Quote: Originally Posted By oldresorter on 2/18/2010the inmates are running the asylum

Quote: Originally Posted By mrpolo09 on 2/18/2010the question should be.... How many teams would find themselves with 7+ openings if this were to actually go in effect

Quote: Originally Posted By mrpolo09 on 2/18/2010removal of the cap. if you took away the cap, there would be many teams with over 6 openings each season.

Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 2/18/2010
Dalt - isn't the penalty of having less depth, less developed players, and the practice penalty for taking three walkons enough?

Honestly, how many teams are successful taking three or four walkons?

Also, how many teams does this affect? How many would legitimately benefit (EEs) versus how many benefit from taking walkons? And why should that matter?



Are we even sure this exists? The Smith world is nine games in. Kansas in Smith has 6 walk-ons. They have a soph PG whose ratings are up 21 points so far, and a junior SG who's up 39 points. Washington State in Smith has seven walk-ons, and they have a soph SF up 33 points. So unless the practice penalty applies only to O/D IQs, it doesn't seem to be affecting them very much.

One point on the broader subject I haven't seen anyone make is that one team's irrational recruiting doesn't hurt just them, but the teams they're recruiting against. If someone wants to take three or four walkons in return for the chance to sign one or two 5-star guys--which I have seen people do--the resulting carnage doesn't just hurt their teams, it hurts a lot of other teams in their recruiting region. And what I'm most opposed to is giving someone that irrational any further incentive to try it again.

Quote: Originally Posted By jbasnight on 2/18/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 2/18/2010

Dalt - isn't the penalty of having less depth, less developed players, and the practice penalty for taking three walkons enough?

Honestly, how many teams are successful taking three or four walkons?

Also, how many teams does this affect? How many would legitimately benefit (EEs) versus how many benefit from taking walkons? And why should that matter?




Are we even sure this exists? The Smith world is nine games in. Kansas in Smith has 6 walk-ons. They have a soph PG whose ratings are up 21 points so far, and a junior SG who's up 39 points. Washington State in Smith has seven walk-ons, and they have a soph SF up 33 points. So unless the practice penalty applies only to O/D IQs, it doesn't seem to be affecting them very much.

One point on the broader subject I haven't seen anyone make is that one team's irrational recruiting doesn't hurt just them, but the teams they're recruiting against. If someone wants to take three or four walkons in return for the chance to sign one or two 5-star guys--which I have seen people do--the resulting carnage doesn't just hurt their teams, it hurts a lot of other teams in their recruiting region. And what I'm most opposed to is giving someone that irrational any further incentive to try it again.

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 2/18/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By jbasnight on 2/18/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 2/18/2010

Dalt - isn't the penalty of having less depth, less developed players, and the practice penalty for taking three walkons enough?

Honestly, how many teams are successful taking three or four walkons?

Also, how many teams does this affect? How many would legitimately benefit (EEs) versus how many benefit from taking walkons? And why should that matter?




Are we even sure this exists? The Smith world is nine games in. Kansas in Smith has 6 walk-ons. They have a soph PG whose ratings are up 21 points so far, and a junior SG who's up 39 points. Washington State in Smith has seven walk-ons, and they have a soph SF up 33 points. So unless the practice penalty applies only to O/D IQs, it doesn't seem to be affecting them very much.

One point on the broader subject I haven't seen anyone make is that one team's irrational recruiting doesn't hurt just them, but the teams they're recruiting against. If someone wants to take three or four walkons in return for the chance to sign one or two 5-star guys--which I have seen people do--the resulting carnage doesn't just hurt their teams, it hurts a lot of other teams in their recruiting region. And what I'm most opposed to is giving someone that irrational any further incentive to try it again.

So because a coach decides to be stupid and try to win a huge battle against a coach with 8 ships even when he knows he has 0 chance to win that should stop those coaches, who i will say once again, through no fault of their own are cash strapped with less $$ / ship then everyone else from getting the correct amount of money?

hmmmm.