Thoughts on Over Signing, Cutting Players and Recruiting in Dynasty Mode

[JoedicyMichael]

I def agree cutting down the 70 sucks, especially when you build up a major program and start recruiting major prospects. The only thing I do is look at the talent on th depth chart. If a Younger player is progessing more than a SO, then i guess its time for the SO to go lol.

I also move seniors around a lil bit. If a SR in the same position can start elsewhere or alteast be a better back-up to another position, then Ill move him for the Freshman. Other than that, it is hard to get down to 70.

[biggiejerseys]

Quote: Originally Posted by JoedicyMichael

I def agree cutting down the 70 sucks, especially when you build up a major program and start recruiting major prospects. The only thing I do is look at the talent on th depth chart. If a Younger player is progessing more than a SO, then i guess its time for the SO to go lol. I also move seniors around a lil bit. If a SR in the same position can start elsewhere or alteast be a better back-up to another position, then Ill move him for the Freshman. Other than that, it is hard to get down to 70.

Especially when you are taking over a terrible program to rebuild.


Sent from my crappy BlackBerry 9670 using Tapatalk

[bknutz]

Trying something new on recruiting. I just recently picked the game back up after months off. And I'm starting with a 1 star program and seeing how long it takes me to build into a powerhouse. Using custom sliders that will become more difficult as I go along in accomplishments. These are some of the recruiting restrictions that I am looking to apply.

1) no oversigning (including star rescrictions), no cutting players unless the cpu signs them or they are walkons. Now, if you offer a schollie to a player and then pull it later and they still sign with you for whatever reason, I'm counting that as an offered schollie and subject to the penalty, so I have to keep track of every scholarship I offer and consider using it less frequently as a points gathering ploy. 2 schollie penalty (following year) for over-recruiting and having to cut a schollie-offered player to get to 70.
2) Transfer/Draft players go. No convincing them to stay.
3) As a team gains in prestige, I have a guide on recruiting restrictions, which vary according to your team prestige.
a) 1star, 2star teams
i) max recruit: 3star (okay to go after a pink diamond, but counts as ii)
ii) allowed 1 signee @ 4/5star IF from home state of program
b) 3star team (ok to go after pink diamond, but counts as a i or ii)
i) allowed 1 signee @ 4/5star IF from home state of program
ii) allowed 1 signee @ 4star from pipeline state
c) 4star team (no pink diamond)
i) allowed 1 signee @ 4/5star IF from home state of program
ii) allowed 1 signee @ 4star from a pipeline state
iii) allowed 1 signee @ 4star (anywhere), you must be in his top 10
d) 5star team (no pink diamond)
i) must sign 1 player @ 2star
ii) max 1 @ 5star. you must be in his top ten.
iii) max 40% signees @ 4star. all must have you in top 10.
e) 6star team (no pink diamond)
i) must sign 1 player @ 2star
ii) max 1 @ 5star. must be from home/pipeline state & you're in his top 10
iii) max 20% recruits @ 4star & you are in their top 10
iv) max 20% recruits @ 4star from pipeline/home and you're in top 5.

none of this has been put in practice, except year 1 @ 1star. They only thing it kept me out of going after was a pink diamond as I chose to go after a 4 star homestater, but couldn't land him. Using hindsight, I would have gone after the pink diamond as well just in case I couldn't land the in-state kid. In theory, you could put multiple 5star players on your board and see which one you can get to sign in as long as they meet the pre-established criteria (homestate/pipeline, in top 10, etc) .

Any comments or suggestions are welcome. I'm hoping some of these restrictions make it difficult to just keep replacing players without some kind of drop off.

[Warren Piecee]

Quote: Originally Posted by Pielet

We are talking about teenagers right?

I would say 18-22 year olds. I took personal responsibility for my education at that age. I am sure you did as well. Should we believe we are so much better them?

Young men 18-22 can vote and fight in wars. It was not that long ago that they could drink legally. I think they can and should take responsibility for their own education.

[Warren Piecee]

Quote: Originally Posted by Pielet

Most sports programs are already like what you describe, especially at lower colleges and high schools these days. My nephew is paying for all his equipment, specialty training, etc. Title IX mentions nothing about the receipt of payments for athletics. It's all about equal access and non discriminatory offerings on the basis of participation not compensation. There is no invisible hand in the collegiate "free market". It's all government subsidized which destroys the free market. College costs going up are directly related to these subsidies. What is the primary responsibility of a collegiate football coach? Putting the impetus on students signs all fine and dandy, but then you also limit their ability to earn a living as well (ie they can't have a job). How is that fair? Any answer to the above question other than dealing with academics makes a joke of the NCAAs term "student athlete".

The Title IX law is "federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in education." If you pay football players and do not pay women athletes it will be ruled discriminatory. The fact that the law does not mention compensation for players does not matter. It does not have to for it to apply to compensation.

[Warren Piecee]

Quote: Originally Posted by Pielet

Most sports programs are already like what you describe, especially at lower colleges and high schools these days. My nephew is paying for all his equipment, specialty training, etc. There is no invisible hand in the collegiate "free market". It's all government subsidized which destroys the free market. College costs going up are directly related to these subsidies. What is the primary responsibility of a collegiate football coach? Putting the impetus on students signs all fine and dandy, but then you also limit their ability to earn a living as well (ie they can't have a job). How is that fair? Any answer to the above question other than dealing with academics makes a joke of the NCAAs term "student athlete".

If you take away some of the money football raises more students will have to pay even higher fees to play sports to cover the losses to the budgets of athletic departments.

It is not in the best interest of a college to pay a coach a penny more than necessary. The faculty and staff at colleges fall into a different category because many are unionized and under a collective bar agreement. It is only the work of a very few that raise funds for the colleges as the work of a coach does at the top schools.

Players have meals, housing, tuition, books and educational fees paid for. Entertainment is free on campus. Why would you have to work? Why would you want to work? Would not you want to concentrate on keeping your grades up and giving you best effort on the field so that you can have your $50,000 a year scholarship renewed until graduation? Between school and football players do not have the time to work.

[Warren Piecee]

Has anyone read or heard anything regarding whether the recruiting issues we raised in this thread will be addressed in the next version of the game?

[Warren Piecee]

My latest hope for trying to have a realistic recruiting class has me limiting myself to only recruiting the same number of 4 and 5 star players as my team, Virginia Tech, landed last season. (It was their best recruiting class ever.) On an unrelated note, I once thought the CPU over signed but I no longer think this is true.