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

[VonRye]

I've been over-recruiting the last 4-5 seasons because of the stupid programming that fills all 25 scholarships regardless of your needs. I'm to the point now where I'm having to cut 80 OVR recruits or redshirt freshmen when I reach the roster cuts stage. I've decided it's quite counterproductive to keep doing this. I'm cutting good players that the computer teams could dearly use to remain competitive. As a result, I'm adding only the number of seniors that are graduating. I've only had 1-2 underclassmen leave for the draft after trying to sway them to stay anyway, so at least that's not a epidemic. I'm going to go find the lowest rated players to fill the remaining spots so the CPU doesn't fill them in with good players, and then cut them later. It'll be easier to spot them on the roster too.

[biggiejerseys]

I have atendency to over recruit like crazy and always end up having to cut between 4-10 players.

Sent from my crappy BlackBerry 9670 using Tapatalk

[cmilner2]

I usually look at how many seniors I have graduating and try to recruit the same number of guys. Then I look at Juniors or red shirt sophomores that could go pro early and add that same number. Generally I end up having 25 guys that I'm recruiting but I never offer them until I scout them enough to see which guys I want.

After all is said and done I usually end up with 15 or so signees. At worst I have to cut one guy per year which isn't that bad.

[Shibito]

I had all the players committed that I needed for a season by week 9, so I just started selecting random recruits still in their top 10, and I stumbled on a OG who rated out to an 83 overall. I couldn't pass on him with no one else recruiting him. He'll likely be a starter as a Freshman.

If you happen to stumble on someone special after you've signed everyone you need, I see no reason to not go after him, a real coach would.

[biggiejerseys]

Why would a player from Bama & Texas transfer to North Texas? Lolol

Sent from my crappy BlackBerry 9670 using Tapatalk

[montesixpac]

We have been talking about capping the # of recruits to about 3 over the # of seniors that will be leaving.

My new thought is that instead of capping the # of recruits that you can pick up, how about limiting the players that you can pick up.

Basically what I am talking about is that you can recruit any number of players that are interested in your program in the preseason. Then you may sign about 3-5 players that are within your pipeline but did not start out as players interested in your program. Finally, you may sign 1-3 players that are outside of your pipeline and not initially interested in your school.

I threw out a range because this is just an idea that I got this morning and haven't put a whole lot of thought into it yet.

For our dynasty this should work great because we are just starting our third season with low tier teams that do not have much interest from 4* and higher recruits until we start recruiting them. It seems also that the more we build the program, the more you will get just a steady increase in recruiting as each year there will be more higher ranked recruits interested in our schools at preseason (but likely not a spike).

I was also thinking about lifting the restrictions of recruiting during postseason for filling holes only, but I think it would be better to force the players to fill their holes within the restrictions that we set.

I don't have this figured out 100%, but I think I will put a little more thought into it and make it work. I also have thought about creating some type of penalty for anyone who signs too many out of pipeline players or whatever it may be.

[Pielet]

Quote: Originally Posted by Warren Piecee

Athletes need to take responsibility for their own education and not rely on coaches to do so for them.

We are talking about teenagers right?

[Pielet]

Quote: Originally Posted by Warren Piecee

I have a question for you, my friend. If we accept you argument that a college is a business than should not students who play sports that impact a college's bottom line and cost the school money be forced to pay all costs to the college that is incurred by the sport? This includes all sports other than football and football at most colleges. The American Red Cross and the American Cancer Society do not earn money because they are not businesses. They raise funds just like other non-profits, including colleges. The Title IX law means that it would be illegal to pay football players and not pay all other college athletes at the same rate. In a capitalist economy the "invisible hand" of the free market determines what we are all paid. Coaches are paid what they get because it is worth it to the colleges to pay them that much and because so few people can do the job well.

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".