Just wanted to add a few thoughts here on potential. Originally when the implementation first came out, I was absolutely against the idea. However, at the same time while it may have driven more than a few customers away, I could understand why this had occurred.
I suppose my biggest agenda is that there are sub categories for each level for potential, i.e. high low, high medium, high low etc. Especially at D-3, where you need funds for both FSS and recruiting, most teams don't have the dough to fork over for evaluations to determine the player's talent.
If a team has two open scholarships at D-3, plus maybe $1,000 for recruiting from post season incentives that equals to $6,000. However, it is in my opinion that even D-3 coaches should be able to recruit players from far away and have an easier time doing so, along with the cost of FSS and know what they are getting in regards to talent.
Often times, you can get average players(who turn out to be low average), that are close to maxed out half way through their sophomore years, but to me it doesn't appear to make a lot of sense.
Right now, through 10 games and 2 exhibitions, I have players who started out as "average", at the beginning of their freshman season's, who have gained only 1 point close to the halfway mark, which would suggest they are close to "maxing out". They are probably on the low end of the medium spectrum.
Anyways, it's most likely never going to happen, but would like some thoughts about keeping "high" "average" and "low" as it is or maybe possibly at least give more recruiting money with each respective division. Maybe adding 15-20% to each division?