Posted by wvufan76 on 4/24/2015 7:42:00 AM (view original):
Posted by colonels19 on 4/24/2015 4:53:00 AM (view original):
2 shittier junior guards were retained on the d3 team so cutting the human recruited senior doesn't make sense when 2 sim ai guards were kept
I could not have said it better!
Not saying it's not fishy, but this doesn't mean anything. When someone is trying to balance classes, seniors to juniors is not an apples to apples comparison. Doesnt matter what the talent level is if the coach wants to open a spot in the senior class. That said, if he kept a shittier senior - at any position - the class balance logic would be tossed and would add weight to the fishy allegations.
4/24/2015 8:15 AM
Had 4 open ships...that made 5
4/24/2015 8:23 AM
I can see cutting a senior:

1) If I intended to change my offense/defense, I'd rather keep a junior and cut the senior. The senior's  not going to learn the new set quickly enough to be of value. 

2) Whenever I take over a new team that has no hope of making the NT, I don't start the seniors anyway. I'd rather give the minutes to "next year's" lineup
4/24/2015 8:34 AM (edited)
Does this look like collusion to you?
Votes: 63
(Last vote received: 5/18/2015 9:29 PM)
4/24/2015 9:33 AM
Should colonels19 try this?
Votes: 56
(Last vote received: 5/18/2015 9:29 PM)
4/24/2015 9:33 AM
i mean, i'm not saying it's not. BUT if it is, it's stupid, 'cause you'd be effectively cheating to do something that's extremely insignificant in terms of impact. plus there was no guarantee that it would even work due to the popularity of those 1 year transfer players. the main reason i'm inclined to say it's not collusion is because...like...what would really be the point of cutting your D3 player for a chance your D1 team could pick the guy up? how is that really going to help you? it just seems too pointless to me
4/24/2015 9:41 AM
Yeah, since I'm one of the coaches in question I can say I only have this user name.  Sorry to disappoint Colonels.  
4/24/2015 9:50 AM
I highly encourage colonels to load his D1 team with D2 and D3 castoffs. That indeed does sound like the perfect way to win in D1...
4/24/2015 10:59 AM
Once I get to d1 in tark I'm on it
4/24/2015 11:27 AM
a false accusation of collusion from colonels? what a shock....
4/24/2015 2:17 PM
Posted by dacj501 on 4/24/2015 10:59:00 AM (view original):
I highly encourage colonels to load his D1 team with D2 and D3 castoffs. That indeed does sound like the perfect way to win in D1...
While I realize this was a sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek response, I see low level D1 coaches do it all the time.  That is, battle D2 teams for the same players.
4/24/2015 4:11 PM
Of course you guys would deny this stuff, bbecause I never took it to WIS so it's your word against mine and neither of u would admit to doing something wrong
4/24/2015 4:13 PM
Do we know for sure that he "cut" him? I am not in the world to see for myself.   If he cut another player, then it is possible that the good player decided to take his talents elsewhere.  It has happened to me before, in year 1 of a D3 job.  Lost the best player on my team by cutting his buddy, even though neither were "my" recruits.
4/24/2015 5:42 PM
That player was first team all conference his Jr. year...if you're a newb then how in the hell would it seem like a good idea and/or advantageous to do something like that. This absolutely looks fishy.
4/24/2015 5:59 PM
Posted by piman314 on 4/24/2015 9:50:00 AM (view original):
Yeah, since I'm one of the coaches in question I can say I only have this user name.  Sorry to disappoint Colonels.  
Did you have to battle anybody for that player?
4/24/2015 6:24 PM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4...7 Next ▸

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 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.