All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > coach_billyg - A Manefesto on 1st Class Usership
4/24/2013 8:20 PM
Posted by Trentonjoe on 4/24/2013 8:04:00 PM (view original):
Bjb's suggestion a few pages back is a good one.
the one about only scouting guys from one state, and only signing guys you scouted? i totally agree with that idea, but its hard to enforce, it seems. not coincidentally, going back since FSS has existed, ive self-enforced that rule between my d1 teams. i NEVER scouted the same state with both d1 schools. at UK and a&m, id have to decide who could scout the border states between them, when i had big classes and/or bad local recruits with both (it was mostly arkansas in the middle, if i remember correctly). it does hurt if you recruit far and wide, which i would definitely do more with UK now, but didnt back then. i would only sign scouted players (except internationals), no exceptions, to GUARANTEE i couldnt be helping myself with FSS data. it just gave me peace of mind, i was more competitive back then, even though i was less engaged, and i simply could not tolerate a title on my resume, that was in any way, to any extent, tarnished, in my mind.

i just keep going back to, this is a for fun game and nothing more, and cannot see how this issue trumps that should-be massive overriding theme. plus, as a strategy lover, i just dont believe the hyper competitive strategy loving coaches who are generally the most successful coaches, are out there cheating, either. i cant relate to that. i can, however, see some idiot who sucks at the game cheating. but im much, much less concerned about that. 
4/24/2013 8:43 PM
Posted by gillispie on 4/24/2013 8:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Trentonjoe on 4/24/2013 8:04:00 PM (view original):
Bjb's suggestion a few pages back is a good one.
the one about only scouting guys from one state, and only signing guys you scouted? i totally agree with that idea, but its hard to enforce, it seems. not coincidentally, going back since FSS has existed, ive self-enforced that rule between my d1 teams. i NEVER scouted the same state with both d1 schools. at UK and a&m, id have to decide who could scout the border states between them, when i had big classes and/or bad local recruits with both (it was mostly arkansas in the middle, if i remember correctly). it does hurt if you recruit far and wide, which i would definitely do more with UK now, but didnt back then. i would only sign scouted players (except internationals), no exceptions, to GUARANTEE i couldnt be helping myself with FSS data. it just gave me peace of mind, i was more competitive back then, even though i was less engaged, and i simply could not tolerate a title on my resume, that was in any way, to any extent, tarnished, in my mind.

i just keep going back to, this is a for fun game and nothing more, and cannot see how this issue trumps that should-be massive overriding theme. plus, as a strategy lover, i just dont believe the hyper competitive strategy loving coaches who are generally the most successful coaches, are out there cheating, either. i cant relate to that. i can, however, see some idiot who sucks at the game cheating. but im much, much less concerned about that. 
It is not about cheating billyg ... at least not for me.

If you would not be comfortable with 2 different coaches on 2 different teams sharing the information that you have available when you have 2 teams in the same world, then we shouldn't allow it.

If I had Texas A&M and you had Kentucky and if someone considered it collusion if I told you (and you, in turn told me) these things about our teams.

1. Exactly how much money I have to recruit with.
2. Exactly who I was going to recruit.
3. Exactly which states i was going to scout with FSS.
4. Exactly how much money I was spending on each recruit.
5. I told you all the potentials in all the states I scouted, and you told me the potentials for all the states you scouted.

If we can not do that with 2 teams and have it be legal, then one person should not have 2 teams in the same world ... because it is exactly the same thing.

Now, just because you at Kentucky told me at Texas A&M these things, it does not mean that I would use that information ... or that you would use the information I told you. We are only sharing the info.

If it "IS OK" for the Texas A&M and Kentucky coaches to share that information every time they recruit, then it is ok for one coach to have 2 teams.

I say it is NOT OK. Where is my logic flawed?
4/24/2013 8:56 PM
Posted by gillispie on 4/24/2013 8:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Trentonjoe on 4/24/2013 8:04:00 PM (view original):
Bjb's suggestion a few pages back is a good one.
the one about only scouting guys from one state, and only signing guys you scouted? i totally agree with that idea, but its hard to enforce, it seems. not coincidentally, going back since FSS has existed, ive self-enforced that rule between my d1 teams. i NEVER scouted the same state with both d1 schools. at UK and a&m, id have to decide who could scout the border states between them, when i had big classes and/or bad local recruits with both (it was mostly arkansas in the middle, if i remember correctly). it does hurt if you recruit far and wide, which i would definitely do more with UK now, but didnt back then. i would only sign scouted players (except internationals), no exceptions, to GUARANTEE i couldnt be helping myself with FSS data. it just gave me peace of mind, i was more competitive back then, even though i was less engaged, and i simply could not tolerate a title on my resume, that was in any way, to any extent, tarnished, in my mind.

i just keep going back to, this is a for fun game and nothing more, and cannot see how this issue trumps that should-be massive overriding theme. plus, as a strategy lover, i just dont believe the hyper competitive strategy loving coaches who are generally the most successful coaches, are out there cheating, either. i cant relate to that. i can, however, see some idiot who sucks at the game cheating. but im much, much less concerned about that. 
?
he one about only scouting guys from one state, and only signing guys you scouted? i totally agree with that idea, but its hard to enforce, it seems. 

Yeah, I think it would need to be written into the "code".   I am not a programmer but whenever I ask someone at work to do something like that they always tell me "it's hard" and will "take to much time".
 
4/24/2013 9:09 PM
TJ - problem is with knowing who has multiple accounts, if you knew you had to enforce account A and B, with a program, that wouldnt be a big deal.
4/24/2013 9:10 PM
Posted by hughesjr on 4/24/2013 8:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gillispie on 4/24/2013 8:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Trentonjoe on 4/24/2013 8:04:00 PM (view original):
Bjb's suggestion a few pages back is a good one.
the one about only scouting guys from one state, and only signing guys you scouted? i totally agree with that idea, but its hard to enforce, it seems. not coincidentally, going back since FSS has existed, ive self-enforced that rule between my d1 teams. i NEVER scouted the same state with both d1 schools. at UK and a&m, id have to decide who could scout the border states between them, when i had big classes and/or bad local recruits with both (it was mostly arkansas in the middle, if i remember correctly). it does hurt if you recruit far and wide, which i would definitely do more with UK now, but didnt back then. i would only sign scouted players (except internationals), no exceptions, to GUARANTEE i couldnt be helping myself with FSS data. it just gave me peace of mind, i was more competitive back then, even though i was less engaged, and i simply could not tolerate a title on my resume, that was in any way, to any extent, tarnished, in my mind.

i just keep going back to, this is a for fun game and nothing more, and cannot see how this issue trumps that should-be massive overriding theme. plus, as a strategy lover, i just dont believe the hyper competitive strategy loving coaches who are generally the most successful coaches, are out there cheating, either. i cant relate to that. i can, however, see some idiot who sucks at the game cheating. but im much, much less concerned about that. 
It is not about cheating billyg ... at least not for me.

If you would not be comfortable with 2 different coaches on 2 different teams sharing the information that you have available when you have 2 teams in the same world, then we shouldn't allow it.

If I had Texas A&M and you had Kentucky and if someone considered it collusion if I told you (and you, in turn told me) these things about our teams.

1. Exactly how much money I have to recruit with.
2. Exactly who I was going to recruit.
3. Exactly which states i was going to scout with FSS.
4. Exactly how much money I was spending on each recruit.
5. I told you all the potentials in all the states I scouted, and you told me the potentials for all the states you scouted.

If we can not do that with 2 teams and have it be legal, then one person should not have 2 teams in the same world ... because it is exactly the same thing.

Now, just because you at Kentucky told me at Texas A&M these things, it does not mean that I would use that information ... or that you would use the information I told you. We are only sharing the info.

If it "IS OK" for the Texas A&M and Kentucky coaches to share that information every time they recruit, then it is ok for one coach to have 2 teams.

I say it is NOT OK. Where is my logic flawed?
+1   This is a good point of view

What if they just made each schools' FSS map public?  You can still pay for it, so that strategic aspect isn't gone, but I can go see the states Kentucky has scouted... even if they publicized it after the recruiting period was over (to keep some secrecy/strategy involved), it's just an idea.  That way I could quickly go to someone with two teams in one world, see that Team A scouted Florida, Team B didn't, but Team B signed a couple high potential guys from Florida... be pretty damning evidence.

I'm sure some people wouldn't want their FSS information publicized for strategy reasons, though... not sure how strongly people feel about that.  But this would eliminate a lot of the problems while still keeping FSS costing money to utilize (since some don't want it to be free).
4/24/2013 9:18 PM
If it were to shut people up about all this multi team/account BS then yeah id be fine. 

Im sure people would get butt hurt about other things when they didnt go their way.

But there are ways around this. Also it would probably cause problems. If I do it, I know other people do. After I get my target guys "solid" I usually scout random states to find guys who are not protected by who they are pursued by. So I end up socuting my genreal Area and throw in Wymoing, Oregon, Ohio and people would be like the hell is he scouting those random states and not staying in SE. He is cheating he obviously has another team in those areas blah blah.

Im just so tired of this **** already. People just play the game, and beat the cheaters, beat the guys playing fair. Have some damn fun. And dont pay attention to anything but whats pertinent to your team. 
4/24/2013 9:50 PM (edited)
Posted by hughesjr on 4/24/2013 8:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gillispie on 4/24/2013 8:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Trentonjoe on 4/24/2013 8:04:00 PM (view original):
Bjb's suggestion a few pages back is a good one.
the one about only scouting guys from one state, and only signing guys you scouted? i totally agree with that idea, but its hard to enforce, it seems. not coincidentally, going back since FSS has existed, ive self-enforced that rule between my d1 teams. i NEVER scouted the same state with both d1 schools. at UK and a&m, id have to decide who could scout the border states between them, when i had big classes and/or bad local recruits with both (it was mostly arkansas in the middle, if i remember correctly). it does hurt if you recruit far and wide, which i would definitely do more with UK now, but didnt back then. i would only sign scouted players (except internationals), no exceptions, to GUARANTEE i couldnt be helping myself with FSS data. it just gave me peace of mind, i was more competitive back then, even though i was less engaged, and i simply could not tolerate a title on my resume, that was in any way, to any extent, tarnished, in my mind.

i just keep going back to, this is a for fun game and nothing more, and cannot see how this issue trumps that should-be massive overriding theme. plus, as a strategy lover, i just dont believe the hyper competitive strategy loving coaches who are generally the most successful coaches, are out there cheating, either. i cant relate to that. i can, however, see some idiot who sucks at the game cheating. but im much, much less concerned about that. 
It is not about cheating billyg ... at least not for me.

If you would not be comfortable with 2 different coaches on 2 different teams sharing the information that you have available when you have 2 teams in the same world, then we shouldn't allow it.

If I had Texas A&M and you had Kentucky and if someone considered it collusion if I told you (and you, in turn told me) these things about our teams.

1. Exactly how much money I have to recruit with.
2. Exactly who I was going to recruit.
3. Exactly which states i was going to scout with FSS.
4. Exactly how much money I was spending on each recruit.
5. I told you all the potentials in all the states I scouted, and you told me the potentials for all the states you scouted.

If we can not do that with 2 teams and have it be legal, then one person should not have 2 teams in the same world ... because it is exactly the same thing.

Now, just because you at Kentucky told me at Texas A&M these things, it does not mean that I would use that information ... or that you would use the information I told you. We are only sharing the info.

If it "IS OK" for the Texas A&M and Kentucky coaches to share that information every time they recruit, then it is ok for one coach to have 2 teams.

I say it is NOT OK. Where is my logic flawed?
i think this is a valid point of view - although, using the potential to benefit another team is clearly defined as cheating, and i go out of my way to make sure i dont do it, so i would take 5 off the list, and use 1-4. that view has been stated before and its perfectly valid. thats why i say i can totally see the argument for not wanting teams competing for overlapping ranges of recruits (approximated by same division, but honestly d2 and low d1 is just about as bad), to be close to each other. as Rails and others have said - you clearly wont battle yourself - so that right there is an undisputed unintentional advantage.

so, i agree there are some very small unintentional advantages as a result of it. but i do feel they are very small. especially from the 600-800 or so mile distance between UK and a&m - at both schools, i coached without coaching the other, for a long time, and never came close to battling the other school. to me, that 720 magic distance is the point where the unintentional advantage is so small, its clearly negligible, but thats just my opinion. even though you can go for recruits at distance, no way would i be battling an a+ prestige school at distance for a recruit near him :) so i think 720 is the clear line where its negligible.

but whether its 720, more than 720, or even decently less (but not super super close), theres a lot of merit to the argument, this is a for-fun game and when there is a really small unintentional advantage gained, that makes it way more fun for a coach, its worth it. this game is for fun and it shouldnt really significantly detract from other coach's experience, it seems to me, while possibly making a massive difference in enjoyment for the coach getting the very small advantage. there are small disadvantages, too - like, i wouldnt recruit from the same state with both teams - and twice, i wanted to battle the same guy with each team, just based on what was the best move - but couldnt do it (morally, not sure how the hell seble suggests that might be ok - even if its totally legit that it was the best decision, that CLEARLY is going to make the other coach uncomfortable, and this game is supposed to be for fun - ruining another coaches fun is not cool).

anyway, i respect that view, just feel enjoyment is more important. however, i could totally get behind a rule that said, no teams on the same level, within X miles. you can define same level however makes people comfortable - maybe any 2 schools in the same division automatically count as the same level, but also, a d2 school and any d1 non-BCS school could be considered the same level. 

what i have a problem with though, is when the argument shifts from preventing UNINTENTIONAL advantages to preventing INTENTIONAL advantages. when a coach tries to cheat with multiple teams, you cant stop them, and its not even like you can stop more than 10% of them, at least, without an unreasonable amount of effort. so to say coaches with transparent IDs, when one is a bcs school (a+ prestige no less) and one is a d2 school, shouldnt play to prevent intentional advantages, to me, is just crazy. i havent seen a good argument for unintentional advantages between having an A+ d1 school and an A+ d2 school, even if they are in the same city. i'd love to hear one, though!! any ideas?
4/24/2013 11:23 PM
Posted by ryrun on 4/24/2013 9:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by hughesjr on 4/24/2013 8:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gillispie on 4/24/2013 8:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Trentonjoe on 4/24/2013 8:04:00 PM (view original):
Bjb's suggestion a few pages back is a good one.
the one about only scouting guys from one state, and only signing guys you scouted? i totally agree with that idea, but its hard to enforce, it seems. not coincidentally, going back since FSS has existed, ive self-enforced that rule between my d1 teams. i NEVER scouted the same state with both d1 schools. at UK and a&m, id have to decide who could scout the border states between them, when i had big classes and/or bad local recruits with both (it was mostly arkansas in the middle, if i remember correctly). it does hurt if you recruit far and wide, which i would definitely do more with UK now, but didnt back then. i would only sign scouted players (except internationals), no exceptions, to GUARANTEE i couldnt be helping myself with FSS data. it just gave me peace of mind, i was more competitive back then, even though i was less engaged, and i simply could not tolerate a title on my resume, that was in any way, to any extent, tarnished, in my mind.

i just keep going back to, this is a for fun game and nothing more, and cannot see how this issue trumps that should-be massive overriding theme. plus, as a strategy lover, i just dont believe the hyper competitive strategy loving coaches who are generally the most successful coaches, are out there cheating, either. i cant relate to that. i can, however, see some idiot who sucks at the game cheating. but im much, much less concerned about that. 
It is not about cheating billyg ... at least not for me.

If you would not be comfortable with 2 different coaches on 2 different teams sharing the information that you have available when you have 2 teams in the same world, then we shouldn't allow it.

If I had Texas A&M and you had Kentucky and if someone considered it collusion if I told you (and you, in turn told me) these things about our teams.

1. Exactly how much money I have to recruit with.
2. Exactly who I was going to recruit.
3. Exactly which states i was going to scout with FSS.
4. Exactly how much money I was spending on each recruit.
5. I told you all the potentials in all the states I scouted, and you told me the potentials for all the states you scouted.

If we can not do that with 2 teams and have it be legal, then one person should not have 2 teams in the same world ... because it is exactly the same thing.

Now, just because you at Kentucky told me at Texas A&M these things, it does not mean that I would use that information ... or that you would use the information I told you. We are only sharing the info.

If it "IS OK" for the Texas A&M and Kentucky coaches to share that information every time they recruit, then it is ok for one coach to have 2 teams.

I say it is NOT OK. Where is my logic flawed?
+1   This is a good point of view

What if they just made each schools' FSS map public?  You can still pay for it, so that strategic aspect isn't gone, but I can go see the states Kentucky has scouted... even if they publicized it after the recruiting period was over (to keep some secrecy/strategy involved), it's just an idea.  That way I could quickly go to someone with two teams in one world, see that Team A scouted Florida, Team B didn't, but Team B signed a couple high potential guys from Florida... be pretty damning evidence.

I'm sure some people wouldn't want their FSS information publicized for strategy reasons, though... not sure how strongly people feel about that.  But this would eliminate a lot of the problems while still keeping FSS costing money to utilize (since some don't want it to be free).
The problem with that idea may be that ocassionally I've had to sign guys "blind" when I was running out of money and couldn't scout the state, having to go off of just their starting ratings and "hoping" they had good potentials.  In that case, it might look funny signing that guy without scouting the state and now all of a sudden all of those babies on the two ID witch hunt are looking for that "second" school involved.

4/24/2013 11:26 PM
Posted by stinenavy on 4/20/2013 12:33:00 AM (view original):
Since you won't take the initiative I'll submit a ticket on your behalf.

I believe the fair play guidelines is clear on this issue.
Weakest move ever.
4/25/2013 1:24 AM
Posted by angmar on 4/24/2013 2:52:00 PM (view original):
So now that more than a handful of pretty damn experienced coaches have called TBird out on his "scouting distant states" comment, I wonder if he'll have the guts to come back and admit that he was wrong?  Badly wrong.  I'm sure he won't though.
I was wrong. Wrong to think that most multiple team players were above board. I lost a lot of respect for "respected" coaches during this thread. Some of these guys' championships should have an asterik by them or at least be called reggie bush champions. How much does a sv from ny to alaska cost? Oh, whoops do some of you believe the stuff u write? I bet 401k's are good for the country as well? And the one giy with his I don't even know how to cheat-- any psychologists out there want to analyze that post. Many of the guys we are talking about don't even pay to play so using credits on a ghost team makes sense. I am going to see if seble is willing to start a "only one team in a world champios list so we can separate the champions from the cheaters
4/25/2013 1:40 AM
Posted by tbird9423 on 4/25/2013 1:24:00 AM (view original):
Posted by angmar on 4/24/2013 2:52:00 PM (view original):
So now that more than a handful of pretty damn experienced coaches have called TBird out on his "scouting distant states" comment, I wonder if he'll have the guts to come back and admit that he was wrong?  Badly wrong.  I'm sure he won't though.
I was wrong. Wrong to think that most multiple team players were above board. I lost a lot of respect for "respected" coaches during this thread. Some of these guys' championships should have an asterik by them or at least be called reggie bush champions. How much does a sv from ny to alaska cost? Oh, whoops do some of you believe the stuff u write? I bet 401k's are good for the country as well? And the one giy with his I don't even know how to cheat-- any psychologists out there want to analyze that post. Many of the guys we are talking about don't even pay to play so using credits on a ghost team makes sense. I am going to see if seble is willing to start a "only one team in a world champios list so we can separate the champions from the cheaters
a couple things:

1) very, very few coaches play for free. over the past few years, i haven't, although i went through a couple years where i was barely playing my teams at all. i think i even had to pay on coach_billyg in the last six months, although when i won all my titles, 25% reward points were in effect, so i wasnt even getting 1 season for each. with full reward points, its a lot more viable, but really, almost everyone pays to play. even though with primary and secondary teams who break even or better, often have other teams losing money. when you switch schools, rebuild, etc, that is going to drag you down substantially, too.

2) i think you need to be more open minded about the possibilities of scouting in division 2, you seem way off in what you perceive as possible and reasonable. how much does a sv from ny to ak cost? dont even have to look, 700 bucks :) the thing is, at 370 miles, its already like 550 bucks. so to go from 370 miles to the max distance, its roughly the same cost, for SVs. HVs and CVs are dramatically more expensive at really long distance, but even an international 8000 miles away is only 700 bucks a SV. 

one of the great things about FSS and evals for high/high potential, is there really is a major strategic tradeoff. you can use money for battles for the players who you like the best, or you can use money to scout far and wide, and then use a lot of evals to identify those who have the right high/high potentials. or you can do something in between. signing a player who is uncontested is not very expensive, even at distance, and you can always do a $110 special or two if you run out of money. the reality is, in d2, there are often a few players, at a glance, who are just insane - but very few make it through the cracks, past d1 schools, often big 6 schools (if you are competitive enough of a d2 school, my #1 prospect at SIUE last season was considering a d1 sim, and eventually, multiple big 6 schools got into a fight (small fight i think) for him. 

after those top couple players, which is often 0, theres pretty many guys available. not necessarily locally, there is SO MUCH variation in recruit generation with potential, and there is SO MUCH luck in local competition, based on how many and how competitive the human coaches are near you. its really one of the worst things about recruiting in the post-potential world, IMO. anyway, in that next group of guys, if you scout say 10 states, there might be 12 prospects for your PF openings, and based on the high/highs or low/highs in the cores, any one of them might be the best, or one of the worst couple. so its totally legit to say, i dont want to battle, there is probably a suitable alternative - and anyway, none of them are even worth battling for, unless you know they got some key high/highs. its perfectly reasonable, on a 3 man class with a 20K budget, to spend 10K, or even 15K, on FSS and evals. some very successful coaches go higher. i am very much in the camp that using evals extensively in d2 is critical to your success. some people are in high population, low competition areas, in which case, the scout local and battle system works pretty damn well. but in lower pop or more competitive areas, scouting a lot of recruits, and using a lot of evals, is EXTREMELY successful.

anyway, its just something to think about, i think there is a major strategy element you are missing there. 
4/25/2013 1:43 AM
Posted by tbird9423 on 4/25/2013 1:24:00 AM (view original):
Posted by angmar on 4/24/2013 2:52:00 PM (view original):
So now that more than a handful of pretty damn experienced coaches have called TBird out on his "scouting distant states" comment, I wonder if he'll have the guts to come back and admit that he was wrong?  Badly wrong.  I'm sure he won't though.
I was wrong. Wrong to think that most multiple team players were above board. I lost a lot of respect for "respected" coaches during this thread. Some of these guys' championships should have an asterik by them or at least be called reggie bush champions. How much does a sv from ny to alaska cost? Oh, whoops do some of you believe the stuff u write? I bet 401k's are good for the country as well? And the one giy with his I don't even know how to cheat-- any psychologists out there want to analyze that post. Many of the guys we are talking about don't even pay to play so using credits on a ghost team makes sense. I am going to see if seble is willing to start a "only one team in a world champios list so we can separate the champions from the cheaters
Denial is not a river in Egypt.  Keep on living in your little fantasy world, I'm sure you feel all fuzzy and cuddly there.

And why, may I ask, do you insist on always trying to push your politics in all of your posts?  If it's not 401K's in this one, it's baby boomers in another, or Gen X, or how it was better back in the good old days when people cared about more than just themselves, blah, blah, blah.

All those top notch, experienced coaches telling you that they recruit cross country and long distance and all you can think is that someone must be cheating.  Sad, really.
4/25/2013 1:45 AM
Posted by coach_billyg on 4/25/2013 1:40:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tbird9423 on 4/25/2013 1:24:00 AM (view original):
Posted by angmar on 4/24/2013 2:52:00 PM (view original):
So now that more than a handful of pretty damn experienced coaches have called TBird out on his "scouting distant states" comment, I wonder if he'll have the guts to come back and admit that he was wrong?  Badly wrong.  I'm sure he won't though.
I was wrong. Wrong to think that most multiple team players were above board. I lost a lot of respect for "respected" coaches during this thread. Some of these guys' championships should have an asterik by them or at least be called reggie bush champions. How much does a sv from ny to alaska cost? Oh, whoops do some of you believe the stuff u write? I bet 401k's are good for the country as well? And the one giy with his I don't even know how to cheat-- any psychologists out there want to analyze that post. Many of the guys we are talking about don't even pay to play so using credits on a ghost team makes sense. I am going to see if seble is willing to start a "only one team in a world champios list so we can separate the champions from the cheaters
a couple things:

1) very, very few coaches play for free. over the past few years, i haven't, although i went through a couple years where i was barely playing my teams at all. i think i even had to pay on coach_billyg in the last six months, although when i won all my titles, 25% reward points were in effect, so i wasnt even getting 1 season for each. with full reward points, its a lot more viable, but really, almost everyone pays to play. even though with primary and secondary teams who break even or better, often have other teams losing money. when you switch schools, rebuild, etc, that is going to drag you down substantially, too.

2) i think you need to be more open minded about the possibilities of scouting in division 2, you seem way off in what you perceive as possible and reasonable. how much does a sv from ny to ak cost? dont even have to look, 700 bucks :) the thing is, at 370 miles, its already like 550 bucks. so to go from 370 miles to the max distance, its roughly the same cost, for SVs. HVs and CVs are dramatically more expensive at really long distance, but even an international 8000 miles away is only 700 bucks a SV. 

one of the great things about FSS and evals for high/high potential, is there really is a major strategic tradeoff. you can use money for battles for the players who you like the best, or you can use money to scout far and wide, and then use a lot of evals to identify those who have the right high/high potentials. or you can do something in between. signing a player who is uncontested is not very expensive, even at distance, and you can always do a $110 special or two if you run out of money. the reality is, in d2, there are often a few players, at a glance, who are just insane - but very few make it through the cracks, past d1 schools, often big 6 schools (if you are competitive enough of a d2 school, my #1 prospect at SIUE last season was considering a d1 sim, and eventually, multiple big 6 schools got into a fight (small fight i think) for him. 

after those top couple players, which is often 0, theres pretty many guys available. not necessarily locally, there is SO MUCH variation in recruit generation with potential, and there is SO MUCH luck in local competition, based on how many and how competitive the human coaches are near you. its really one of the worst things about recruiting in the post-potential world, IMO. anyway, in that next group of guys, if you scout say 10 states, there might be 12 prospects for your PF openings, and based on the high/highs or low/highs in the cores, any one of them might be the best, or one of the worst couple. so its totally legit to say, i dont want to battle, there is probably a suitable alternative - and anyway, none of them are even worth battling for, unless you know they got some key high/highs. its perfectly reasonable, on a 3 man class with a 20K budget, to spend 10K, or even 15K, on FSS and evals. some very successful coaches go higher. i am very much in the camp that using evals extensively in d2 is critical to your success. some people are in high population, low competition areas, in which case, the scout local and battle system works pretty damn well. but in lower pop or more competitive areas, scouting a lot of recruits, and using a lot of evals, is EXTREMELY successful.

anyway, its just something to think about, i think there is a major strategy element you are missing there. 
Don't waste your time with the guy CBG, it's like trying to explain something to a rock (although the rock might be a bit more receptive).  Just because he's not skilled enough as a recruiter, or doesn't have the intelligence to realize that it's pretty damn easy to recruit cross country, he automatically thinks it's underhanded.  You shouldn't waste another second trying to explain something to someone who just will never get it.
4/25/2013 4:08 AM
Posted by colonels19 on 4/23/2013 2:51:00 PM (view original):
The guys ******** about this don't understand just how insignificant their argument is.

Whether you have 2 schools 10 miles apart or 5000 miles apart, you can still use FSS to "cheat" at the same cost, so that makes the 1000 mile rule a bit arbitrary and pointless to me.  Gillispie has never pulled a stunt like what happened to dshook30 where a guy colluded with himself (lol, just always sounds funny when you say it) to poach guys from a team with each of his 2 teams...so again, I don't see how what he's doing is hurting anybody...you can argue that it's against the rules, but the rule is dumb...there used to be segregation in the south...you don't see COLORED bathrooms anymore, do you?  It was a dumb rule that was eventually changed...certainly it's on another level when compared to HD, but it makes my point.

Perhaps the wrong-est thing about this is that the cross-bearers of/for this argument seem only to want to get billyg to surrender a team and aren't looking for a "solution" going forward...that's what makes this a witch hunt.  Not a big deal, folks...it really has nothing to do with you...run along...

boy it chaps my *** when I agree with trevor, even though I am in favor of the rules being applied equally to all coaches. I'm also strongly in favor of changing the rule to something more palatable, and I could even justify some kind of grandfathering clause as long as it was explicitly written and published and allowed some kind of oversight and full disclosure.
4/25/2013 10:02 AM
Posted by dacj501 on 4/25/2013 4:08:00 AM (view original):
Posted by colonels19 on 4/23/2013 2:51:00 PM (view original):
The guys ******** about this don't understand just how insignificant their argument is.

Whether you have 2 schools 10 miles apart or 5000 miles apart, you can still use FSS to "cheat" at the same cost, so that makes the 1000 mile rule a bit arbitrary and pointless to me.  Gillispie has never pulled a stunt like what happened to dshook30 where a guy colluded with himself (lol, just always sounds funny when you say it) to poach guys from a team with each of his 2 teams...so again, I don't see how what he's doing is hurting anybody...you can argue that it's against the rules, but the rule is dumb...there used to be segregation in the south...you don't see COLORED bathrooms anymore, do you?  It was a dumb rule that was eventually changed...certainly it's on another level when compared to HD, but it makes my point.

Perhaps the wrong-est thing about this is that the cross-bearers of/for this argument seem only to want to get billyg to surrender a team and aren't looking for a "solution" going forward...that's what makes this a witch hunt.  Not a big deal, folks...it really has nothing to do with you...run along...

boy it chaps my *** when I agree with trevor, even though I am in favor of the rules being applied equally to all coaches. I'm also strongly in favor of changing the rule to something more palatable, and I could even justify some kind of grandfathering clause as long as it was explicitly written and published and allowed some kind of oversight and full disclosure.
I'm also for the grandfathering.  I'd be pretty ticked if I had multiple teams in a world, well before FSS, and had to drop one of them because people use it for cheating.  Just make them let WIS know of all of their accounts and I don't see a problem with letting them keep the teams they've spent so long building up.
of 17
All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > coach_billyg - A Manefesto on 1st Class Usership

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.