New rules limit 6 schollies per class year.  This was done to prevent Super classes.  If you have more than 6 open schollies and you want a full roster, you have to get some players from different years.  This is fine.

The draft and early entries often decimate teams.  This is somewhat okay too.

What I find problematic is that you only can get the scholarship money for a maximum of 6 schollies even if you suddenly have 8 slots.  This happened to me 2 seasons ago, and it may happen this season.  I do not think is fair, especially if you have had a full roster.

I think this change should be made.  The change should be something like you get the scholarship money for the amount of scholarships you lost to graduation or early entry if you had a full roster.  The limit on 6 scholarships will prevent superclasses, and you will not be eligible for 8 scholarship money if you lost 5 to graduation and early entry but were only carrying 9 players.

I truly believe this would be justice.

I agree and got pounded by ppl about it.  trasfer as a rule usually cost more to recruit any ways. and who want 6 fr on a team it doesnt pay in the long run.  there needs to be a fix !

6 freshman doesn't pay off in the long run? How about in, say, three or four seasons when they're all, you know, juniors and seniors? I'd say they'd "pay off" pretty nicely then...

then the next season you suck so a balanced system is better overall.

Ever heard of the ol' 6-0-6-0 class rotation? (I know a 5-1-5-1 is more reasonable) but with that system you can be reasonably competitve every year, and even if you're hit hard by EE's, you still have the next mini-superclass ready to go. (I remember reading about a veteran coach who ran that system, I'm pretty sure his name was Lotsmith or something)

That sounds like a terrible idea.  How is that "justice?"  You have at least some level of control over overall class size.  Obviously EEs confuse things, but if you have a 3-man class the odds of having over 3 EEs and getting screwed on a scholarship are fairly low.  If you get penalized the way you suggest you could never attempt to battle for recruits.  Not only would losing a battle leave you stuck with a walkon this season, you'd end up with an unpaid open scholarship the next year.

cal, you and I are usually pretty like-minded, but I can't get behind this idea.

I understand where you're coming from, but I think a team in that situation already has so much money and prestige, that giving them an additional wad of cash is unnecessary and really overkill. I won't expound too much more because it's been covered, but I think one thing they can do to help this situation is make it less likely for teams to lose multiple EE's. 

It occurs to me that with my various causes, I've become the resident HD Socialist. Lol, so be it.

Posted by usc4life on 8/20/2010 8:20:00 PM (view original):
6 freshman doesn't pay off in the long run? How about in, say, three or four seasons when they're all, you know, juniors and seniors? I'd say they'd "pay off" pretty nicely then...

I only use the 6 frosh technique when trying to get a quick promotion in 4 seasons (2 crap seasons and 2 NT seasons).  the 6-0-6-0 is too inconsistent for me - one season where the rpi slips and you are finished.  

Posted by moy23 on 8/20/2010 10:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by usc4life on 8/20/2010 8:20:00 PM (view original):
6 freshman doesn't pay off in the long run? How about in, say, three or four seasons when they're all, you know, juniors and seniors? I'd say they'd "pay off" pretty nicely then...

I only use the 6 frosh technique when trying to get a quick promotion in 4 seasons (2 crap seasons and 2 NT seasons).  the 6-0-6-0 is too inconsistent for me - one season where the rpi slips and you are finished.  

Yeah, I see where you're coming from. It's not something I would try, but mostly because I'm not experienced enough to pull it off. Wouldn't that system work better in D2 or D3, since you don't run the risk of EE's?

Posted by dahsdebater on 8/20/2010 10:28:00 PM (view original):
That sounds like a terrible idea.  How is that "justice?"  You have at least some level of control over overall class size.  Obviously EEs confuse things, but if you have a 3-man class the odds of having over 3 EEs and getting screwed on a scholarship are fairly low.  If you get penalized the way you suggest you could never attempt to battle for recruits.  Not only would losing a battle leave you stuck with a walkon this season, you'd end up with an unpaid open scholarship the next year.

It would be justice because the case I am talking about involves coaches who keep a full team and yet sometimes do not receive the same compensation for loss of players to EE.  Teams with 4 3 man classes are extremely rare, and I like balanced teams, that is the point of the dynasty idea.  However, many teams fall out of the 3 man class for various reasons or never began with it when they took the job.  Two seasons ago I had a 5 man senior class with 3 early entries.  This season I have a 4 man senior class and am expecting 2 EEs for sure.  There may be more.  These cases are the ones I am speaking of.

You raise a good point in the last sentence, so I should clarify.  I am not saying that actually.  Walkon/open schollies get funded surely.  The case I am saying is that only teams with full rosters the previous season would get more money if they had more than 6 open scholarships.  Teams that had a walkon and 5 seniors and no EEs would get 6, as it is now.  Teams that have a walkon, 5 seniors, and 2 early entries would only get 6 funded however, as it is now too.  This would be an added incentive to fill your classes.  I am open to suggestions on this, but that is the justice I was speaking of.

And yes, dalter, I'd be happy to with less early entries as a solution too.

Er... maybe I'm getting old and senile here (I have been coaching for 37 years, after all), but wasn't a change made a little while back where you *did* get the money for all open scholarships, even though you could only put 6 in a class?  Again, maybe I'm wrong, or possibly Leonardo DiCaprio planted that idea 3 levels down inside my brain, but I sure feel like that's a thing I remember happening...

@jeff-- nope, never happened.

Huh.  I *am* getting old...