PH DPD: Recruiting Restriction Vote #2

[JBHuskers]

Do you want to limit the amount of recruits you can sign to 15 for the first two years?

[JBHuskers]

I will not vote, majority passes.

[JeffHCross]

Not in favor of this one. Our depth will be hard enough to build anyway.

[skipwondah33]

Not in favor of this one. Our depth will be hard enough to build anyway.That was my thinking as well.

I know at some positions I have 2 guys that will graduate next season. At least 7-8 total

Edit: These are the fake 40 OVR rated players that are all seniors. There are other upperclassmen that are normal that I didn't not include.

[psuexv]

I vote yes. DP would definitely have schollies limited

[psusnoop]

I vote yes. DP would definitely have schollies limited

I agree with this.

Something like a death penalty would have major recruiting restrictions. While we simmed through some of this I think it should continue.

Year 1 - 13 scholarships
Year 2 - 14 scholarships
Year 3 - 15 scholarships
Year 4 - 20 scholarships
Year 5 - 20 scholarships

Someone else can come up with something more fitting or toss the idea completely. I'm at work and don't have time to really hash it out correctly.

[gschwendt]

My question is, what happens if you go over the limit of 15? Do you cut the one you don't want? Do you cut numbers 16-25? Other than the honor system, how would you monitor that?

I'm certainly not opposed to restrictions, but enforcing them will be the difficult part. What if it were something more like only 15 3-star or greater? Sort of a combination of the two polls?

[razorback44]

There definitely needs to be some sort of restriction to be realistic.

[skipwondah33]

I accidentally hit "Yes"

Though I can go either way didn't mean to vote yes or no yet.

[JeffHCross]

My question is, what happens if you go over the limit of 15? Do you cut the one you don't want? Do you cut numbers 16-25? Other than the honor system, how would you monitor that? The way I've seen other dynasties do it is something like a 2:1. Where if you sign 16, the next year you have two less than anyone else. So if we were restricted to 15 in each year, and you signed 16 in Year 1, your Year 2 restriction would be 13. 17 would be 11. Cutting players doesn't make up for it, because, as you said, how do you enforce that?

[JBHuskers]

I accidentally hit "Yes"

Though I can go either way didn't mean to vote yes or no yet.

So is it a yes or a no?

[JBHuskers]

Cutting players doesn't make up for it, because, as you said, how do you enforce that?

You can see how many players someone has signed.

[skipwondah33]

So is it a yes or a no?Don't know yet

I'd personally not like to see a drastic reduction to 13. I could go with 15 though the first 2 years.

I agree with a reduction just not sure how many.

[gschwendt]

Don't know yet

I'd personally not like to see a drastic reduction to 13. I could go with 15 though the first 2 years.

Jeff was saying if you intentionally sign over 15 the first year, then the second year you are restricted to 13.

[skipwondah33]

Ah ok.

Not sure how many total 40 overall players we have but hopefully not 15 or more combined with real Seniors.

[psusnoop]

Yes vote here

[JeffHCross]

You can see how many players someone has signed.... I meant how do you enforce that someone cut enough players to make up for being over. Like say I knew I was going to cut two players, I go two recruits over, and instead of cutting recruits, I cut the two I wanted to.

(Apparently I didn't post this hours ago)

[skipwondah33]

Ah good point Jeff.

[psusnoop]

... I meant how do you enforce that someone cut enough players to make up for being over. Like say I knew I was going to cut two players, I go two recruits over, and instead of cutting recruits, I cut the two I wanted to.

(Apparently I didn't post this hours ago)

You'd be able to see their year and know who went over and who didn't with just a little work and good sportsmanship for all of us.

[gschwendt]

... I meant how do you enforce that someone cut enough players to make up for being over. Like say I knew I was going to cut two players, I go two recruits over, and instead of cutting recruits, I cut the two I wanted to.

(Apparently I didn't post this hours ago)

Like snoop said, you look prior to the end of recruiting to see their total. Any unrecruited players that walkon won't show in the weekly update. So we'll know by the regular season total plus those that show up in the final weekly update.

The only thing we won't be able to regulate is whether you cut a recruit vs a walkon unless we kept a list of everyone's signings throughout the season abd checked it after cuts.

[skipwondah33]

Hopefully we get to roll tonight.

I go either way. Who's going to do this checking, etc? Or should we police ourselves in the our conferences?

[gschwendt]

Hopefully we get to roll tonight.

I go either way. Who's going to do this checking, etc? Or should we police ourselves in the our conferences?

It actually wouldn't be too hard to police now that I think about it... once we get to offseason recruiting, I can just take screen grabs from dynasty wire of each team. Then have JB advance to recruiting results, grab those and we'll have our list.

The only decision we have beyond that would be are we required to cut the walkons (ie players we didn't recruit but that signed anyway) or can we keep them?

[skipwondah33]

Probably keep them for depth purposes. They will likely be like the guys we currently have rated in 50's

[gschwendt]

Probably keep them for depth purposes. They will likely be like the guys we currently have rated in 50's
All of our current players are walkons or transfers... Such as you 76 Freshman QB. He might have been a RSFr transfer, I'd have to look, but you can certainly get quality walkons that you never recruited. That said, it's pretty much luck if the draw.

[JBHuskers]

Since Skip was undecided, we'll just leave this alone and recruit as much as you want I think. We'll be behind the 8-ball enough with our lower team ratings. That was proven with the targeted recruits.