Someone clarify the recruiting for me...

Discussion in 'Thread Archive' started by carolinaeasy, Oct 8, 2010.

  1. carolinaeasy

    carolinaeasy Walk On

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,418
    Someone clarify the recruiting for me...

    I stayed up too late watching the end of the Braves game last night. I thought we were not allowed to sign over 71 players. Then I read the description and we can sign upto 75 and cut back down to 68 if we need to as long as we don't cut a 4* guy.

    What I don't get, and need some clarification on is can we cut a "former" 4* recruit? For instance, if I sign a 4* and he doesn't progress after a season, or two can I cut him then? Or am I still bound to the 4* rule?
     
  2. bdub

    bdub Walk On

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2010
    Messages:
    2,065
    Is there even a way to tell what * a rectruit was when he first came on the team?
     
  3. carolinaeasy

    carolinaeasy Walk On

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,418
    Not on the game, but we keep a pretty detailed recruiting thread here that shows all of you recruits. That is why I wonder.
     
  4. Goose

    Goose Walk On

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2010
    Messages:
    3,164
    I would think no cutting preseason freshman year.
     
  5. OsirisMonster

    OsirisMonster Walk On

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,031
    I think you can cut anyone after their freshman year but freshman you can only cut if under a 4*.
     
  6. carolinaeasy

    carolinaeasy Walk On

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,418
    That is what I thought. I wanted to see how everyone else interpreted this rule.
     
  7. Archie Griffin

    Archie Griffin Walk On

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,738
    The idea is to keep as many good players in the game as possible. I'd hate to see four star guys cut. It's not like anyone picks them up. They just disappear, and there's one less quality player in the class.

    I never really asked the question posed here, but I think this is the best interpretation of the rule as it is written.
     

Share This Page