I think it's time to open this up to the public. Here's my philosophy on the matter: Recruiting should mirror the real game numbers fairly closely, but with some added advantage for the CPU, because they don't strategize as well as we do. For example, I'll take my best recruit at the position I need the most, but the CPU doesn't assess needs the same, so he'll still have gaps in his lineup even when he gets a top ten class. So, my class should be a little more restricted, but not in a huge way. This is the idea that spawned the cap and bonus system that was recently in place, the one that was changed, further restricted, and then simply thrown away. Now, the objections to this system came in two forms - one I disagree with, but understand, and another that I simply can't get with. The first said that the current system disables the CPU in future years by letting some schools take too many top recruits. I can see this to an extent, but we only had two top ten classes last year, and one of them was a five star school who just had enough scholarships to get the numbers. I finished well out of the top ten after signing an average class of 15. I think that's about right, but the complaints have said otherwise, and they are worth listening to, even though I disagree. The other complaints seemed to simply ask for heavy heavy restrictions, but only on the top schools. I don't agree with this one at all, and I kind of see it as a way to try to undo the team choices we made, or at least undo the difficulties associated with those choices. Lower tier schools are already recruiting way above their prestige level, and propping them up any more is a mistake. When those schools win titles on those subsidies, no one will see it as much of an accomplishment. So now I leave it to you guys. I'm doing the straight 1-7-70 thing until you guys step up and create a system you can live with. The last only only had years worth of testing backing it up. I'm sure we can find something better in a couple of days.