Now if you want to argue the decision tree on what makes the  best  players that's a different can of worms but to state you shouldn't lose 4 players is silly.   It happened last year AND the year before that in RL.

Again, stop.  You're embarrassing yourself.  You can't have it both ways.

If the rationale is that it happens in RL, therefore its good.  Then stop with the woe is me mid-major attitude.  In RL the mid-majors suck. Outside of Memphis (which I'd argue is due largely to cheating), give me a "mid-major" that's been able to compete at a level beyond what we've seen from mid-majors in HD.  I think its actually easier to find successful teams in HD out of the mid-major ranks than it is in RL. 

Yeah, this is kind of what I'm saying. You can't pick and choose the spots from real life that suit you and ignore all of the others. We need a consistent application, and (as I've said ad nauseum, I know), I think the only consistent application that makes sense is what is best and makes sense for HD.

I think you are misreading my "you're acting like a spoiled brat because your team is worse than you want it to be" attitude as "woe is me mid-major" attitude.

I don't want it both ways.   I just think you are complaining about something that makes sense.  Good players get drafted.  If they happen to be on the same team sobeit.  

I didn't act like a spoiled brat.  I'm not here to complain.  I'm here to be a correct the random nonsense being spouted by people talking out their a$$ without having any experience in dealing with the issue or talking out their a$$ without thinking through what they're saying.