Discussion in 'After Midnight' started by Wyrmreaver, Sep 8, 2013.
personally, the only rules i think we need are
A.) no cutting existing players. Unless they are a walk on they are promised 4 years. ( you can cut RS juniors)
B.) If you cut a player someone else offered a scholarship too, they get to pick a recruit to cut from your team. IE your best recruit
That involves someone tracking said player...you volunteering?
I don't care either way, as long as us users are on a level playing field. I voted for the +3
i'll go with the rulebook
If I could like that more I would bringbackjimmy
Well done sir!!!
i think since it clearly states in the rule book sanctions should be enforced. i will gladly put together a committee of me, myself, and I for the sake of AM and punish the offenders in a timely and fair manner..
I am willing to track every player that another team takes from me
Looks close, a +1 or +2 limit seems like a fair compromise.
For those that want to be able to sign over 70, do you also want to be able to cut existing players to get to 70 in the offseason? Or would you be proposing cutting incoming recruits?
I'm open to either option, maybe an OVR limit, like you can't cut anyone with an OVR over 80... So if you are stuck with a 74 OVR JR you can cut him, but the 81 OVR career backup senior you have to keep
I just want to know what we are going with since I'm guessing we will be allowing over 70 after this is done.
In guessing that if people are signing 73 most seasons they will have 1 cut or less due to JRs leaving early and young guys transferring...
The purpose of having the cushion is so that we can deal with possible transfers/players leaving and the auction that is the offseason. If cuts need to be made, it should only be incoming recruits. For this reason, I am voting for only 70 with no cushion.
Cuts have always been incoming freshman and should continue to be. On occasion we've allowed some walk ons to be cut.
Hey - that's a rule! We don't like rules anymore!
Vote damn it!
There - I voted what all the guys who picked option 3 really want but were too afraid to actually admit.
But honestly, I think this whole discussion is lame. We all have really good teams but apparently some still want more advantages recruiting than we will already have by season 3. Whatever, I'll roll with what the group decides but I don't gotta like it or support it.
You voted for Ross Perot
And for what it's worth, in our last file I had 5 underclass men transfer from USC after season 1 and I didn't have guys lined up to cover the losses. This may be a shock but my team played just fine the next season.....because I was using USC and had built in talent depth. So yeah, I find that argument for why guys need to recruit over 70 to be a load of horseshit.
I'm pretty sure everyone knows how I feel on this topic.
I would say with the vote even as we know what dru wants even if if WGW wants +3 the Favor to change the rule is denied. anvil down. now recchem2000 give me the power and i will concur with myself and I to bring down Hell..err i mean a fair penalty on the offending parties.
You should have voted as such, in that way the 70 +3 could not have won.
Except maybe at this point I don't care which way we go. Half the league wants to do it, I just need to be told what's allowed and ill adjust accordingly.
Separate names with a comma.