I can say with about 99% confidence that that's not remotely jsajsa's concern. It's not one coach hoarding all the good players, it's one conference hoarding all the top players. When you have more open scholarships, a distance advantage, fewer battles, and still can't win because of the ridiculous amounts of bonus cash, it's pretty frustrating. This seems like it would be exacerbated under this proposal. I get that being in a superconference is cool and all, but people who aren't in that conference should have a fighting chance. 

I didn't bring this up because it's practical for me - I rarely have more than 4 open scholarships open at once. I personally am just not in favor of anything that increases the gap between superconferences and "regular" players, and money is already so tight at lower levels that this is an issue.

I was actually debating whether to go superclass- and I don't really see the problem. Maybe that is just me, but if you feel like your best chance at winning is to build a superclass-based team, I don't know why you shouldn't. I am all for having the 6 schollie limit, but any further stifles a certain creativity and uniqueness I enjoy. 

There are many ways to build a team, and you shouldn't be stifled by others who dislike your strategy.

I don't mind the "superclass" teams at all.  If you screw the pooch and get knocked out early then you're hosed for the next 2-3 seasons.  It's a risky gamble and I think you should be allowed to take it. 

I don't really see the problem with the 6 and 6. If you want to suck for 2 seasons to be good for 2 I don't really see the problem with that.

6 is not that many people to have to limit it. There is a trade off to this in that your team is probably going to be bad for 2 years in exchange for 2 good years. There is no promise you will win a NT or even go further than a normal good team in that year either.

It's a risk and strategy that some teams try and win with and more teams try and don't win it all with.  Limiting to 4 is too little, sometimes you wind up with more than 4 open scholarships and your goal isn't to build a super class. What if I took 2 walk ons because I had some rough battles last season? Now I have to be punished again by having less scholarship money?

Believe it or not, I am not a fan of superclasses either but I feel it is the best chance to win the NT against superconference teams. Probably both need to be stifled a little with revised recruiting money and RPI rating format somehow.  I've got some ideas but I am sure everyone else does as well. 

I am not in favor on further limits in the number of scholarships per class.   One of the things that I think WIS generally got right in their approach to HD is that, as in real life, there are many ways to build a winning team.  In some other sims, all the best teams follow a cookie cutter approach and that makes it less fun.   The 12 man superclasses were ridiculous as no team can do that in real life.  However, if you take a look at real life rosters, many teams have five or more scholarship players in a single class.  I looked at a handful of rosters right now - Stanford has 6 in a class and Arkansas has 7.  I think WIS' 6 scholly limit is fine.  

There is still somewhat of a "cookie cutter" approach to HD, rak - recruit for ATH and DEF for everyone and fill in needs with everything else based upon position and your personal preference for attributes.

Posted by bistiza on 2/18/2013 11:51:00 AM (view original):
There is still somewhat of a "cookie cutter" approach to HD, rak - recruit for ATH and DEF for everyone and fill in needs with everything else based upon position and your personal preference for attributes.

while i agree that the ath/def paradigm went too far in making ath/def more important, there is still a significant amount of variation in how teams can be successful. back in the press days, it was speedy guards, 3 point shooting, that was basically every great team in a nut shell. today you can have fta driven teams or 3pta driven teams, or anything in between, and still be successful. so thats something. lot of variation in the priority placed on rebounding, bh/pass in guards, per scoring, big man scoring, etc... 

I'm going to take a different stance here, just because I'm in a rebuilding process with two previous SIM teams.

Make better junior college players - either by quantity or quality. If these players become more prevalent I believe there will be less of a desire to go super class. This is very similar to DII and DIII in real life as well. Seldom do you see DI junior college players, especially in your power conferences.

Posted by paynebrow on 2/18/2013 12:26:00 PM (view original):
I'm going to take a different stance here, just because I'm in a rebuilding process with two previous SIM teams.

Make better junior college players - either by quantity or quality. If these players become more prevalent I believe there will be less of a desire to go super class. This is very similar to DII and DIII in real life as well. Seldom do you see DI junior college players, especially in your power conferences.

I like this idea.  I don't play D1, so I can't speak to that, but my D2 and D3 teams often find themselves needing that non-freshman recruit with lower potential but slightly higher attribs to fill gaps in the roster.

The closest I've come to a superclass was my recent Iba D3 team with 5 seniors.  What I thought was going to be a landmark postseason bombed in the 2nd round (thanks to alblack! ) and after a couple of mediocre recruiting efforts I'm looking at a nearly-complete rebuild project.  Not whining, as this is part of the game and actualy makes it more interesting to me.  I plan to whittle that 5-player class down to 4 soon.

In comparison, my D2 team has classes between 2 and 4 players and I've had very consistent success the last few seasons, including an NC, an E8 and a couple of sweet 16s.  Best of all, I don't have to rebuild every few cycles.  I just have to remember my funds are limited and avoid too many battles.

It's not for me, but if others do it, it's not a big problem - I guess it's more of a challenge for  me to be a better coach and take out the superclasses. 

Count me as a vote for better JUCO players at the D-1 level.

You'd have to totally redo the JUCO generation logic for that.  Right now JUCO's are just guys who either A) didn't get signed or B) went JUCO after signing as an ineligible.  Then they have growth based on the sim practice plan and a season of (I believe) not playing, although it could be equivalent to playing a few minutes, they do seem to grow a healthy amount.  Then they show back up.  Obviously sometimes they stay out for 2 years, but that's not terribly important here.  The point is that the only way to make them substantially better is to generate new recruits as JUCO players, which I don't really like.  Certainly good D1 JUCO players are going to be rare (at least high D1) because the appeal of JUCO guys is typically that they'll talk to lower-level schools after they come back into the recruiting pool.  3+ star recruits will have been recruited their first time anyway, so the only guys useful to Big 6 conferences are the INEL guys.  I don't think there's any way to fix that without, as I said, totally changing the way JUCOs are generated.