You win.  I don't know anything and my points have no validity.

Hello spoiled brat.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 9/16/2011 1:48:00 PM (view original):


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.  

We're not just talking about getting drafted, we're talking about leaving early.

Does it make sense for one team to lose four guys early (or seven, in the case of St. John's) in one season while other comparable BCS teams with comparable talent lose no one? You'd have a hard time convincing me of that one. I understand there is (and should be) a random element, but that's too much in my opinion.

Posted by girt25 on 9/16/2011 2:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 9/16/2011 1:48:00 PM (view original):


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.  

We're not just talking about getting drafted, we're talking about leaving early.

Does it make sense for one team to lose four guys early (or seven, in the case of St. John's) in one season while other comparable BCS teams with comparable talent lose no one? You'd have a hard time convincing me of that one. I understand there is (and should be) a random element, but that's too much in my opinion.

Dalt I agree with you on this, but if there was some way to truly know if a kid is very likely or not likely to leave early during recruiting then it would make more sense. Right now there just doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to anything other than teams losing a lot of players at once.

IMO, the early entry system hurts the competitive balance more than it helps. If the big boys constantly lose 1-2 EEs each year, their recruiting budgets are that much bigger each year, making it even easier for them to recruit all of the best players in the area.

There's got to be some sort of weighting that can be programmed to help determine EEs consistently - something like based 40% on cores, 20% on total rating,  20% on statistics (based on % of team total, not actual totals, so teams running slowdown can't reduce EEs by suppressing total scoring), 10% team success, and 10% personality (from scouting/pysch evals). Right now it feels like a dartboard approach.

Posted by treyomo on 9/16/2011 2:51:00 PM (view original):
IMO, the early entry system hurts the competitive balance more than it helps. If the big boys constantly lose 1-2 EEs each year, their recruiting budgets are that much bigger each year, making it even easier for them to recruit all of the best players in the area.

There's got to be some sort of weighting that can be programmed to help determine EEs consistently - something like based 40% on cores, 20% on total rating,  20% on statistics (based on % of team total, not actual totals, so teams running slowdown can't reduce EEs by suppressing total scoring), 10% team success, and 10% personality (from scouting/pysch evals). Right now it feels like a dartboard approach.

trey, I totally disagree with that first assertion. There aren't that many great recruits right -- with or without EE's, they're all going to get snapped up by the power teams. I can't imagine you'd be able to find a coach of a big-time team who says that losing EE's makes things easier for them.

As for your second point, that's exactly the kind of system that exists right now. But the composition of it isn't very good, and so sometimes it can feel random.

Posted by zhawks on 9/16/2011 2:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 9/16/2011 2:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 9/16/2011 1:48:00 PM (view original):


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.  

We're not just talking about getting drafted, we're talking about leaving early.

Does it make sense for one team to lose four guys early (or seven, in the case of St. John's) in one season while other comparable BCS teams with comparable talent lose no one? You'd have a hard time convincing me of that one. I understand there is (and should be) a random element, but that's too much in my opinion.

Dalt I agree with you on this, but if there was some way to truly know if a kid is very likely or not likely to leave early during recruiting then it would make more sense. Right now there just doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to anything other than teams losing a lot of players at once.

Yep, agreed.

Posted by girt25 on 9/16/2011 3:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by treyomo on 9/16/2011 2:51:00 PM (view original):
IMO, the early entry system hurts the competitive balance more than it helps. If the big boys constantly lose 1-2 EEs each year, their recruiting budgets are that much bigger each year, making it even easier for them to recruit all of the best players in the area.

There's got to be some sort of weighting that can be programmed to help determine EEs consistently - something like based 40% on cores, 20% on total rating,  20% on statistics (based on % of team total, not actual totals, so teams running slowdown can't reduce EEs by suppressing total scoring), 10% team success, and 10% personality (from scouting/pysch evals). Right now it feels like a dartboard approach.

trey, I totally disagree with that first assertion. There aren't that many great recruits right -- with or without EE's, they're all going to get snapped up by the power teams. I can't imagine you'd be able to find a coach of a big-time team who says that losing EE's makes things easier for them.

As for your second point, that's exactly the kind of system that exists right now. But the composition of it isn't very good, and so sometimes it can feel random.

Dalt - I don' t think Trey is saying it makes things easier for power teams.  I think he's saying it makes things harder for the non-power teams and I think what he's saying is valid.

Let's say there were no EE's.  Barring 5th year players, redshirts, etc, your UNC-Allen team would recruit on average 3 players every year (12 total schol - 4 year duration of schols).  Extending that to the total of all power conferences and you've got 3 players * 12 teams per conf * 6 power conferences = 216 players.  But with EE's averaging about 15 per year (I'm making a rough guess here), that means that power conferences are recruiting 231 players per year.

I know the power conferences don't take exactly the very best 231 players, etc, etc, etc but I think his point makes sense.  Its not easier for power teams because there's so much more competition but all the competition flows downhill to the mid- and low-majors and they end up fighting over the 232nd-best players instead of the 217th-best player.

Edit to say that in the case of Miami-Phelan, in the last 4 recruiting periods I've signed 16 players instead of the 12 I would've signed had there been no EEs.  And losing 4 this year that is going to go up.

Posted by girt25 on 9/16/2011 1:47:00 PM (view original):

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.

This.

I know the power conferences don't take exactly the very best 231 players, etc, etc, etc but I think his point makes sense. Its not easier for power teams because there's so much more competition but all the competition flows downhill to the mid- and low-majors and they end up fighting over the 232nd-best players instead of the 217th-best player.

Edit to say that in the case of Miami-Phelan, in the last 4 recruiting periods I've signed 16 players instead of the 12 I would've signed had there been no EEs. And losing 4 this year that is going to go up.

And this.

It's not the EE concept, that is sound, it is implementation. Trenton was able to find one time where 5 players were drafted (not all underclassmen tho), in HD it happens fairly often and sometimes more than 5 are drafted. Not equally from the pool, and not always the best players in the pool and doing so means the lower prestige teams get fewer good recruits flowing down. With the current recruit generation, the have-nots get even less. 

And Trenton, you keep saying that if they are the best players they should go. If they were, there wouldn't be an issue, but oftentimes they are not one of the best 60 players based on cores, ovr or stats. My PF is testimony to that.

Posted by girt25 on 9/16/2011 3:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by treyomo on 9/16/2011 2:51:00 PM (view original):
IMO, the early entry system hurts the competitive balance more than it helps. If the big boys constantly lose 1-2 EEs each year, their recruiting budgets are that much bigger each year, making it even easier for them to recruit all of the best players in the area.

There's got to be some sort of weighting that can be programmed to help determine EEs consistently - something like based 40% on cores, 20% on total rating,  20% on statistics (based on % of team total, not actual totals, so teams running slowdown can't reduce EEs by suppressing total scoring), 10% team success, and 10% personality (from scouting/pysch evals). Right now it feels like a dartboard approach.

trey, I totally disagree with that first assertion. There aren't that many great recruits right -- with or without EE's, they're all going to get snapped up by the power teams. I can't imagine you'd be able to find a coach of a big-time team who says that losing EE's makes things easier for them.

As for your second point, that's exactly the kind of system that exists right now. But the composition of it isn't very good, and so sometimes it can feel random.

Cheez explained my point much better than I did. In Crum, Illinois had 1 senior, so they wouldn't have been much of a factor in recruiting. By losing 4 EEs, they suddenly gobbled five of the best recruits within 200 miles, leaving the rest of us lower rated recruits. If he had only 1 scholly worth of money plus tourney money for a total of $40k, he may not have been able to get his top target if other A+ prestige schools targeted the same player. With $160k, the threat of that big budget tends to discourage battles and allows him somewhat easier access to those top recruits.

The EE rating system, whatever the scoring is now, should skew more heavily to core ratings and ratings and less to personality, IMO.

trey, that math doesn't add up, 160k sounds more like 115k or 40k plus 5 times 15k).  If he goes for 4 5 star recruits, someone should take his knees out, at least that is what happens in competitive markets.  That sort of is the problem, some markets are, some aren't.

Reading all of these comments, nobody in particular, just the whole body of them, makes me very, very sympathetic toward seble.  The combination of misinformation along with different opinions based on experiences, makes a solution practically impossible.

A ? for everyone / anyone - are the coaches who lose lots of EE's putting up multiple national titles over 5 or 8 years spans?  My observation is, as flawed as EE's might be, the system as is has largely stopped the repeat winners dead in their tracks vs how the game played prior to EE's.  I am not claiming this as fact, simply as observation.  Do I have it wrong?

Posted by doomey on 9/16/2011 3:57:00 PM (view original):
And Trenton, you keep saying that if they are the best players they should go. If they were, there wouldn't be an issue, but oftentimes they are not one of the best 60 players based on cores, ovr or stats. My PF is testimony to that.

There are two issues in this thread (at least, and I think)....

1. Who declares for the draft

2. If it's fair that more than one player on a team leaves early


I don't really have an opinion on #1.  The only guy I ever had leave early had gaudy #'s but low scores (he was under 800 overall).  I don't know much about that.

As per #2, I am in the screw the big boy camp.   Let guys leave in droves ala 2010 Kentucky.

joe, I could be wrong, but I believe you're speaking from a self-serving perspective as the coach of a successful mid-major. (Particularly because you're so vehement about it.)