I don't believe Seble was ever a condescending azzhole.

agreed, although being absent for 5 years probably helped prevent that perception...

Posted by Benis on 11/11/2016 3:08:00 PM (view original):
Objective
1. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Spending 3 months calling D1 coaches whiners who are afraid of D3 coaches 'stealing their candy' = not objective

What I said was, "In the poll thread that appeared this morning I analyzed matters objectively from the point of view of the game overall." I notice you didn't disagree with that. Your snark is misplaced.

Spud trying put Sensing in his place is comical. He has forgotten more about this game than you actually know, Tater.

Posted by jpmills3 on 11/11/2016 7:28:00 PM (view original):
Spud trying put Sensing in his place is comical. He has forgotten more about this game than you actually know, Tater.

You can misread my post that way if you like, even try to start trouble if you like. All that happened was someone wrote a post and I responded to it directly on its merits. I'm sure he doesn't need you stepping in for him and can discuss the matter himself.

Your misguided perception that you are objective unfortunately epitomizes your entire forum presence.

Posted by CoachSpud on 11/11/2016 7:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jpmills3 on 11/11/2016 7:28:00 PM (view original):
Spud trying put Sensing in his place is comical. He has forgotten more about this game than you actually know, Tater.

You can misread my post that way if you like, even try to start trouble if you like. All that happened was someone wrote a post and I responded to it directly on its merits. I'm sure he doesn't need you stepping in for him and can discuss the matter himself.

Yes, he is a big boy and can handle himself, no doubt. I am just tired of seeing you troll these pages when you have very little to add to the conversation. I have seen some doozies on these threads over the years, but you are relentless. So at least you have that going for you, I guess? Because helpful knowledge about this game, you do not.

Posted by jpmills3 on 11/11/2016 7:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 11/11/2016 7:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jpmills3 on 11/11/2016 7:28:00 PM (view original):
Spud trying put Sensing in his place is comical. He has forgotten more about this game than you actually know, Tater.

You can misread my post that way if you like, even try to start trouble if you like. All that happened was someone wrote a post and I responded to it directly on its merits. I'm sure he doesn't need you stepping in for him and can discuss the matter himself.

Yes, he is a big boy and can handle himself, no doubt. I am just tired of seeing you troll these pages when you have very little to add to the conversation. I have seen some doozies on these threads over the years, but you are relentless. So at least you have that going for you, I guess? Because helpful knowledge about this game, you do not.

My ears are burning -- guess I'll weigh in. Leaving aside questions of objectivity (and in my experience, someone claiming "I'm objective" usually isn't), Spud, I think you're ignoring a larger issue, which I raised in that other thread, and you never responded to. Quoting that poll thread (in which, interestingly, the majority voting supports a "dead period" to start the 2nd session):

"I think the larger question is what WIS' overall game goal is? Is WIS trying to make the game similar to real-life, or not? Certainly, "realism" has been a guide to game changes in the past -- hence the introduction of EEs in the first place. In my opinion, if WIS is including the "realism" of EEs, WIS also ought to be including the "realism" that teams with EEs are able to replace them with good players. When Duke/UCLA/Kentucky have a kid jump early, even if unexpected, they aren't stuck taking a walk-on -- they go out and get another good player. Now, if "realism" isn't the goal, why do we have EEs at all? Remove 'em, and all sorts of problems are solved."

Spud, I am genuinely interested in your take on this, because it seems to me that if you agree the goal is realism (which I think most people playing this game are looking for), then you have to give those who have EEs (yes, even multiple EEs) a legitimate chance to replace all of them, because that's what happens in real life. If you don't care about realism, which is fine, would you then agree that EEs should be eliminated altogether? Seems like what we have now is the worst of both worlds. Coaches with EEs are -- in my view, unfairly -- disadvantaged, which is unrealistic, and that disadvantage is also ******* a bunch of players off, which is probably the last thing the game needs in its current fragile state.

One last thing -- and you can take it or leave it, I don't care -- the condescending tone of nearly all of your posts really isn't helping your cause, especially given your experience and success levels. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I assume you're posting on all these threads because you: (a) care about the game; (b) really like 3.0; and (c) are trying to convince other posters that your positions on various issues is correct. Taking it down a notch may help you win hearts and minds on the EE issue - especially since you apparently have never had one (at least under the spud ID -- if you have another ID with multiple EEs, mea culpa). Of course, if you're just trying to troll the vets and the anti-3.0 faction, then let me know so I can ignore you, like most everyone else.

Hoops Parity.

Posted by johnsensing on 11/11/2016 11:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jpmills3 on 11/11/2016 7:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 11/11/2016 7:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jpmills3 on 11/11/2016 7:28:00 PM (view original):
Spud trying put Sensing in his place is comical. He has forgotten more about this game than you actually know, Tater.

You can misread my post that way if you like, even try to start trouble if you like. All that happened was someone wrote a post and I responded to it directly on its merits. I'm sure he doesn't need you stepping in for him and can discuss the matter himself.

Yes, he is a big boy and can handle himself, no doubt. I am just tired of seeing you troll these pages when you have very little to add to the conversation. I have seen some doozies on these threads over the years, but you are relentless. So at least you have that going for you, I guess? Because helpful knowledge about this game, you do not.

My ears are burning -- guess I'll weigh in. Leaving aside questions of objectivity (and in my experience, someone claiming "I'm objective" usually isn't), Spud, I think you're ignoring a larger issue, which I raised in that other thread, and you never responded to. Quoting that poll thread (in which, interestingly, the majority voting supports a "dead period" to start the 2nd session):

"I think the larger question is what WIS' overall game goal is? Is WIS trying to make the game similar to real-life, or not? Certainly, "realism" has been a guide to game changes in the past -- hence the introduction of EEs in the first place. In my opinion, if WIS is including the "realism" of EEs, WIS also ought to be including the "realism" that teams with EEs are able to replace them with good players. When Duke/UCLA/Kentucky have a kid jump early, even if unexpected, they aren't stuck taking a walk-on -- they go out and get another good player. Now, if "realism" isn't the goal, why do we have EEs at all? Remove 'em, and all sorts of problems are solved."

Spud, I am genuinely interested in your take on this, because it seems to me that if you agree the goal is realism (which I think most people playing this game are looking for), then you have to give those who have EEs (yes, even multiple EEs) a legitimate chance to replace all of them, because that's what happens in real life. If you don't care about realism, which is fine, would you then agree that EEs should be eliminated altogether? Seems like what we have now is the worst of both worlds. Coaches with EEs are -- in my view, unfairly -- disadvantaged, which is unrealistic, and that disadvantage is also ******* a bunch of players off, which is probably the last thing the game needs in its current fragile state.

One last thing -- and you can take it or leave it, I don't care -- the condescending tone of nearly all of your posts really isn't helping your cause, especially given your experience and success levels. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I assume you're posting on all these threads because you: (a) care about the game; (b) really like 3.0; and (c) are trying to convince other posters that your positions on various issues is correct. Taking it down a notch may help you win hearts and minds on the EE issue - especially since you apparently have never had one (at least under the spud ID -- if you have another ID with multiple EEs, mea culpa). Of course, if you're just trying to troll the vets and the anti-3.0 faction, then let me know so I can ignore you, like most everyone else.

You set up a false dichotomy. The alternatives aren't make the game mirror real life or "don't care about realism." Tending toward realism is fine, but game playability trumps real life. For every coach who loses an EE to be able to easily replace him with a similar player, as Kentucky is supposedly able to do in real life, would defeat one of the purposes of the change to 3.0. No longer can the top few teams take any recruit they want at bargain basement prices. This is a vast improvement over 2.0.

To have enjoyed the performance of a player so good he declares early is the other side of the coin. When that advantage elapses you aren't being punished, you are merely returning to the level of all the other merely mortal coaches.

All of this has been rehashed a jillion times in half-a-jillion forum threads. WIS has their eye on EE's and will act if necessary. So far, it isn't necessary. And as long as some coaches come forward and reveal that they reloaded just fine, it won't be. And as the top teams level out a bit the days of 4 or 5 EE's per season will be behind us, and we'll have a better game top to bottom.

Game playability trumps real life according to whom? Judging by what metric?

You are the only one perpetuating a false dichotomy - it's either top teams take any recruit they want for nothing or it's every team is mortally coached. That's not real basketball, it wasn't HD 2.0, and it shouldn't be 3.0.

johnsensing just got spudded......You are arguing with a house plant John.
#NoSpudDecember maybe?

Just got back from a week in Virginia Beach...refreshed, revitalized and ready for...the same condescending, pithy and holier-than-thou comments coming from the same source. Once again, I beg of you, Spud- reign it in. If you're trying to troll every post, mission accomplished. If you're trying to help newbies get acquainted to 3.0 and help this game grow...you're failing.
I've had issues with you and was rewarded a Forums ban because of it, and I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but it's becoming increasingly difficult to do so. A little less bitterness on your side might lessen the personal attacks you encounter.

Posted by CoachSpud on 11/12/2016 12:56:00 PM (view original):
Geez, I address the game and y'all attack me like that? Go back to Virginia Beach.

For those who missed it, here is the false dichotomy I addressed: "if you agree the goal is realism (which I think most people playing this game are looking for), then you have to give those who have EEs (yes, even multiple EEs) a legitimate chance to replace all of them, because that's what happens in real life. If you don't care about realism, which is fine, would you then agree that EEs should be eliminated altogether?"

Now let's drop the personal attacks and talk about the game, okay?

There was no attack on my part, just another plea for you to stop being bitter and hateful. If you consider the "troll" comment an attack than you'd be wrong...you troll every thread. And ultimately ruin those threads as well.
Regardless...
I'm finished trying to make the Forums a better place. It's not worth it anymore to sit here and read your garbage spewing on here. I've done my time in this game and have nothing to prove, especially to someone who hasn't won a tourney game yet. Sure, you'll come back with some witty, yet pithy comment yet it will remain unanswered on my part. I'm done.