Personally, I very much dislike them but I certainly don't have any issue with the coaches that use this "loophole" to build teams that are very strong every 4th season.  The team that won the D2 NT in Iba this season had 6 SRs and 6 JRs.  Another team very close to that one has 6 SOs and 6 FR, making it hard for other good programs in that area in recruiting.

I'd love to see seble limit scholarship money at D2 and D3 to 4 schollies worth plus tourney money.  You simply can't do that at D1 because of EEs (limiting to 4 schollies worth there would really kill teams with a lot of EEs), but I think you can do it at D2 and D3, where EEs don't happen.

I don't like them either.  I think your solution has merit

You make a solid point, especially about recruiting against people with so many scholarships open. I always tend to balance my classes by copious use of redshirts and the occasional JUCO. But I can initially think of two consequences of that which I would see as negatives: 

1. Sims can still build superclasses, and it would take even longer to rebuild a Sim that had done so. I have five teams, and I've signed up for them all in the last six months, so they're fairly fresh in my mind. Three of them were taken over directly from Sims, and I have had first classes of 5, 6, and 6. In each of the latter two cases, I took JUCOs to balance things out a little bit, but I wouldn't have been able to do that without $18,000. With this rule, I could see people stop taking over teams that don't already have perfectly balanced classes. And to be honest, it's already hard enough to find teams that don't have classes of more than six. I'm looking at moving to D2 in one world, and in one of the (relatively strong) conferences I'm looking at, I basically have a choice between a team with seven seniors and a team with ten sophomores. 

2. Suppose you've built a team with relatively balanced classes and are currently recruiting. You have three open scholarships, four seniors, three juniors, and two sophomores. You sign two guys relatively easily but are in a battle for the third. Right now, it can be good strategy to take a gamble on a battle you're not sure to win. It might put you behind the eight-ball a little bit the following year, losing some class balance and needing to find players who can start as sophomores, but it's a risk worth taking. Under your proposal, it's not worth battling unless you know you can win, because if you lose, you're stuck with on $12,000 and you need to find five players, including at least one who is good enough to start as a sophomore. I see that as a negative change. 

Just my $.02. Good topic. 

Were you around before they limited it to 6 per class?  It used to be worse with teams making 12 man superclasses.  I'm fine with 6 and 6 in all honesty, but I don't play enough D2 and D3 to really think it through.

I think 6 is fair, stop whining.

Posted by mduncanhogs on 2/17/2013 1:46:00 PM (view original):
Personally, I very much dislike them but I certainly don't have any issue with the coaches that use this "loophole" to build teams that are very strong every 4th season.  The team that won the D2 NT in Iba this season had 6 SRs and 6 JRs.  Another team very close to that one has 6 SOs and 6 FR, making it hard for other good programs in that area in recruiting.

I'd love to see seble limit scholarship money at D2 and D3 to 4 schollies worth plus tourney money.  You simply can't do that at D1 because of EEs (limiting to 4 schollies worth there would really kill teams with a lot of EEs), but I think you can do it at D2 and D3, where EEs don't happen.

Dislike limiting at DII and DIII..if you have a bad recruiting class, then you get further and further behind.     

Posted by slicknick777 on 2/17/2013 2:29:00 PM (view original):
Were you around before they limited it to 6 per class?  It used to be worse with teams making 12 man superclasses.  I'm fine with 6 and 6 in all honesty, but I don't play enough D2 and D3 to really think it through.

Yeah, I was around before the 6 per class limit.  I'm not sure it went far enough.

Posted by bscoresby on 2/17/2013 3:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mduncanhogs on 2/17/2013 1:46:00 PM (view original):
Personally, I very much dislike them but I certainly don't have any issue with the coaches that use this "loophole" to build teams that are very strong every 4th season.  The team that won the D2 NT in Iba this season had 6 SRs and 6 JRs.  Another team very close to that one has 6 SOs and 6 FR, making it hard for other good programs in that area in recruiting.

I'd love to see seble limit scholarship money at D2 and D3 to 4 schollies worth plus tourney money.  You simply can't do that at D1 because of EEs (limiting to 4 schollies worth there would really kill teams with a lot of EEs), but I think you can do it at D2 and D3, where EEs don't happen.

Dislike limiting at DII and DIII..if you have a bad recruiting class, then you get further and further behind.     

Very fair point, but that is something you would have to consider when deciding whether or not to battle.

Posted by colonels19 on 2/17/2013 3:15:00 PM (view original):
I think 6 is fair, stop whining.

Um, where did I whine?  I brought up a topic and levied an opinion on said topic.  That is all.

Posted by tarvolon on 2/17/2013 2:23:00 PM (view original):
You make a solid point, especially about recruiting against people with so many scholarships open. I always tend to balance my classes by copious use of redshirts and the occasional JUCO. But I can initially think of two consequences of that which I would see as negatives: 

1. Sims can still build superclasses, and it would take even longer to rebuild a Sim that had done so. I have five teams, and I've signed up for them all in the last six months, so they're fairly fresh in my mind. Three of them were taken over directly from Sims, and I have had first classes of 5, 6, and 6. In each of the latter two cases, I took JUCOs to balance things out a little bit, but I wouldn't have been able to do that without $18,000. With this rule, I could see people stop taking over teams that don't already have perfectly balanced classes. And to be honest, it's already hard enough to find teams that don't have classes of more than six. I'm looking at moving to D2 in one world, and in one of the (relatively strong) conferences I'm looking at, I basically have a choice between a team with seven seniors and a team with ten sophomores. 

2. Suppose you've built a team with relatively balanced classes and are currently recruiting. You have three open scholarships, four seniors, three juniors, and two sophomores. You sign two guys relatively easily but are in a battle for the third. Right now, it can be good strategy to take a gamble on a battle you're not sure to win. It might put you behind the eight-ball a little bit the following year, losing some class balance and needing to find players who can start as sophomores, but it's a risk worth taking. Under your proposal, it's not worth battling unless you know you can win, because if you lose, you're stuck with on $12,000 and you need to find five players, including at least one who is good enough to start as a sophomore. I see that as a negative change. 

Just my $.02. Good topic. 

Good points.  I think point 1 can be solved by simply setting up logic that keeps Sims from having more than 4 players in the same class.  That seems like it would be pretty easy for seble to do.

To be clear, I am NOT saying human teams should be limited to 4 players in a class. I think we should keep the current 6 players limit, yet make it harder to build superclasses by limiting recruiting cash to 4 schollies worth plus tourney money.  I WOULD like to see Sims limited to 4 players at most in a class so that it is easier for humans to take over Sim teams and have some class balance.

What you are suggesting only further ensures that superconferences can dominate recruiting with their bonus cash - not in favor.

Posted by jsajsa on 2/17/2013 3:27:00 PM (view original):
What you are suggesting only further ensures that superconferences can dominate recruiting with their bonus cash - not in favor.

Probably the best reason NOT to do what I'm suggesting.  Not sure how to counterbalance that impact unless you also change the amount of cash issued for postseason success.

The superconferences already have an extra advantage with their bonus cash.  I don't think your proposal would alter that significantly

I think the idea is that the bonus cash can be overcome by a team with six open scholarships. It's less easily overcome by a team with four open scholarships. 

On the other hand, a superconference coach usually has 11 other good coaches in the same geographical area. It's difficult for one coach to corral all the top players.