Spud really loves hiding behind his alternate ID, all he does is complain about the elite coaches that always beat him and how he as a bad coach is AHEM "ENTITLED" to good recruits without success or common sense.

Too bad the real username will never come out since he is obviously so embarrassed about his poor skill he takes it out attacking all the good coaches for being good.

I almost feel bad for him for how much he must hate this since he obviously still is bad at it.

I heard spud was now pushing for teams only being allowed to recruit 1 EE caliber type player per season to make it more fair too. Can't have all the big schools taking all the good players!

Geez, Mr. Master of Alternate ID's and Forum Bans, counting each of your four paragraphs you went oh-for-four. Really elevating the conversation there, aren't you?

Posted by CoachSpud on 3/3/2017 6:08:00 PM (view original):
Geez, Mr. Master of Alternate ID's and Forum Bans, counting each of your four paragraphs you went oh-for-four. Really elevating the conversation there, aren't you?

And what are your alternate ID's Spud?

for the benefit of anyone who is trying to understand this and is not familiar with the issues - only Spud thinks or pretends to think that anyone argues that it should be easy to replace EEs with EE level players

the argument is about how tough it should be to replace EEs - especially multiple or hard to predict EEs with a guy who can play at DI level

I recommend that one ignore the Spud straw man, since I have not seen anyone argue for what he critiques

Posted by Trentonjoe on 3/2/2017 5:22:00 PM (view original):
Are EE "broken" because you don't get the resources until the second session or because teams are still losing 3 and 4 guys?

Both. For example in Crum this year I have three walkons at UCLA and Stanford has four because we were both crushed by EEs. All of which were 3.0 guys.

If teams are still losing 3-4 guys, I'm not sure they've been very handicapped in recruiting.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/7/2017 9:35:00 AM (view original):
If teams are still losing 3-4 guys, I'm not sure they've been very handicapped in recruiting.

Are they superior recruiters? In a good location? Got lucky on rolls?

Who knows. Probably some combination.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/7/2017 9:35:00 AM (view original):
If teams are still losing 3-4 guys, I'm not sure they've been very handicapped in recruiting.

losing 3-4 is down in worlds that I still see

with most of 3.0 transition done, there are still surprising or hard to predict EEs and multiple EEs - and I expect that will continue

Posted by Benis on 3/7/2017 10:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/7/2017 9:35:00 AM (view original):
If teams are still losing 3-4 guys, I'm not sure they've been very handicapped in recruiting.

Are they superior recruiters? In a good location? Got lucky on rolls?

Who knows. Probably some combination.

Could be any. Point being, anybody losing multiple EE on a regular basis isn't being hamstrung by the new system.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/7/2017 9:35:00 AM (view original):
If teams are still losing 3-4 guys, I'm not sure they've been very handicapped in recruiting.

Darn you, Mike, throwing a fact into a perfectly good whine!

"Not aware of anyone who has argued that EEs should be readily replaced with EE level players"
Start with this thread, and then the other dozens of similar threads. There's an entire symphony of "gimme, gimme" mostly without regard to how it would affect the game as a whole (except notably for MikeT, though he still wants to somewhat favor coaches with EE's).

I wouldn't say I want to "favor" coaches with EE. I want to retain users. There has to be a compromise in there somewhere.

People also told us (including Spud) that it wasn't an issue because teams wouldn't have multiple EEs anymore. So they were wrong and teams are able to get multiple EEs.... but its still not an issue.

Got all their bases covered there. Either its not an issue because they aren't getting them or its not an issue because it shows teams are still good. Confirmation bias.

Actually, it was WIS who told us that. And "If teams are still losing 3-4 guys, I'm not sure they've been very handicapped in recruiting" is a telling point.

Posted by Benis on 3/7/2017 4:42:00 PM (view original):
People also told us (including Spud) that it wasn't an issue because teams wouldn't have multiple EEs anymore. So they were wrong and teams are able to get multiple EEs.... but its still not an issue.

Got all their bases covered there. Either its not an issue because they aren't getting them or its not an issue because it shows teams are still good. Confirmation bias.

Whoever said teams wouldn't be able to have multiple EEs anymore? This looks like a straw man. More common, at least from me, was the argument that it would be harder to land classes made up of entirely EE caliber players. I think most of us knew it could and would still be done, but they would be fought for, and in most cases, it would take a good amount of luck - a combination of winning rolls, and not having too many challengers, for whatever reason. And it would be done knowing the risk down the line.

The guy who put forth the best case was possumfiend, who argued that this was simply the cost of elite players. The recruiting game is played as a commodity game, and EE caliber players are highly valuable, but highly volatile. That's part of the cost that comes with those players, you deal with the holes they leave on your team when they leave early.

https://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?topicID=499737

Posts like this from Spud saying that multiple EEs are declining as expected and therefore nothing needs to be done. As expected.

so which is it? Is it not an issue because fewer teams are getting EEs or is it not an issue because teams ARE still getting EEs.