if you are going to do 5-1-5-1 just go out and do 6-0-6, you get full carry over in off recruiting seasons and its not like you are going to be getting anyone good with 1 scholarship, compared to have 6 (max money) and full carry over of last seasons bonus cash.

i also like 6-3-3 a lot, so I'd vote equally for 6-0-6 and 6-3-3.

d1 is different if i run zone like my lafayette squad im not too worried about class structure as then i freely rs, go after ineligibles, juco's.  but press i prefer 6-6 like my yale team thinks it gives me the best chance at winng nt games and fighting big 6 for better recruits

with redshirts and ineligilbes I don't generally have strict class structure rules, but the old 6-6-0-0 double superclass, double carryover is always nice. If it works right you ought to have good prestige and lots of cash for the first 6 so can pulldown best available. 

I've only got 1 D1 now and its high D1 so EEs make any kind of planning like this for them is irrelevant...

I think the defense you run is the deciding factor.  I think Man you can be more balanced.  Press you should be more top heavy.  Just my opinion.

It doesn't always work that way, but I like going 6-6-0-0.  I  feel it gives you the best shot at winning a national championship. After all, that's the ultimate goal.

i think people tend to overthink class structure, and put too much emphasis on sticking to it. NEVER take a sub-par player to preserve your class structure (unless its a gimmick like 6-6-0-0 or something). its important to be open to taking a walkon, maybe even two (as recruiting realities dictate) to allow yourself to sign the best players you can, instead of lowering the bar to fill up (press and fb/press teams worry more about fatigue, so of course every situation is different). also, you want to redshirt whenever possible. so sticking to a consistent class size over time is roughly impossible, unless you are bending over backwards (aka hurting your team) to keep it.

i recommend for newer coaches to try to have a big class, preferably 5 men, but 6 is ok too, and then try to have the rest be evened out. two 4 man classes back to back also works. you want to have balance - mostly, you only use your top 10 players, so having less than 2 freshman is basically a waste (because then you have less than 2 seniors / juniors in the respective classes). but, you want to have an "up year" or two, to give yourself a better chance at a deep run. plus, then you also get to experience recruiting with larger and smaller classes, both of which are important things to consider. and it adds variety which is always good. really this kind of class structure is what i look for myself today, so its not just for newer coaches, but i think it has additional advantages for newer coaches.

i strongly believe that trying a gimmick like 6-6-0-0 as a new coach is a bad idea unless you have multiple teams, because 1) it basically teaches you how to play the game wrong and 2) new coaches might get depressed when their team is awful and also if their big year ends up to be a big nothing. its true 6-6-0-0 is how medium tenured coaches have the best chance of winning a title - its how i won my first title (although within a few months i'd won two more the normal way, so it wasn't by much). but for expert coaches, 6-6-0-0 is absolutely not the best chance of winning a title, you'll never have one of the game's great runs as a 6-6-0-0 coach, you'll never take a top spot on the dynasty lists, you'll never be able to catch the all time great coaches in general. its fine to play it for fun or even long term for titles, its fair play, not cheating or anything, but i think its a terrible recommendation for new coaches. its just too different of an experience - you won't be able to learn as much from other teams around you, you won't be able to learn a lot of the core skills of the game, because you'll only be recruiting with the deck stacked in your favor, and only half as often as you should be (doing nothing in the 0-0 seasons), its harder to stay engaged especially with 1 team when two seasons are throw-away, its harder to build fierce rivalries, because you can't field a real team season in and season out... the list goes on. 

At the higher levels of division 1, planning a class size is an exercise in futility because of early entries. I agree with gillispie not to settle for a sub par player that you will be stuck with for 4 years.

I play (and voted) a 3-3-3-3 with my UMSL team in Naismith...good for consistency year after year, but it can be a beast to hit the 6-6-0-0 teams when they're in Sr/Jr cycle. I'm playing a 4-4-4-0 in Rupp...not sure I can draw any conclusions, but I think it will serve me well. Agree with everyone saying the key is to not settle and, as kind of a corollary to that, always be looking to upgrade over what you have...I think a lot of coaches overlook that the JUCO/transfer ranks aren't just for open scholarships but are also a route to upgrade over what's already on your roster. Obviously, it's a reputation hit if you cut a player you signed to replace him with a JUCO/Transfer, but if you're not planning to change programs, that's really a non-issue. 

I think the 6-6-0-0 system, while well within the rules, is about as big of a gimmick set up as you can get in the game today.  In the interest of fairness, I've run that set up myself, more than once, and won titles with it, also more than once (I used it to see if it was as easy to win a title as it appeared to be.  It was.  Did it a second time to make sure the first title wasn't a fluke.  It wasn't).  My feeling is that the coaches who use it do so because they aren't confident enough in their abilities as a coach to win with something resembling a more balanced team.  Sure, it gives you a good chance to win a title if you're even a decent coach and have recruited even half assed, but when I used it I certainly did NOT feel as though I had won those titles legitimately.  It felt "dirty", "greasy", like I had somehow taken a shortcut to success. 

There is also a forum "fact" that by using a 6-6-0-0 you have to accept that when your players are all FR/SO that you'll have to deal with a down season.  Totally incorrect if you know what you're doing.  Granted, you probably have very little chance at a title for that season, but there is no reason why you still can't make an NT appearance if you do things correctly.  This is assuming, of course, that you aren't in a conference that is full of other human coaches.  If you are, then all bets are off for that season. 

I will say though that the 6-6-0-0 is much easier to deal with than the true "superclass" 12-0-0-0 teams we used to see in the past, before the rule was changed to limit 6 to a class.  I will also say that there isn't much in this game more satisfying than taking out a 6-6-0-0 team in the NT (besides winning the tourney of course)!  beating one of those teams in the NT final is the ultimate F U!

My personal favorite set up is 4-4-4-0 though.

**tl;dr**  6-6-0-0 is certainly within the rules, I've used it before (and won titles too easily), it's a gimmick and cheesy as hell.

Posted by gillispie1 on 1/15/2016 9:47:00 PM (view original):
i think people tend to overthink class structure, and put too much emphasis on sticking to it. NEVER take a sub-par player to preserve your class structure (unless its a gimmick like 6-6-0-0 or something). its important to be open to taking a walkon, maybe even two (as recruiting realities dictate) to allow yourself to sign the best players you can, instead of lowering the bar to fill up (press and fb/press teams worry more about fatigue, so of course every situation is different). also, you want to redshirt whenever possible. so sticking to a consistent class size over time is roughly impossible, unless you are bending over backwards (aka hurting your team) to keep it.

i recommend for newer coaches to try to have a big class, preferably 5 men, but 6 is ok too, and then try to have the rest be evened out. two 4 man classes back to back also works. you want to have balance - mostly, you only use your top 10 players, so having less than 2 freshman is basically a waste (because then you have less than 2 seniors / juniors in the respective classes). but, you want to have an "up year" or two, to give yourself a better chance at a deep run. plus, then you also get to experience recruiting with larger and smaller classes, both of which are important things to consider. and it adds variety which is always good. really this kind of class structure is what i look for myself today, so its not just for newer coaches, but i think it has additional advantages for newer coaches.

i strongly believe that trying a gimmick like 6-6-0-0 as a new coach is a bad idea unless you have multiple teams, because 1) it basically teaches you how to play the game wrong and 2) new coaches might get depressed when their team is awful and also if their big year ends up to be a big nothing. its true 6-6-0-0 is how medium tenured coaches have the best chance of winning a title - its how i won my first title (although within a few months i'd won two more the normal way, so it wasn't by much). but for expert coaches, 6-6-0-0 is absolutely not the best chance of winning a title, you'll never have one of the game's great runs as a 6-6-0-0 coach, you'll never take a top spot on the dynasty lists, you'll never be able to catch the all time great coaches in general. its fine to play it for fun or even long term for titles, its fair play, not cheating or anything, but i think its a terrible recommendation for new coaches. its just too different of an experience - you won't be able to learn as much from other teams around you, you won't be able to learn a lot of the core skills of the game, because you'll only be recruiting with the deck stacked in your favor, and only half as often as you should be (doing nothing in the 0-0 seasons), its harder to stay engaged especially with 1 team when two seasons are throw-away, its harder to build fierce rivalries, because you can't field a real team season in and season out... the list goes on. 

I agree with almost 100% of the last paragraph posted.  Almost.

If you are on a quixotic quest to win a D1 championship from Wisconsin-Milwaukee then 6-6-0-0 is probably the way to go. I think it's a way to balance the scales, the same as being among a full group of coaches in a lower, mid, or mid-major conference. I respect gillispie's point about making a multi-year run, but that's just one challenge open to any coach. Making the tournament in D1 with a 0-0-6-6 team might be more satisfying than making the S16 with a 3-3-3-3 team.

If your challenge is to take an established Big 6 team and compete for the NT championship every four seasons, the 6-6-0-0 is probably a gimmick. But if you'd prefer to see how far you can take a D- team that's been a SIM for 10 seasons in a sparsely populated D1 conference and try to get them to A- prestige, then by all means use every trick available.

I would agree that it's not something new coaches should use at the DIII or DII levels. No redshirts, No ineligibles. And I guarantee that perfect recruit 40 miles away from you will only show up in a year when you are not recruiting. 

Disclaimer: I use a 6-0-6-0 gimmick in one of my DII schools. It's as fun as can be, both in big years and small years.

The more I think about it, there are no gimmicks in HD. There are a series of strategies each coach uses to give his team the best chance to win at any given level. Is scheduling 12 SIM road teams a gimmick? Is the $120 ineligible a gimmick? Is a 50+ distribution a gimmick? Is using a -5 defense a gimmick? [OK, maybe this one] They are all strategies with varied advantages and disadvantages.

Don't worry about what other people think are gimmicks. Do what you think gives your team the best chance to win, or to meet whatever challenge you set for yourself.

If you manage to schedule 12 sim road teams it really is a gimmick, and quite impressive to boot.

I always seem to overschedule.

I think when you are a below average or average player you can use class structure to help your team out as well as helping out recruiting by having bigger recruiting budgets.

I do think however taking subpar players to maintain classes and avoiding rs players is generally a bad idea(however I do it sometimes to avoid a 1 man class)

But I think the elite coaches look down upon utilizing class structure saying you can win with anything however a lot of people aren't at the level,

You can win without focusing on class structure but it surely helps your team and recruiting