Something I've been thinking about lately is how increasing available scholarships to 13 and reducing the class size limit to 5 would effect HD. I'm leaning towards supporting it but I'd like to hear some opinions from others.

Would reducing the effectiveness of super-classes be good for the game?
Would this change make recruiting more competitive across all divisions?
Would this be a good or bad thing for mid-major competitiveness at DI?
Could this potentially make the press even more effective at DIII?
Could it make zone more feasible at DI, at least for high-major schools?

Some food for thought. Also, where seble been at? I thought recruiting changes were coming.

im confused as to how zone could be more feasible in d1, when there is more depth and less need for a fatigue-conserving set like zone? 

i am opposed to making it 13 because i think the effects are very far reaching and it would be a huge change. im not sure how i feel about the change in general though, like if it was free, if i'd support it... if its a change by itself, with nothing to compensate/recalibrate, im definitely against it, but if there were changes to recruiting, recruit generation, and/or game play, to adjust for 13 players, it could be interesting

My gut feelings here, just from a personal tactical standpoint...Unless the allowed me to redshirt an additional player, I'd probably keep the money for the 13th scholarship and take a permanent walk-on so I could use the cash in recruiting battles. Even as a press coach I don't feel the need for a 13th player (most of my press teams run just fine with 11), so all the extra player would do is be sitting on the bench and twiddling his thumbs waiting for his maybe 5 minutes per game or whatever. 

At the upper levels, I would worry about how it could increase the difficulty of cracking into the top echelon of the game, because it now leaves open the strategy of "I'm not going to use this player most likely, but if I give him a scholarship, that's one less quality player that can filter down and find its way onto the roster of a mid-major that I might have to compete against someday." There would have to be a change to the way recruits are generated, I would think. This could also, to a lesser degree, impact D2 and D3 (again, if I"m an A+ prestige program, I might grab that 13th player just to remove said person from the possible drop-down pool that might benefit and up-and-coming program. 

If reducing the effectiveness of superclasses is the overarching goal, my suggestion would be to change IQ from a letter grade to a 0-100 rating grade, call it "Awareness" or something, and then cap it like all the potentials aside from Work Ethic are capped. I've always thought it a bit ridiculous that everyone can reach an A+ understanding of a given set. Some kids are just thick as a brick, no matter how long they're around. 

I like the idea of awareness and billy, I would think that most or all zone-running teams would leave that scholarship open every season and give themselves an extra $15k to recruit with, which could potentially make a positive difference, but I'd tend to agree with you that it might have the reverse effect of making zone even less feasible.

I like the idea of reducing class size, but even 5 sr and 5 jr can be a super class as you can do what kentucky does and run 2 5 man lineups....

Honestly, I don't have an issue with having super classes. As I'm coaching one of the weaker teams in a Big Twelve conference, I've found this is the best way to compete and build up prestige. Even if I were an impartial observer, I think the small schools at D-1 are enough of a disadvantage as it is already. I would feel the same way if I were coaching at an elite school, such as UConn, Duke, UNC or Kentucky. From my latest findings, Air Force has 9 freshman, Maryland has 8 seniors, in real life basketball. Several other teams have either 7 or 8 of one class. Even though their rosters are slightly higher than 12, it's still over 50% of the roster. Keep in mind, these teams sacrifice the first couple of seasons to become better in their final year or two.

You can actually end up with just as good of a team, if not better, with 6 sr's and 6 jr's than you would with 12 sr's. Especially if you end land a lot of high WE guys. Most of these players will reach close to their potential towards the end of their junior seasons. You're also getting twice as much recruiting money with 6-6 than you would with 12-0.

I'm all for reducing the class size limit to 5 players, however, (in my humble opinion) adding an additional scholarship would be biting off more than can comfortably be chewed. I've been thinking a lot about superclasses lately, and the more I think I about them the more they get on my nerves...not only because of the gameplay aspect, but also because of lopsided situations they create during recruiting. After playing in a world that has several coaches which utilize superclasses, I've noticed they often have the resources to "buy" players simply because they have money from 6 open scholarships, so possibly giving them money from another one makes my stomach churn.

Nacho, I agree with you about the frustration of getting recruited over by teams with ridiculous amounts of recruiting cash due to them having a superclass. This becomes a huge problem because no one wants to challenge them and they have their pick(s) of the lot. I think that this also comes down to a larger issue with the courting process in recruiting and the way in which recruiting budget is determined.

car, I would be opposed to 13 scholy's. It would simply make the rich get richer. They would just stockpile another stud. Although I wouldn't be extremely opposed to a 5 class size limit, I am good with how it is now. Sometime the larger class size is the quickest way to do a rebuild or improve a low prestige program. It sometimes helps a coach make the decision to take on the challenge.

I think there are other areas that need improvement over these.  1) The hiring-firing process must be improved in D1 to allow for more upward movement for upcoming and successful coaches. The game loses players (coaches) because they don't get to move up. 2) Make the first cycle of recruiting 3 hours, like every other cycle. It is typically the busiest cycle in recruiting.

Posted by nachopuzzle on 12/8/2014 10:47:00 AM (view original):
I'm all for reducing the class size limit to 5 players, however, (in my humble opinion) adding an additional scholarship would be biting off more than can comfortably be chewed. I've been thinking a lot about superclasses lately, and the more I think I about them the more they get on my nerves...not only because of the gameplay aspect, but also because of lopsided situations they create during recruiting. After playing in a world that has several coaches which utilize superclasses, I've noticed they often have the resources to "buy" players simply because they have money from 6 open scholarships, so possibly giving them money from another one makes my stomach churn.

Not to mention two seasons of carrying over 100% of post season earnings! I don't mind playing against super class teams I just don't like recruiting against them. I would suggest getting rid of post season carryover when there is no recruiting effort or reducing it to a percentage similar to regular leftover cash, 25%

Posted by milwood on 12/8/2014 1:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 12/8/2014 10:47:00 AM (view original):
I'm all for reducing the class size limit to 5 players, however, (in my humble opinion) adding an additional scholarship would be biting off more than can comfortably be chewed. I've been thinking a lot about superclasses lately, and the more I think I about them the more they get on my nerves...not only because of the gameplay aspect, but also because of lopsided situations they create during recruiting. After playing in a world that has several coaches which utilize superclasses, I've noticed they often have the resources to "buy" players simply because they have money from 6 open scholarships, so possibly giving them money from another one makes my stomach churn.

Not to mention two seasons of carrying over 100% of post season earnings! I don't mind playing against super class teams I just don't like recruiting against them. I would suggest getting rid of post season carryover when there is no recruiting effort or reducing it to a percentage similar to regular leftover cash, 25%

Seconded.

Posted by milwood on 12/8/2014 1:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 12/8/2014 10:47:00 AM (view original):
I'm all for reducing the class size limit to 5 players, however, (in my humble opinion) adding an additional scholarship would be biting off more than can comfortably be chewed. I've been thinking a lot about superclasses lately, and the more I think I about them the more they get on my nerves...not only because of the gameplay aspect, but also because of lopsided situations they create during recruiting. After playing in a world that has several coaches which utilize superclasses, I've noticed they often have the resources to "buy" players simply because they have money from 6 open scholarships, so possibly giving them money from another one makes my stomach churn.

Not to mention two seasons of carrying over 100% of post season earnings! I don't mind playing against super class teams I just don't like recruiting against them. I would suggest getting rid of post season carryover when there is no recruiting effort or reducing it to a percentage similar to regular leftover cash, 25%

Yes, you must of read my mind, I had the exact same thought earlier...and the more it's hashed out the more clear it becomes that this is very unfair. Why should one team only get to keep 25% of their recruiting budget while another team gets to keep 100% of theirs??? I would absolutely love to see every team only be able to keep 25% of their recruiting budget whether or not they engaged in recruiting activity.

Not sure what is wrong with super classes. If you think it works best then try it and see.

There are lots of issues with it as well. You can't redshirt every year if you are going to purposefully have no openings.

I have had teams in Div-1 where I use 6 openings to recruit 3 players so I can get good players from a B prestige range team.

Different strategies can be used to try to win. I don't think super classes are a panaca.. It seems they have some advantages but also disadvantages. With early entries at division 1, someone who recruits good players can not easily plan to maintain any system of 6 and 0 for a class.

I agree with what you're saying here, hughes.  I just think the 100% postseason carryover is extreme.  This could annoy some of my conferencemates, but... I'm in a pretty strong D2 conference (Central, Knight).  We've been routinely pulling in $90-$100k or more in postseason cash.  So let's say $8k per team per season.  Let's also say that I'm superclassed and I spent every penny I have on my second class of 6 this season.

The season goes by (I have freshmen and sophs) and I get my $8k of postseason cash.  I have no recruiting to do so that carries over 100%.  The next season goes by (sophs and juniors) and I get my $8k postseason cash.  No recruiting again, I keep it all.  So that's $16k.  The next season (juniors and seniors) I get another $8k.

Recruiting rolls around, and I have $30k for my open scholarships and another $24k (minimum, really) of postseason cash in my pocket.  I have $54,000 for six spots.  Who would challenge me for any of my recruits?  What chance does any non-superclass/non-superconference team have?  It's not just that I can win any battle - it's that you'd have to be crazy to try me.  That means I can get this class on the cheap and carry over 25% of whatever I have left over, plus that guaranteed $8k or so from this next postseason.  I'm going to have $40k or more - perhaps quite a bit more - for my next class of 6.  And how likely am I to get pushback then?

That's the issue milwood, nacho, and I are addressing.