Posted by coach_ludlow on 11/23/2014 12:12:00 AM (view original):
In Smith D2 there is a team (St. Edwards) that goes 6-6-0-0 and has won the NT (handily) in their last three 12-upperclassmen seasons, and is otherwise not really a factor. Whenever I have a good team in those seasons it is just a complete waste. I think having recruiting budgets be independent of the number of open scholarships would at least make it harder to get a really deep class of 6 guys.
I agree that recruiting funding should be changed. I'd like to see something like this:
1. Fixed amount that each team gets, regardless of open slots.
2. Some amount per open slot, but pretty small relative to the fixed amount.
3. Larger amount of carry-over percentage (maybe even 100%).
4. No amount awarded for a slot that is vacated by a walk-on.
D2 example: Fixed rate = $10K, per-opening amount = $3K.
#1 & #2 would make it more difficult to build a 6-player superclass, as well as making it possible for a team with a low number of open slots to go into a battle against a team with more openings. #3 would make it impossible to gauge how much money an opponent has to commit to a battle and would also reward teams who were able to find bargains in previous seasons. #4 would make it less tactically advantageous to carry a walk-on or two every season solely because it helps with having more recruiting cash.
So many times when recruiting, I'll see that someone who is after a desirable recruit has many more openings than I do (because I try to run balanced classes and compete every year) and just concede the recruit. If it was less obvious who had more resources, battles would be more interesting (instead of most of them being over before they even begin).