3/15/2013 12:31 PM
Wait, someone's arguing the BCS schools in tark don't battle each other?
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
3/15/2013 1:53 PM
yes, we end up with 90% of players preferring harvard for its academics and weather..or the like
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
3/15/2013 4:27 PM
Posted by emy1013 on 3/14/2013 10:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tbird9423 on 3/14/2013 4:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by cburton23 on 3/14/2013 12:59:00 PM (view original):
I fought a battle just recently I knew I couldn't win.  There was nobody worth a damn, so I said, I'm getting this guy or nobody.  Turns out I got nobody, as I was fighting a much higher prestige school, but this school was looking at three 4 and 5 star dudes and had no competition, so I fought a loosing battle if for no other reason than to make sure this school would not carry over all of their money.

While this was a foolish move by, had one other school done it I could have won, or at the very least UCLA would have had a lot less money to go around.  If there were just a few more battles, I think it would encourage even more down the road.  There is just nothing in this game that drives me more crazy than guys who sign 5 stars for $2500.
This was my point exactly.  I don't think we need hardfast rules for lower prestige recruiting, just a gentleman's agreement not to fight battles we aren't sure to win.  If we are fighting battles with other lower prestige schools, we are going to lose in the long run and so avoiding battles between lower prestige schools whenever possible is in my team's (and every other lower prestige teams) best interest.  At the same time, if you're not fighting battles with other teams as much as we do now, we will also have more pebbles to collectively throw at the giants.  If I can be an A+ team and say I am not going to battle for a top recruit because I might lose and that might hurt my chances for next year, then I should also be able to use that same logic at a lower level and say I am not going to battle anyone B or lower because I might lose and that only hurts my chances for next year.  I guess I see those as pretty much the same thing and think it would be interesting to at least test that out in one world?
So you're advocating that lower prestige level teams not battle each other but are getting upset when higher prestige teams don't do it?  What kind of logic is that?  You seem to want the higher prestige teams to battle over each and every stud player, while your lower prestige teams collude (yes, collude) with each other NOT to battle, so that they'll have more funds to use to battle the higher prestige teams.  Sound about right?

Yes, you got it.  And that logic has been referred to as equivalence.  How about this idea to simplify the process-- a minimum amount to be paid on 5 stars, 4 stars, etc?  I think you either come down on one side or another - the game could be better or it doesn't need to be better.  If you don't think the system is broken, then say so and start your own thread about how perfect the game is and let all of us crazies discuss the issues as we see it. .    

3/15/2013 4:48 PM
That's the one useful thing you've said, tbird...minimums.  I am totally for this idea, and I think it would do wonders for the recruiting process...there absolutely ought to be a minimum you need to spend on a certain level of player for him to sign with you.
3/15/2013 4:57 PM
Any minimum needs to be expressed in effort and not in $$.  (Say some number of Home Visit equivalents)

I actually think that there are minimums already, but it may well be that top recruits should demand more before considering even A and A+ prestige schools.

I also think that some top recruits could be set to insist on promises of playing time or starts.

If top recruits had a range of high minimum effort levels and a range of higher demands for promises of time/starts, that could also open chances for midlevel programs to nab more elite players. 

Kansas cant afford to promise this kid a start and 20 minutes, but heck Creighton is happy to promise that....or whatever.....
3/15/2013 4:59 PM
"I think you either come down on one side or another - the game could be better or it doesn't need to be better.  If you don't think the system is broken, then say so and start your own thread about how perfect the game is and let all of us crazies discuss the issues as we see it. .   "

It is ever so slightly small minded to urge that those who do not agree with you should leave the discussion and start their own thread.  Just saying, if one is worried about small minded posts on the thread this could be seen as somewhat of that ilk.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
3/15/2013 6:17 PM
It's about effort not cash. Well it's about having cash. But by effort the value of a CV for instance. It all costs different amounts for everyone depending on location. But a CV is a CV it's the effort. 1 CV worth $800 is the same effort as one worth $1500. its the effort that matters. 
3/15/2013 6:19 PM
depending on prestige***
3/15/2013 6:38 PM
Posted by tbird9423 on 3/15/2013 5:43:00 PM (view original):

What I meant by small-minded was to be open to looking at an issue from multiple perspectives.  The comment you make, "Any minimum needs to be expressed in effort and not in $$," is exactly what I mean.  Why is it that you think that?  I can guess that you are assuming that 3 home visits to a Cali player from UCLA should mean more than 1 visit from Miami but maybe recruits care more about the money spent on them than the time spent with them?  I don't know but would be helpful if you offered some kind of reasoning.  Let's try to close the loop holes that allow some to game the system in a way I am sure was never intended.  How long would any college coach last if they offered 2-4x the number of open scholarships they have on day one of recruiting???   I guess I am completely at a loss for some people's failure to see the game as lopsided and that as the main reason for stagnation.  If you want WIS to work on the game, it has to make sense for them financially.  For that to happen, we need lots of new people willing to stick around beyond 1-2 seasons and that is going to take someone (WIS or US) finding out why that isn't happening now. 
    

where do you look at things from multiple perspectives? i dont understand how in virtually every post, you demand something from other posters that you dont do yourself. practice what you preach, man!

why are you sure getting a guy to consider you for a couple visits is the game working in a way it was never intended? what does guys offering 2-4x the scholarships have to do with anything that was discussed earlier? also, how does fixing high d1 recruit generation get new people to stick around beyond 1-2 seasons, when they are still in d3 or maybe 1st season d2? im not saying its a bad idea to fix high d1, its just a bit like saying man, its cold out, lets name our child bathilda!!

at this point you've basically told people they need brilliant, well thought out ideas, to view every issue from multiple angles (what the hell is wrong with posting one viewpoint anyway, like, i think minimums should be based on effort instead of money - which just so happens to be how EVERYTHING else in the game works, but i guess from the perspective of a starving african child, thats irrelevant), to refrain from personal attacks, to thoroughly support every idea, to avoid laughing at newbies (lol), and most importantly, to agree with you or else to go post in another thread. id like to see you evaluate some of your prior posts by those same standards, should make for an interesting read!
3/15/2013 8:18 PM
Fd makes a great point, I just signed a Top-5 overall player at UCLA, I didn't promise anything, and he'll be fine playing 3 minutes total all season. That is ridiculous; all players should have some expectation of PT, depending on the prestige of the school. By that I mean he might be happy with 10 minutes at an A+, but would want start and 25 at a B school.

I also think the value of promises should be increased, and the penalty for not meeting them increased significantly as well.
3/15/2013 11:05 PM (edited)
Posted by tbird9423 on 3/15/2013 5:43:00 PM (view original):

What I meant by small-minded was to be open to looking at an issue from multiple perspectives.  The comment you make, "Any minimum needs to be expressed in effort and not in $$," is exactly what I mean.  Why is it that you think that?  I can guess that you are assuming that 3 home visits to a Cali player from UCLA should mean more than 1 visit from Miami but maybe recruits care more about the money spent on them than the time spent with them?  I don't know but would be helpful if you offered some kind of reasoning.  Let's try to close the loop holes that allow some to game the system in a way I am sure was never intended.  How long would any college coach last if they offered 2-4x the number of open scholarships they have on day one of recruiting???   I guess I am completely at a loss for some people's failure to see the game as lopsided and that as the main reason for stagnation.  If you want WIS to work on the game, it has to make sense for them financially.  For that to happen, we need lots of new people willing to stick around beyond 1-2 seasons and that is going to take someone (WIS or US) finding out why that isn't happening now. 
    

the reasoning is that all of recruiting is based on effort not $$ - the effect on a recruit of a home visit is a home visit whether you do it from a distance that causes it to cost $300 or $800.  It would be contrary to the entire scheme of recruiting in this game to base any criterion on $$ spent rather than the effort that the recruit saw.  Frankly, this is so obvious as a core aspect of the game that I didnt think I needed to explain it.  Going back forever in dev chats and other discussions the developers have confirmed that it is effort not the cost of that effort that matters,

I thought everyone knew that.  I was wrong.  If I post again on your threads I will keep in mind that one must explain basic aspects of the game for you

edited later - to note just to be sure you understand - the effort then is adjusted by the prestige of the school - so effort of X by an A+ school will have more effect than effort of X by a B school (or you can think of this as less effort is required - which is mathematically equivalent - by equivalent, I mean an equal effect just expressed differently - by differently I mean that it would be the same except that it isnt - got it?

3/15/2013 10:22 PM
Posted by fd343ny on 3/15/2013 4:59:00 PM (view original):
"I think you either come down on one side or another - the game could be better or it doesn't need to be better.  If you don't think the system is broken, then say so and start your own thread about how perfect the game is and let all of us crazies discuss the issues as we see it. .   "

It is ever so slightly small minded to urge that those who do not agree with you should leave the discussion and start their own thread.  Just saying, if one is worried about small minded posts on the thread this could be seen as somewhat of that ilk.
This.  A thousand times this.  If someone thinks the game is fine, WHY would they start a thread?  No need to if they're satisfied.  FD sums it up perfectly here.  You accuse people of being "small minded" and then go on to say that if they don't agree with YOU then they should start their own thread, blah, blah, blah.  I don't know if it's humanly possible to be any more hypocritical than you've been in this thread.
of 5

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.