2/18 Update-Edit: Change Reversed Topic

zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By sully712 on 2/18/2010I would rather you explain how keeping the limits makes any sense? It doesnt. Why 6? Why not 5? Why not 4? There is no rationale to keep those limits. If you have 8 openings, your team is going to be inexperienced and not that great the following year
IMO sully it is because that is what people are use to. I feel that even tho this might come off as a big change, in the end coaches will learn how to deal with it just like they did with FSS.
2/18/2010 11:34 AM
sully712
Posts: 124 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 301 2 22
Prospect
If you make it so that only teams with no walkons get this change then you will limit the number of battles for top players. This should increase the # of battles going on.
2/18/2010 11:35 AM
sully712
Posts: 124 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 301 2 22
Prospect
This is not a big change. It just evens the playing field for teams that have a ton of openings. If I have 8 openings and money for 6, there is no way I'm going to try and sign 8 players. Thats just stupid.

I propose that we limit cash to 3 scholarships since teams should have balanced classes and only 3 openings each year.
2/18/2010 11:36 AM
fd343ny
Posts: 2254 (0)
Hall of Famer
7 634 36
Veteran
I could see doing this TOGETHER with an increase in the walkon penalty
2/18/2010 11:36 AM
sully712
Posts: 124 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 301 2 22
Prospect
I'd like to hear the rationale for limiting cash to 6 spots. Anyone???
2/18/2010 11:36 AM
dalter
Posts: 71 (0)
All Star
25
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By sully712 on 2/18/2010I guess that dalter, you know what everyone wants. It was stupid to have the limit
I'm not saying that I know what everyone wants, I'm saying that I think this is a stupid change.

sully, you sound curiously like a guy who is about to have seven openings on one of his DI teams. Imagine that ...
2/18/2010 11:37 AM
sully712
Posts: 124 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 301 2 22
Prospect
I am going to have 7 spots. You know why...because I got into two battles with 3 open spots. I didnt play it safe. I tried to get the best players possible. I lost two battles so I have 7 spots open now. I never understood the limit anyways.
2/18/2010 11:38 AM
dalter
Posts: 71 (0)
All Star
25
Prospect
Here is my suggestion: This rule should not apply to anyone who carried walk-ons the previous season.

That way, if it's to soften the blow for schools that were decimated by early entries and lots of seniors, that still can happen.

But teams should not be rewarded for taking walk-ons. The "penalty" (such as it is) is already far too light.
2/18/2010 11:38 AM
sully712
Posts: 124 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 301 2 22
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 2/18/2010
This is further disappointing because it demonstrates that WIS doesn't really have their finger on the pulse of what HD coaches want and care about, as well as what might be good for the game.

You want to make a small change? I've got a couple dozen of them listed in a thread here that would make the vast majority of people quite happy, and more hopeful about HD as well.

This sounds like you think you know what everyone wants.
2/18/2010 11:39 AM
porkpower
Posts: 39 (0)
Hall of Famer
240 1 11
Prospect
This is just one step closer to the great inevitable change of class limits...

VIVA LA SUPERCLASS! BWA HA HA!

This change is very minor, though. Only affects an EXTREMELY small amount of teams. I have been stuck with 7 openings before due to early entries and wandered why I was penalized. This makes sense and I have no problem with it. Now just GET RID OF CLASS SIZE LIMITS ENTIRELY AND LET US PARTY!
2/18/2010 11:39 AM
dalter
Posts: 71 (0)
All Star
25
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By sully712 on 2/18/2010
I am going to have 7 spots. You know why...because I got into two battles with 3 open spots. I didnt play it safe. I tried to get the best players possible. I lost two battles so I have 7 spots open now. I never understood the limit anyways.
So what you're saying is that you'd like to be able to take a significant risk without having to suffer any repercussions if it doesn't work out? No thanks. You are basically making my point.
2/18/2010 11:39 AM
dalter
Posts: 71 (0)
All Star
25
Prospect
Lol, pork, I knew we'd hear from you on this one. Long Beach State is dead!!!
2/18/2010 11:41 AM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 2/18/2010
Here is my suggestion: This rule should not apply to anyone who carried walk-ons the previous season.

That way, if it's to soften the blow for schools that were decimated by early entries and lots of seniors, that still can happen.

But teams should not be rewarded for taking walk-ons. The "penalty" (such as it is) is already far too light.



So what about a team that has 1 walk-on 4 srs and loses 3 EEs? They wouldn't get more then 6 'ships worth of money?

I think however it is done there will be gray areas and it would just upset people more as to why they got it and i didn't. Plus you can't forsee your EEs so you wouldn't know that taking that 1 walkon ends up costing you $30k the next year in recruiting.
2/18/2010 11:41 AM
porkpower
Posts: 39 (0)
Hall of Famer
240 1 11
Prospect
sully, I for one would like to see the bogus class limit rule revoked. I do not think anyone would be silly enough to try and build a team with 10 players in ONE class. Sounds ridiculous.
2/18/2010 11:41 AM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By porkpower on 2/18/2010sully, I for one would like to see the bogus class limit rule revoked. I do not think anyone would be silly enough to try and build a team with 10 players in ONE class. Sounds ridiculous
Pork if you had to choose which one makes more sense? The cap on monies or the cap on players in a class?
2/18/2010 11:42 AM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4|5...17 Next ▸
2/18 Update-Edit: Change Reversed Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.