Posted by girt25 on 4/26/2012 7:16:00 AM (view original):
Well, I don't really agree with that last sentence. Some people are commenting that essentially that they want more predictability and less randomness, and yes, your suggestion would result in predictability. Maybe not 100% predictability, but if the 20 EE's come from just a pool of the top 25-30 rated players, then yes, that's predictability. It may also feel more logical to you, but that doesn't mean it's not also predictable.
And I know in the past you've felt it should be harder for teams to lose numerous EE's -- do you still feel that way, and if so, would you want to see a safeguard in place so a handful of teams aren't losing 3-4 EE's? That would be as bad or worse than what happens currently.
The best guys should get drafted. If I know the game reasonable well, I should have a reasonable idea who goes EE.. In that sense, I guess I want it predictable.
I would gladly forfeit the max drafted rule to see an honest attempt to have the best players go EE, the reason for the max guy rule proposal, was teams lose 4, while conf mates with BETTER post season records were keeping 4 BETTER players. I don't see that as often as I used to, do any of you guys?
So if the best ten underclassmen all play for me, draft them all, I just want to see the system take the best guys early. But, if the system remains UNPREDICTABLE, then I'd like to see a max rule, as it is unfair that some school loses 4, while his superior competitors keep everyone.
And it is really, really unfair, that mid majors are losing mid 700 to low 800 level players, who they might be lucky enough to recruit once every other year, while ACC or Big east schools have rosters with 12 guys better than that every year.
Again, this is child's play, I'll go one step further, just take the twenty best guys every year, make it 100% predictable. I think other than a handful of coaches who get those top twenty players EVERY season, nobody else would complain at all.