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

Quote: Originally posted by tmacfan12 on 2/18/2010

Quote: Originally posted by sully712 on 2/18/2010davey - how will teams game the system like this?

Let me put out a situation for you.

Im in the big east. I have 2 scholarships and 6 seniors with an A- prestige. There are 2 schools near me that have 5 scholarships with A+ prestiges. My team is already solid and if I try to recruit this season I will end up with not that good recruits because the A+ schools can beat me in any battle. I decide to not recruit at all and play this year with a 10 man team, improve my prestige this year, then recruit with money for 8 scholarships next year and wreck everyone.

This is all fine and dandy except for the fact that it is not realistic at all. This will never happen in real life, ever.

and when you have 4 players returning next season, your team prestige will be SO screwed by the next 1-2 seasons, you will be lucky if you can ever make it back to that A- prestige again ;

Quote: Originally Posted By reinsel on 2/18/2010
I am late to the party, but here are my thoughts:

There needs to be a cap on money. Teams with 6 open today can bully around the schools with 1-2 open already, and any decent D1 coach knows that the most important factors in a battle are distance, prestige and # open of your opponent, and that last factor doesn't need to be any more important than it is now.

The D1 teams with more than 6 open have had multiple EE and are the top of the crop already, and don't need more help.

6 is a good number because it is half the team. Obviously. 5 is a reasonable number to have in a class, 6 give you money for 1 ee, but 7 openings is only happending if you have walkons the year before or have been trying to get that kind of a class. Its the imaginary AD saying you blew your budget of $45,000 signing 1 guy last year so you are going to have to be smarter this year.

Thank goodness this was revoked.

Does anyone REALLY think it is hard to recruit 7 players at D1 with a measly $90,000 + NT money?

And at D2/D3 you might not be able to sign 7 pulldowns/dropdowns, but it isn't going to stop you from having a good class.

And if you don't like it take a walkon.

Quote: Originally Posted By reinsel on 2/18/2010
I am late to the party, but here are my thoughts:

There needs to be a cap on money. Teams with 6 open today can bully around the schools with 1-2 open already, and any decent D1 coach knows that the most important factors in a battle are distance, prestige and # open of your opponent, and that last factor doesn't need to be any more important than it is now.Not true. If you have 30k + postseason money you can be very very very very hard to move off of a kid. Add into that a team having to fill 8 openings they are not going to be able to battle 45-50k into 1 player nearly as much as if they had 3-4 openings.

The D1 teams with more than 6 open have had multiple EE and are the top of the crop already, and don't need more help.You clearly have not been here if you believe this.

6 is a good number because it is half the team. Obviously. 5 is a reasonable number to have in a class, 6 give you money for 1 ee, but 7 openings is only happending if you have walkons the year before or have been trying to get that kind of a class. Its the imaginary AD saying you blew your budget of $45,000 signing 1 guy last year so you are going to have to be smarter this year. 7 openings is NOT ONLY HAPPENING WHEN YOU HAVE WALKONS! I HAVE 8 THIS YEAR AT ILLINOIS WITH 0 WALKONS LAST TWO YEARS!

Thank goodness this was revoked.

Does anyone REALLY think it is hard to recruit 7 players at D1 with a measly $90,000 + NT money? yes it can be.

And at D2/D3 you might not be able to sign 7 pulldowns/dropdowns, but it isn't going to stop you from having a good class.

And if you don't like it take a walkon.

Quote: Originally Posted By sully712 on 2/18/2010

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

I am late to the party, but here are my thoughts:

There needs to be a cap on money. Teams with 6 open today can bully around the schools with 1-2 open already, and any decent D1 coach knows that the most important factors in a battle are distance, prestige and # open of your opponent, and that last factor doesn't need to be any more important than it is now.

The D1 teams with more than 6 open have had multiple EE and are the top of the crop already, and don't need more help.

6 is a good number because it is half the team. Obviously. 5 is a reasonable number to have in a class, 6 give you money for 1 ee, but 7 openings is only happending if you have walkons the year before or have been trying to get that kind of a class. Its the imaginary AD saying you blew your budget of $45,000 signing 1 guy last year so you are going to have to be smarter this year.

Thank goodness this was revoked.

Does anyone REALLY think it is hard to recruit 7 players at D1 with a measly $90,000 + NT money?

And at D2/D3 you might not be able to sign 7 pulldowns/dropdowns, but it isn't going to stop you from having a good class.

And if you don't like it take a walkon.

It is not easy at all to sign 7 players with money for 6. At least not 7 quality players. If you get in one or two battles, everyone jumps on. Happened to Z a couple seasons ago in Phelan

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 2/18/2010
As I said to you (billy) via sitemail, I'm not saying it's on a regular basis, or that it would be absolutely rampant. I'm just saying that I don't want people taking multiple walk-ons to not have to face any repercussions, and this lets them off just about free.

But basically any time that you take multiple walk-ons and then the following year you already had a class of 4-6, that would fit the bill.

You want to get into a bunch of battles and take the risk? I have zero problem with that. But that action simply can not be without some real consequences.

EDIT: I have already said that I'd be OK with it in cases where it occurred due to a team getting hit by early entries. Can we agree that if such a change is implemented, it would be to help teams crushed by early entries, and not to bail out those who took multiple walk-ons?



I hate that term "bail out" :) but that aside, that's my main point. I think it would create a programming nightmare however. Take Gtown for example. 2 walkons 4-5 Srs. and maybe 1 or 2 EEs...How would that funding be calculated. I really think the downside of not paying full money per opening is more harmful than leaving it as is.

Quote: Originally Posted By mmt0315 on 2/18/2010

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

As I said to you (billy) via sitemail, I'm not saying it's on a regular basis, or that it would be absolutely rampant. I'm just saying that I don't want people taking multiple walk-ons to not have to face any repercussions, and this lets them off just about free.

But basically any time that you take multiple walk-ons and then the following year you already had a class of 4-6, that would fit the bill.

You want to get into a bunch of battles and take the risk? I have zero problem with that. But that action simply can not be without some real consequences.

EDIT: I have already said that I'd be OK with it in cases where it occurred due to a team getting hit by early entries. Can we agree that if such a change is implemented, it would be to help teams crushed by early entries, and not to bail out those who took multiple walk-ons?




I hate that term "bail out" :) but that aside, that's my main point. I think it would create a programming nightmare however. Take Gtown for example. 2 walkons 4-5 Srs. and maybe 1 or 2 EEs...How would that funding be calculated. I really think the downside of not paying full money per opening is more harmful than leaving it as is.

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 2/18/2010
Dalt - You are always talking about "Giving the coaches the most options" to "Do what they want with their team, how they see fit".

Where did that go?