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

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.

Z, I think it could be expanded to 2+ walk-ons rather than one.

But again, there needs to be more risk/penalty for talking walk-ons, not less.

The more that I think about this move, the more that I like it. I just wish that it was around the few times that I had early entries and had 7 scholarships to fill.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Quote: Originally Posted By wisefella99 on 2/18/2010
The more that I think about this move, the more that I like it. I just wish that it was around the few times that I had early entries and had 7 scholarships to fill

Wise, do you think it should benefit teams that take multiple walk-ons the same way it benefits teams that lose multiple early entries? I get the early entries part, but the walk-on part seems like a gigantic, ill-fated leap.

Quote: Originally posted by tmacfan12 on 2/18/2010Maybe make it so that you need to have all scholarship players to be eligible for getting money for more then 6 guys.

Quote: Originally posted by dalter on 2/18/2010Here 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.

I demand recognition.

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 2/18/2010
Z, I think it could be expanded to 2+ walk-ons rather than one.

But again, there needs to be more risk/penalty for talking walk-ons, not less.

Sure I have no problem with that, again it needs to be thought out well, but more risk for a 2nd walk-on is fine.

Why do you want to penalize teams that battle for players? Would you rather no one battle for players and recruiting just becomes you pick who you want? I dont understand. You still have not mentioned anything about why 6 is a magic number. I'd love to hear that argument.

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

Quote: Originally Posted By wisefella99 on 2/18/2010

The more that I think about this move, the more that I like it. I just wish that it was around the few times that I had early entries and had 7 scholarships to fill.

Wise, do you think it should benefit teams that take multiple walk-ons the same way it benefits teams that lose multiple early entries? I get the early entries part, but the walk-on part seems like a gigantic, ill-fated leap

Dalt maybe you always only get 1/2 cash for a walk-on the next year? I don't know just brainstorming.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Quote: Originally Posted By sully712 on 2/18/2010Why do you want to penalize teams that battle for players? Would you rather no one battle for players and recruiting just becomes you pick who you want? I dont understand. You still have not mentioned anything about why 6 is a magic number. I'd love to hear that argument

This might increase recruiting battles - if that is the case i like it for that reason as well.

FYI, I've reversed this change after it was pointed out to me why it was there. My thinking was that it hurts coaches taking over new schools with more than 6 openings, which was why I made the change. I ask that everyone please wipe this event from their memory and pretend I'm not a moron.

Quote: Originally Posted By sully712 on 2/18/2010Why do you want to penalize teams that battle for players? Would you rather no one battle for players and recruiting just becomes you pick who you want? I dont understand. You still have not mentioned anything about why 6 is a magic number. I'd love to hear that argument

I didn't say that I don't want battles, that's ludicrious. The cap is in place now and there are tons of battles. I just said that if you battle and take risks and have multiple walk-ons, there should be actual repercussions for taking those risks.

What you're advocating is to be able to take the risk and have no repercussions. That's absurd.

LOL WTF?!? Are you serious seble? Aye carumba! Are we really making changes just for the sake of making a change?

Quote: Originally Posted By seble on 2/18/2010FYI, I've reversed this change after it was pointed out to me why it was there. My thinking was that it hurts coaches taking over new schools with more than 6 openings, which was why I made the change. I ask that everyone please wipe this event from their memory and pretend I'm not a moron

You've got to be kidding me. What a joke. Can someone explain why the magic number is 6???? Just because a couple of coaches complain you undo a change. Please say this is not so.

I can see where there would be a large benefit now to have like 8 openings. Sign 6 stud FR on an outrageous budget and 2 crap JUCO's, but I do not think that this rule change will affect much if anything honestly.

BUT NEVERMIND. REVERSAL BY SEBLE.