recruiting poll included

Discussion in 'Thread Archive' started by bcduggan, Apr 21, 2010.

?

Should the recruiting violation still be in effect?

  1. yes

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. no

    1 vote(s)
    100.0%
  1. bcduggan

    bcduggan Walk On

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    2,771
    recruiting poll included

    Last season we had an issue with recruiting. The violating teams are listed below. However, we have since lost 3 of the coaches from the list below. My question is because 3 coaches left should we still enforce the penalty for the other 3 coaches? The teams in bold are the coaches affected. Please vote and offer your comments and opinions. Thanks


    The following teams had recruiting violations last season. Each team went over by at least one player. Each of the six teams listed face a loss of one scholarship this season.

    army
    houston
    north texas
    stanford
    toledo
    wku
     
  2. BG

    BG On The Rize!

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,501
    Of course I voted "no" because their were circumstances behind why I went over, but I understand that their are rules in place for a reason, so if it comes down to it; I'm cool with whatever is decided. Just ready to crank it up again!!!
     
  3. NDCOLTS1979

    NDCOLTS1979 I love you red solo cup

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2009
    Messages:
    6,081
    i voted no just for u forever lol nah i figure i dont think it will happen again
     
  4. BigSmooth33

    BigSmooth33 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
    Messages:
    7,045
    My vote was no, but I am a bit airheaded this morning so lets hope its voting for the right situation...

    My vote is for the new guys to be let off, and old coaches penalized.
     
  5. BG

    BG On The Rize!

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,501
    I knew I could count on you ND, LOL!
     
  6. Big-Bear-W

    Big-Bear-W Walk On

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2010
    Messages:
    941
    I agree - new guys get a pass.
     
  7. BG

    BG On The Rize!

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,501
    What do you'll mean, New guys get a pass? This hasn't happened before to any of us, so technically its new to everyone. So in my opinion, if it counts for one, it should count for all!!!
     
  8. bcduggan

    bcduggan Walk On

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    2,771
    To clarify there were no new guys involved:

    3 of the 6 guys with violations are not in x3b anymore.

    The 3 guys still here are forever, drunken, and bcduggan

    Forever had extenuating circumstances, bcduggan had a player the cpu redshirted that should not have been and it put him a player over. Drunken missed most of offseason recruiting.

    I am not excusing my actions last season, I said I was imposing a penalty on myself when I first saw I had an issue.

    Last season was the first season we had recruiting issues. I don't expect them again because I believe we fixed the ambiguity that was there last season. I asked for a league vote because 3 coaches that had violations left this season.
     
  9. JerzeyReign

    JerzeyReign #BeatOhio

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    10,893
    I think they should still be in effect just for the fact everyone should of read the recruiting rules and watched their limits. Plus forever is at Ohio State now he shouldn't have any problems on the talent side anyway
     
  10. BG

    BG On The Rize!

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,501
    Its all good over here. I'll take my punishment and run!!!
     
  11. Big-Bear-W

    Big-Bear-W Walk On

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2010
    Messages:
    941
    Jerzey - I think the point is that for 3 of the teams mentioned, the previous owners are the ones who committed the violation. i.e. you would be docked a scholy if the guy who was previously running Temple before he left, and you took over, committed the violation.

    Should you be punished for his transgression? Arguably yes, because your team benefited from the violation, but I think that is harsh. Particularly when the owners might be moving schools.

    Did I get that right? or am I missing something?
     
  12. bcduggan

    bcduggan Walk On

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    2,771
    Jerzey is right in that the 3 remaining coaches should take the consequences.

    Of the 3 coaches left the coach affected most is me. I am at WKU at least one more season. Forever is now at Ohio State, if he has a problem recruiting there then something is majorly wrong. Drunken is eligible to switch teams, so he shouldn't have a problem with recruiting anyway.

    When I knew I was stuck with being over I posted that I was going to cut the redshirt player in question, and recruit to 69 this season. I am standing behind that no matter what the vote ended up. I was looking for opinions because this happened before some of you joined the dynasty.
     
  13. Big-Bear-W

    Big-Bear-W Walk On

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2010
    Messages:
    941
    I misunderstood. I agree with Jerzey
     
  14. BG

    BG On The Rize!

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,501
    So I suggest that we just take the "BC" approach and recruit to only 69 players (the teams in question) this year. That would solve the problem for everyone, Right?
     

Share This Page