Quote: Originally Posted By mlatsko1 on 2/18/2010

Quote: Originally posted by zhawks on 2/18/2010
I think this is a good change the limitations were put in to limit class sizes. Now that we have a strict 6 player per class cap there is no need for this as well. I don't see how this does any harm.

Says the guy with 8 open scholarships. :-)



Touche. Yeah I don't agree with your 100% carryover , although more then 25% wouldn't be bad, imo 100% is too much. (yes i caught your saracasm there) Surprised at how quick this change was made tho - I think from now on when seble makes changes he needs to post in the change exactly when it is effective not just a change was made.

Seble do you hear this? I think it would go a long ways to help out with the customer interaction end of things.

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

Quote: Originally Posted By jbasnight on 2/18/2010
Terrible change, IMHO. It rewards the coaches who go balls-out trying to sign one or two studs every time and take a bunch of walkons.

No team is going to be good if they are constantly only signing one or two people.

If that's a consistent strategy, it's not a very good one.

I can buy that this helps great coaches with a bunch of EEs, but I cant fathom a scenario where it helps coaches who do what you are saying.

Anyway, I don't really see why this is necessary either, but does it really matter? Any team with more than six new players is going to struggle regardless how good the coach is. It allows them to rebuild after a great season and a bunch of players drafted. I don't see why that's so unfair to the rest of us.

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

Quote: Originally Posted By jbasnight on 2/18/2010
Terrible change, IMHO. It rewards the coaches who go balls-out trying to sign one or two studs every time and take a bunch of walkons.

No team is going to be good if they are constantly only signing one or two people.

If that's a consistent strategy, it's not a very good one.

I can buy that this helps great coaches with a bunch of EEs, but I cant fathom a scenario where it helps coaches who do what you are saying.

Anyway, I don't really see why this is necessary either, but does it really matter? Any team with more than six new players is going to struggle regardless how good the coach is. It allows them to rebuild after a great season and a bunch of players drafted. I don't see why that's so unfair to the rest of us.

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

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

Quote: Originally Posted By jbasnight on 2/18/2010
Terrible change, IMHO. It rewards the coaches who go balls-out trying to sign one or two studs every time and take a bunch of walkons.

No team is going to be good if they are constantly only signing one or two people.

If that's a consistent strategy, it's not a very good one.

I can buy that this helps great coaches with a bunch of EEs, but I cant fathom a scenario where it helps coaches who do what you are saying.

Anyway, I don't really see why this is necessary either, but does it really matter? Any team with more than six new players is going to struggle regardless how good the coach is. It allows them to rebuild after a great season and a bunch of players drafted. I don't see why that's so unfair to the rest of us.

I'm not saying it's a great strategy--in fact, I think it's a very poor strategy, which is why I don't want to see a coach get rewarded for employing it.

Same with the coach with 6 open schollies--a coach with a six-SR class was courting the risk that, if he had any EEs he might have to fill more than 6 slots with only six slots worth of cash. Now that risk has been reduced, if not eliminated.

Quote: Originally Posted By sully712 on 2/18/2010Why was this limit on in the first place? I assume it was to prevent a superclass. If there are already ways to prevent that, i.e. no more than 6 in a class, there is no reason to have this limit. Why should teams with 7 or 8 openings only get cash for 6? Explain how that made sense

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 2/18/2010
This is a terrible change.

Anything that encourages people to take more walk-ons -- and isack, people do it with regularity at DI -- and lessening the penalty for it is a bad change. It's fostering a stupid, unrealistic recruiting atmosphere. DI teams

Penalties for multiple walk-ons need to be stiffened, not relaxed.

(And if this is really targeting those occasional teams that have six openings and then lose more towards early entries, then perhaps just have it apply to those teams. But rewarding teams that take multiple walk-ons is just an absolutely terrible idea. Seble really needs to come in here and explain the rationale.)

I truly hope they will reconsider.