BBCF: If I had hair, I'd have pulled it out this week.

[Ben E Lou]

From: AD Tom Floyd Subject: Week 13 Recruit Summary

Players committing to Columbus State





Players recruited that committed to other schools

WR Bob Jordan - Florida Atlantic

QB Kwame Hall - Florida Atlantic

OLB Fred Minter - Florida Int

WR Kane Harris - Florida Int

RB Bill Butler - Louisiana-Laf

OLB Mark Jackson - Troy

QB Mark Grandberry - Troy

OLB Keith Wightkin - Florida Atlantic

CB John Wright - Central Florida

DE Jason Moore - Troy

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:



Sheesh. At least I'm recruiting the right players, I guess, but to see NINE of them commit to other schools in the conference in the same freakin' week. :( If I had hair, I'd pull it out right now.

[Poli]

I'm about as close to buying this game as it comes, I'd guess. I think I'd like to see this proposed 1.1 patch first. Maybe. I've been teetering all day about talking to my wife about it.

[FBPro]

Ouch......

[SirFozzie]

AE: Don't hesitate.. activate. ;)

Trust me, the game is very good. I'm almost tempted to log into my computer at home via remote control and boot up BBCF (well, that and the constant 12 hour days training here at work). The game's got niggles, but the legacy of Arlie's previous games being ruined by bugs (sorry Arlie, it WAS true thought) is gone. It's already VERY good, near great.. and when polished.. it's a diamond. It's #2 on the Top Sports Games of 2005 for me (#1 is FM2006)

[timmae]

I'm about as close to buying this game as it comes, I'd guess. I think I'd like to see this proposed 1.1 patch first. Maybe. I've been teetering all day about talking to my wife about it.

Nah, nah... no talking. Demand my man!! I say demand.... and ye shall receive.

[Senator]

Florida teams are doing what they do best.

[Noop]

Florida teams are doing what they do best.
I guess we could be like some teams in Texas....

[Joe]

you'll just have to settle for pulling out your pubic hair

[Airhog]

maybe his flagpole doesnt have any grass GW. Did you ever stop to think about that?

[Blade6119]

I pray our troy dynasty gets recruits that easily :)

[rjolley]

Ok, just to make sure I'm not missing anything...when you pick a recruit pitch, it stays in effect until you remove it and there's no way to change the pitch? Also, is there a way to tell who's already visited on the screen to set visits, or are the players always those who haven't visited before?

[Eaglesfan27]

Ok, just to make sure I'm not missing anything...when you pick a recruit pitch, it stays in effect until you remove it and there's no way to change the pitch? Also, is there a way to tell who's already visited on the screen to set visits, or are the players always those who haven't visited before?
Once you make a specific pitch, there is no way to change it. The players who have already visited are not listed on the screen where you offer players visits since you can only have 1 visit per player.

[ThunderingHERD]

Is there some way to see where your recruiting class ranks? I thought I remembered seeing something like that before, but can't find it now. With UNC I've gotten 5 straight As at the end of season screen, I'd like to see where I ranked over all.

[Eaglesfan27]

Is there some way to see where your recruiting class ranks? I thought I remembered seeing something like that before, but can't find it now. With UNC I've gotten 5 straight As at the end of season screen, I'd like to see where I ranked over all.
During the season, you can view the team info page where it displays your most recent recruiting ranking. I'd like to see Arlie add the ability to see previous class rankings which I don't think is currently in the game.

[MylesKnight]

That Sunshine State recruiting border is closing SkyDog... Just as it should be. :)

[QuikSand]

I, too, am playing with a small school in BBCF, and am having different hair-pulling temptations. (And I have something to lose in this)

After two recruiting seasons, I am getting the sense that there just isn't much difference between the players that I am actually recruiting and landing, and those who end up being my fill-in walk-ons who just show up as the following season begins. My school prestige is in the mid 30s, and my top recruits are generaly in the #700-#1200 range nationally... and then I'm seeing walk-ons who were in the #1000-#1500 range, generally. once they land at my school, at least through the eyes of my crappy scout, I'm not seeing too much of a difference -- I will have worked like a dog to land a guy who turns out to be 2/7 (I use the scale of 20) and then there will be another guy right next to him rated 2/6 whom I never recruited or had visit, he just showed up.

It's making me feel as though my efforts in the recruiting process are not making much difference -- I put in effort to try to chase a few difference-makers, and getting one of those woudl really matter, but past that, when I am basically filling in my recruit class, whether I grant a scholarship to player #1104 or have player #1219 just walk on seems to be a pretty trivial difference.

Alas...

[QuikSand]

I shoudl add, though, that my frustrations with recruiting (and getting literally zero players of any real import) must be offset with the complementary frustration that, at least so far, players don't seem to matter. My crappy team, even after an early exit from our 1,900-yard RB from last season, is currently at 9-0 and ranked #12 in the country. This is after two recruiting seasons that spawned pretty much nothing but walk-on caliber players, and with a roster that includes a number of walk-ons in meaningful roles.

Perhaps it's my brilliant game planning that's leading the way? (Which is being done by my talentless bargain-basement staff, of course, I get nearly zero credit there) About the only thing I'm doing manually is keeping in my senior QB (rated at a mighty 7/7 out of 20) slotted ahead of a younger guy (rated 5/11) who doesn't seem to be as mistake-free.

Hooray for me?

[Bee]

I shoudl add, though, that my frustrations with recruiting (and getting literally zero players of any real import) must be offset with the complementary frustration that, at least so far, players don't seem to matter. My crappy team, even after an early exit from our 1,900-yard RB from last season, is currently at 9-0 and ranked #12 in the country. This is after two recruiting seasons that spawned pretty much nothing but walk-on caliber players, and with a roster that includes a number of walk-ons in meaningful roles.

Perhaps it's my brilliant game planning that's leading the way? (Which is being done by my talentless bargain-basement staff, of course, I get nearly zero credit there) About the only thing I'm doing manually is keeping in my senior QB (rated at a mighty 7/7 out of 20) slotted ahead of a younger guy (rated 5/11) who doesn't seem to be as mistake-free.

Hooray for me?

Obviously you've mastered this game without realizing it. :D

[QuikSand]

Obviously you've mastered this game without realizing it.

Really bodes well for my long term enjoyment.

[Toddzilla]

Sounds like a good idea for a test - three scenarios, same team, same game save prior to recruiting:

(1) Manually Recruit and get best class possible.
(2) Manually Recruit and dont pursue anyone to force walkons.
(3) Let CPU handle Recruiting.

I'll try to get to this sometime today using a lower level perstige team as picked by Icy's random team generator.
(3)

[Poli]

Really bodes well for my long term enjoyment.Your displeasure has postponed my purchase, FWIW.

[MizzouRah]

Shoot QS, you are not human.. realize that! :)

Reading your issues though does disturb me, although with Troy, I'm not doing well at all in my first season and everything seems quite realistic so far, minus the polls. Not sure what is going on there though. (scratches head)

[Cuckoo]

Shoot QS, you are not human.. realize that! :)

Reading your issues though does disturb me, although with Troy, I'm not doing well at all in my first season and everything seems quite realistic so far, minus the polls. Not sure what is going on there though. (scratches head)

Agreed. I'm playing a league with OU right now, but I played a couple with lesser teams and didn't see any of the problems QS is describing.

I think maybe he just has the midas touch... :)

[QuikSand]

Hey, if it just turns out that I just rolled souble sixes first time out of the gate, and I inherited a team that was bound for greatness anyway, I can live with that. I'm hoping that's the case here. I'll probably start over with the next patch anyway (if I continue the play the game) but I'm just looking for some sense that this isn't the universal case.

[MizzouRah]

Hey, if it just turns out that I just rolled souble sixes first time out of the gate, and I inherited a team that was bound for greatness anyway, I can live with that. I'm hoping that's the case here. I'll probably start over with the next patch anyway (if I continue the play the game) but I'm just looking for some sense that this isn't the universal case.
If you have the time, could you create a new league and try a lower tier team again? It's just not making a lot of sense to me, which isn't hard to do. :)

Shoot my RB is a 2/4 (1-20 ratings) and he's lucky to have 400 yards through 7 games.

[Ben E Lou]

Yeah. No idea. I'm getting by ever-lovin' butt kicked still. I'm about 5 seasons into my latest career and have yet to really come that close to winning the Sun Belt.

[Coffee Warlord]

Yeah. No idea. I'm getting by ever-lovin' butt kicked still. I'm about 5 seasons into my latest career and have yet to really come that close to winning the Sun Belt.

It's obviously the officials. :)

[QuikSand]

Well, considering the utter crap that I'm bringing in to Kent State by way of my hapless recruiting, we ought to be heading downward mighty quickly. I can't imagine I will restart another career before the next patch.

But if your top RB is a 2/4, maybe I'm underestimating the guys I do have to work with. I'm ambarassed to be starting lots of players with current ratings of 2-4 (out of 20 also) but maybe that's par for the course, and all my opponents are, also.

[MizzouRah]

Well, considering the utter crap that I'm bringing in to Kent State by way of my hapless recruiting, we ought to be heading downward mighty quickly. I can't imagine I will restart another career before the next patch.

But if your top RB is a 2/4, maybe I'm underestimating the guys I do have to work with. I'm ambarassed to be starting lots of players with current ratings of 2-4 (out of 20 also) but maybe that's par for the course, and all my opponents are, also.
Don't get me wrong, Troy beat Mizzou last year, so things can happen, but to be 9-0 with Kent State has me wondering what is going on. Who have you beaten besides everyone in your conference? I beat Akron to open up the season, convinceingly.. but since then it's a close game either way in my conference. Did you pick your offensive and defensive scheme occording to you OC and DC styles? Maybe there is too big of a bonus for doing so, if that is the case? I went against both of my coaches styles of play.

Just some thoughts and a do over might shed some light if it was a freak thing or not.

[QuikSand]

My complete recipe for triumph at Kent State (also just for learning purposes):

-I selected the base off/def philosophies (balanced and 4-6, incidentally)
-Let staff handle gameplanning and depth chart setting (with one exception)
-After season one, I got new coordinators - both still very cheap and bad, but matched my philosophies
-Starting in season two, I manually inserted my 6/9 QB ahead of the 8/11 guy, as he seemed more consistent
-In both offseasons, I recruited poorly and mostly landed guys only slighty labove walkon level
-I scheduled weak opponents for my nonconference games each year thus far


That represents my complete involvement in the operations of the team.

So far, the results are, in order:

9-4, second place in conferece, win in Poinsettia Bowl
9-4, second place in conference, loss in GMAC bowl
12-2, first place in conference, loss in Motor City Bowl

[MizzouRah]

Get any good coaching offers? :)

[Poli]

Better quarterbacks than I had to work with in the demo...by far.

[Eaglesfan27]

Better quarterbacks than I had to work with in the demo...by far.
My first QB (my dynasty doesn't start in the 1st year) at USC was a 10/10 guy (also using a 1-20 scale.) Therefore, I wonder if the QB's have been a big part of your sucess in a relatively weak conference?

[Toddzilla]

OK. I've taken over the Western Michigan Broncos of the MAC. They've got a prestige of 35 (low) and the expectations are predictable - don't finish last, yada yada yada. I set up the CPU to handle the roster, depthchart, game plan, and academics in order to get me to the end of the season asap. I schedule the 3 worst teams I can find to start the year - Ark State, LA-Monroe, and Fla Atl, all on the road - to try and get a few wins, and Missouri in the middle of the year for respectability. I finished 6-6, ranked #62 by the computers, and in a 4-way 4-4 tie in the MAC-West (N Ill. wins tiebreaker and beats Miami in the MAC title game). I get an invitation to play
Houston in the GMAC bowl and lose. I simmed the rest of the bowl games (MIA def. Texas for the MNC) and proceeded to Week 8 in the offseason.

Graded D overall with a B for expectation, C for Prestige (still 35), and F for talent.
No job offers.
Keep the same coaches.
Do not throw money at any transfers.
I get a letter from 3-star DE Enoch Nixhols who wants to play for me, how sweet.
I get $30,000 per week to recruit.

Scenario One - I handle recruiting and try my best.
Basically I'm going to pitch to the most-interested, highest-rated prospects with an emphasis on need.

10 Signees - #70 class in the country:

WR Nnamdi Mixon 3-stars, NR: 855, 1.5/2.5
WR Bo Current 3-stars, NR: 791, 1.5/2.5
DE A.D. Jones 3-stars, NR: 732, 2.0/3.0
OLB S. Williams 3-stars, NR: 588, 1.5/3.0
OLB Todd Brown 3-stars, NR: 795, 2.0/3.0
SS I Wallace 3-stars, NR: 813, 1.0/3.5
OG Henry Brown 3-stars, NR: 709, 1.0/3.5
DT S. Bailey 2-stars, NR: 1701, 1.0/2.0
RB W. Williams 2-stars, NR: 1388, 1.0/2.5
FB Steven Myers 1-stars, NR: 2350, 1.0/1.0

FB G Ballard Walk-On, NR: 2551, 1.0/1.5
OT G Warren Walk-On, NR: 1868, 1.0/1.5
C Mike Smith Walk-On, NR: 828, 1.5/3.0 (nice!)
P O. Randel-EL Walk-On, NR: 803, 2.5/3.5 (nice!)
CB Tim Brown Walk-On, NR: 1265, 1.5/3.0 (nice!)

10 3-star, 2 2-star, 3 1-star

I did NOT get the DE who wrote me, despite my offer and recruiting from Week 1 - a familiar refrain from the GD boards. Also, the quality of the walk-Ons, on average, seem to be a little better than the guys who accepted scholarships.

Scenario Two - I handle recruiting and don't take anyone - all walk-ons.

No Signees - #117 class in the country:

RB D Woodward Walk-On, NR: 1457, 1.0/3.0
FB R Dillard Walk-On, NR: 1554, 1.0/2.5
FB T Walker Walk-On, NR: 2620, 1.0/1.0
WR E Edgerton Walk-On, NR: 1469, 1.0/2.0
WR A Powell Walk-On, NR: 874, 1.0/3.0
OT B Martin Walk-On, NR: 2048, 1.0/2.5
OG G Lloyd Walk-On, NR: 1039, 1.0/3.0
C I Flores Walk-On, NR: 2608, 1.0/2.0
DE B McIntosh Walk-On, NR: 1355, 1.0/2.5
DT J Slaughter Walk-On, NR: 2194, 1.0/1.5
CB T Brown Walk-On, NR: 1265, 1.5/2.5 (same guy!)
SS B Watts Walk-On, NR: 1014, 1.0/3.0
P D Flint Walk-On, NR: 999, 1.5/3.5

5 3-star, 6 2-star, 2 1-star

2 fewer players, considerably less talent, but a few nice players. Also, the player distribution is eerily similar to my recruited list. Exactly the same except for the 2 OLBs.

Scenario Three - I'll let the CPU handle recruiting.

10 Signees - #91 class in the country

SS Jeff Lathon 3-stars, NR: 410, 1.5/4.0
OG G Paluck 3-stars, NR: 788, 1.5/2.5
WR T Hawkins 3-stars, NR: 659, 1.0/2.5
WR R McDonald 3-stars, NR: 565, 2.0/3.0
WR Bo Current 3-stars, NR: 791, 1.5/2.5 (same guy)
WR John Sapp 3-stars, NR: 665, 1.5/2.5
WR Nnamdi Mixon 3-stars, NR: 855, 1.5/2.5 (same guy)
CB D Wright 3-stars, NR: 1029, 1.0/3.0
WR Randy Quinn 3-stars, NR: 1034, 1.0/2.5
DE Bill Layne 2-stars, NR: 996, 1.0/2.0

RB B Clemens, Walk-On, NR: 1407, 1.5/2.5
FB F Ring, Walk-On, NR: 1957, 1.0/1.5
OT Dave Kelly, Walk-On, NR: 2291, 1.0/2.5
C Ivan Flores, Walk-On, NR: 2608, 1.0/2.0
DT Jimmy Ladd, Walk-On, NR: 2118, 1.0/2.0

9 3-star, 5 2-star, 1 1-star

5 Receivers? The quality of recruiting seems to have been much better, but the walk-ons dragged the class down a bit.

Also, the dick who wrote me the letter signed elsewhere. Bug?

Conclusions?

It looks like making a recruiting effort makes a difference mainly in the quality of walk-ons you get, hopefully these are guys that you show interest in and don't get offered scholarships. I didn't watch that closeley to see who the computer offered or didn't.

[Arles]

I think one problem is the initial talent for the mid to lower prestige teams. A team like Kent State probably won't even play a top 50 team the entire season (until a bowl game - if they make it). So, if Kent got a nice comparative roster (in reference to their conference foes), there's no reason they shouldn't go 7-4 or 8-3 when their toughest game is probably Bowling Green.

So, I think the initial roster quality/variance is at the heart of all this - especially when you look at the level of competition. I doubt Quiksand's roster above would even be competitive in a major conference, but they could be a cut above the other 25 and 30-prestige teams in their conference.

[Arles]

I'm trying to figure out what the problem is here. It seems that people are saying it's bad that the incoming freshman they recruit (ranked #1850) ends up being about the same as an unsigned recruit (say #2000) that may end up walking on because he doesn't get an offer. The reality is that there isn't going to be a great deal of difference between the two guys. Both are well off the low end of the pool.

Now, Ben raised a good point in that the scout error may be too high for recruits (can be up to 13% for incoming freshmen with the worst scouting assistants). But, if you start as a 20-30 rated school, the guys you go after are not going to end up being a great deal better than guys that end up walking on because they have no scholarship offers (on average). Many will be better, but some of the walkons may end up outplaying the scholarship kids as you are on the lower end of the talent pool in either case.

Now, I can reduce the scouting error on recruits to remove certain situations where a better incoming freshman looks the same or worse than a walkon (and plan on doing so). But the only other way to adjust this is really cut down the total number of recruits - thereby reducing the number that don't get scholarship offers and adding in really awful walkons for those cases. And, given the response I've received, that would not be something many gamers would prefer.

It seems to me that if you are going to recruit for one of the worst 10-20 programs in the nation, you will need to realize that there won't be a significant difference between guys you recruit and those the end up going without a scholarship offer. So, the goal is to find guys that better fit your system and understand their talent isn't going to be outstanding. To that end, another good move may be for me to have lower-quality recruits commit even earlier to increase the chances you can get the guy you are after.

[Ben E Lou]

I'm trying to figure out what the problem is here. It seems that people are saying it's bad that the incoming freshman they recruit (ranked #1850) ends up being about the same as an unsigned recruit (say #2000) that may end up walking on because he doesn't get an offer. The reality is that there isn't going to be a great deal of difference between the two guys. Both are well off the low end of the pool. Fair enough there. I just had an epiphany on this matter, though. I've mentioned it privately to Arlie, but I think realism takes a hit here due to not having I-AA ball in the BBCF universe. In real life, if, say, 2000 recruits sign D1A schollies, player #2001 isn't going to walk-on at Akron, like he might in BBCF or TCY. No, player #2001 is going to be take a scholly offer at, say, Georgia Southern, and become a D1-AA stud. I've suggested to Arlie that the top X number of un-scholly-offered guys should disappear, gone to D1-AA forever. Heck, an argument could be made that very few of the next 1000 or so recruits should go to D1 schools. I've known dozens of kids who didn't get D1 offers, but got lower-tier offers, and every one of them took the lower-tier offer except for one: a kid from a wealthy family who had a high GPA. He paid to go to Clemson and walked on.

Now, Ben raised a good point in that the scout error may be too high for recruits (can be up to 13% for incoming freshmen with the worst scouting assistants).Yeah, and as I also just mentioned to you, scout error is a little TOO much, at least for the worst guys

[14:56] Ben Lewis: think about it
[14:57] Ben Lewis: i'm a schmuck who watches high school football...
[14:57] Ben Lewis: a LOT, granted, and i've seen a lot of prospects
[14:57] Ben Lewis: but i'm no NCAA D-1 talent scout
[14:57] Ben Lewis: but i'll guarantee you this: i can tell the difference between a 35 player and a 61 player
[14:57] Ben Lewis: with a +/- 13, that's the possible difference
[14:58] Ben Lewis: i can walk out there at the first copule of practgices of the year and tell you who the four or five D1 guys on the field are

It seems to me that if you are going to recruit for one of the worst 10-20 programs in the nation, you will need to realize that there won't be a significant difference between guys you recruit and those the end up going without a scholarship offer. So, the goal is to find guys that better fit your system and understand their talent isn't going to be outstanding. To that end, another good move may be for me to have lower-quality recruits commit even earlier to increase the chances you can get the guy you are after.This should be addressed with those guys disappearing to 1-AA.

[QuikSand]

Yes yes, Ben -- I agree. I think what you get from a walk-on player ought to basically just be a guy who draws breath and gets assigned a jersey, and that's it. The game ought to generate a few such guys just to ensure that you can field a legal team, but you shouldn't have any sense at all that you're going to get any on-field value form them.

[Arles]

Very good point by Ben. I am going to try a combination of lower-tier players committing earlier to scholarship offers, less variable starting rosters (by prestige) and removal of non-offered players from the pool at the end of the recruiting season. And, instead, replace those open slots with walkons.

[MizzouRah]

Very good point by Ben. I am going to try a combination of lower-tier players committing earlier to scholarship offers, less variable starting rosters (by prestige) and removal of non-offered players from the pool at the end of the recruiting season. And, instead, replace those open slots with walkons.
Oohhh.. I have 4 games left until my first recruiting season starts. :)

[HoosFan]

I think you need to be careful of the the quality of lower tiered players committing early. While the USCs, OUs and MIAs of the world mainly recruit the top talent, they often will get 3-star players to commit to them when they lose out on 5-star guy. If the guy doesn't have playing time as a priority, he would probably be more likely to sign with MIA later in the recruiting process than just commit to Central Florida early because they received a scholarship. I think you walk a fine line when addressing this adjustment and if you cross it you could wind up with powerhouse schools having 4 & 5 star guys mixed with 1 & 2-star players... That could lead to teams constantly having large blocks of freshman starting because the role players are never able to develop into anything playable in the better conferences.

[DaddyTorgo]

I think you need to be careful of the the quality of lower tiered players committing early. While the USCs, OUs and MIAs of the world mainly recruit the top talent, they often will get 3-star players to commit to them when they lose out on 5-star guy. If the guy doesn't have playing time as a priority, he would probably be more likely to sign with MIA later in the recruiting process than just commit to Central Florida early because they received a scholarship. I think you walk a fine line when addressing this adjustment and if you cross it you could wind up with powerhouse schools having 4 & 5 star guys mixed with 1 & 2-star players... That could lead to teams constantly having large blocks of freshman starting because the role players are never able to develop into anything playable in the better conferences.
tru

[Ben E Lou]

I think the key is that they commit earlier, not early. The guys that I'm talking about are more two-star guys anyway. Right now, many of them aren't committing until the final week, or even after the last week.

[Huckleberry]

Excellent point on guys taking 1-AA or D-II offers, Ben. Kind of input that can help a new game get better fast. Kudos to Arlie for recognizing that immediately and committing to integrate the idea into the game if possible.

However, realism should allow for some decent walkons at the better schools, as the Clemson example shows. A small number of players will walk on at a high prestige school in spite of lower level offers. The issue, I think, is that very very few will walk on to a low prestige school instead of taking a lower level scholarship offer. I think that's what's being implied here but I wanted to come out and state it.

[larrymcg421]

Another issue with walk-ons. I'd like the ability to have a walk-on created for certain positions so I can redshirt an incoming Freshman. In TCY, if I only had three TE's, but my #3 TE was a freshman stud with alot of potential, I could redshirt him and a walk-on would automatically be created to fill his spot. In BBCF, I have to waste a year of eligbility on a guy that's not going to play very much.

[DaddyTorgo]

Another issue with walk-ons. I'd like the ability to have a walk-on created for certain positions so I can redshirt an incoming Freshman. In TCY, if I only had three TE's, but my #3 TE was a freshman stud with alot of potential, I could redshirt him and a walk-on would automatically be created to fill his spot. In BBCF, I have to waste a year of eligbility on a guy that's not going to play very much.
this would be great. even if the guy was just a 1/1 scrub. a warm body.

[MizzouRah]

Excellent point on guys taking 1-AA or D-II offers, Ben. Kind of input that can help a new game get better fast. Kudos to Arlie for recognizing that immediately and committing to integrate the idea into the game if possible.

However, realism should allow for some decent walkons at the better schools, as the Clemson example shows. A small number of players will walk on at a high prestige school in spite of lower level offers. The issue, I think, is that very very few will walk on to a low prestige school instead of taking a lower level scholarship offer. I think that's what's being implied here but I wanted to come out and state it.
Nicely said and agreed.

[Toddzilla]

Yes yes, Ben -- I agree. I think what you get from a walk-on player ought to basically just be a guy who draws breath and gets assigned a jersey, and that's it.

I absolutely and completely disagree with this statement. Virginia Tech is a prime example that has turned out very good quality college football players that were walk-ons. DE John Engleberger - 2nd round NFL pick by the 49ers, LB Ben Taylor - Drafted by the Cleveland Browns, Will Montgomery, Jarret Ferguson, John Candelas, Scott King, Browning Wynn, Steve DeMasi, Brandon Pace, etc.

I'm not taking about warm bodies, in many cases these were multiple year starters, all-conference selections, and pro draft picks.

And I'm sure VPI isn't the only college in the country who can develop walk-on talent, so there are countelss other examples out there.

[Ben E Lou]

And I'm sure VPI isn't the only college in the country who can develop walk-on talent, so there are countelss other examples out there.That's the key there. Developing them. VERY rarely does a guy who is of solid quality going to be a walk-on. What is more likely is that he's a "breakout" player: he looks like a 20/40 overall to virtually every scout in the country, but he's really a 30/60 or so. Plus, as I mentioned above, there are the rare cases of kids whose families can afford to send them to college who happen to be pretty good football players. Still, those should be pretty darned rare. The majority of walk-ons in D1 never get on the field or travel with the team.

[QuikSand]

Still, those should be pretty darned rare.

In the interests of playability, I absolutely agree. I've got no quarrel with a system that lets a few contributors, and maybe an occasional star, come via the walk-on process. But by and large, they can't be of a level just slightly below the guys who get recruited and get scholarships -- otherwise, there's no real downside to completely failing in the recruiting process.