Which is worst?
A) Scrubs signed by your AC that you cut at the end of the season. Negative effects: these players should NEVER see a single snap of the football and they are so bad that their mere presence on the roster negatively affects team play on the field. On the positive side, you can cut them at the end of the season and the hit to your reputation is minor. You are penalized two thirds a grade when you cut three of these guys (a B becomes a C+, which changes to a B- when the season rolls over) and only really hurts when you are looking to move up a division.
B) Mediocre talent, backups, you sign when you lose a battle for the player you really want. On the positive side, they don't stink so bad that they affect your on the field play from the bench. And they provide bare minimum support when you need to rest your starters and prime backups during a game. Negatively, you are stuck with these players for four years if you don't want to take the HUGE hit on your reputation. Cutting three of these guys costs you twice as much as cutting three scrubs. If you have a contender for the national title, you would prefer these guys never see the field as underclassmen and only spot play (10-20% PT a game) as upperclassmen. They will NEVER be starters. Severely affects quality depth, as they hog much needed scholarships.
So, given Sophie's choice, which one would you prefer if you had to take one of these two options? I'm curious what some of the most successful coaches do. Me, I take option A every time.