I don't mind losing always... But make the system so we could go to plan B, or plan C... or even plan D. If we can,t look at the C overall players to land some gems... It's impossible to make up for bad luck. That's my point, it's been my point.

You can go to plan B and plan C, but you need to have a plan B and plan C in place. You can't make it up as you go along later, when your all-in options don't pan out. The problem you're having is a direct consequence of the strategy you chose.

Its completely valid to play all-in for 2 guys when you have 2 scholarships, and commit to taking walk-ons and cashing in the resources on a bigger class next year if you lose out. But that strategy has a risk, and it's what you're facing at Clemson.

Posted by shoe3 on 11/7/2016 12:03:00 PM (view original):
You can go to plan B and plan C, but you need to have a plan B and plan C in place. You can't make it up as you go along later, when your all-in options don't pan out. The problem you're having is a direct consequence of the strategy you chose.

Its completely valid to play all-in for 2 guys when you have 2 scholarships, and commit to taking walk-ons and cashing in the resources on a bigger class next year if you lose out. But that strategy has a risk, and it's what you're facing at Clemson.

Here's the problem with the "plan B and plan C" approach, though (especially if you're trying to deal with the EEs) -- APs are, as they stand, too valuable. If you're putting some APs on backup options, you are very likely hurting yourself with regard to your "plan A" battles. In my view, WIS should greatly lessen the value of APs (which seems to me to advantage schools needing bigger classes for no other reason than they need a bigger class), and maybe bump the effect of preferences.

Posted by johnsensing on 11/7/2016 12:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 11/7/2016 12:03:00 PM (view original):
You can go to plan B and plan C, but you need to have a plan B and plan C in place. You can't make it up as you go along later, when your all-in options don't pan out. The problem you're having is a direct consequence of the strategy you chose.

Its completely valid to play all-in for 2 guys when you have 2 scholarships, and commit to taking walk-ons and cashing in the resources on a bigger class next year if you lose out. But that strategy has a risk, and it's what you're facing at Clemson.

Here's the problem with the "plan B and plan C" approach, though (especially if you're trying to deal with the EEs) -- APs are, as they stand, too valuable. If you're putting some APs on backup options, you are very likely hurting yourself with regard to your "plan A" battles. In my view, WIS should greatly lessen the value of APs (which seems to me to advantage schools needing bigger classes for no other reason than they need a bigger class), and maybe bump the effect of preferences.

I'm agnostic on the value of APs. I agree it's something they should look at, to make sure it's working as intended. I'd prefer a system where the APs only mattered to unlocked recruiting actions, diminishing or no returns (even negative, with bad preference matches) after that. But I'll play with whatever system is in place.

That scenario is exactly what I'm talking about. When you only have 2 scholarships, it's reasonable, and a valid strategy, to focus all of your resources on two players, absolutely maximize your chances with them. But that's the strategy you're choosing. You have to accept the consequence then, when you don't have any backup options. You take the resources next year, when you'll be in a better position.

High level D1s are going to have to think long and hard about running press teams. FB/press is probably out of the question. I'm worried about it at D2, to be honest.

Posted by shoe3 on 11/7/2016 12:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 11/7/2016 12:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 11/7/2016 12:03:00 PM (view original):
You can go to plan B and plan C, but you need to have a plan B and plan C in place. You can't make it up as you go along later, when your all-in options don't pan out. The problem you're having is a direct consequence of the strategy you chose.

Its completely valid to play all-in for 2 guys when you have 2 scholarships, and commit to taking walk-ons and cashing in the resources on a bigger class next year if you lose out. But that strategy has a risk, and it's what you're facing at Clemson.

Here's the problem with the "plan B and plan C" approach, though (especially if you're trying to deal with the EEs) -- APs are, as they stand, too valuable. If you're putting some APs on backup options, you are very likely hurting yourself with regard to your "plan A" battles. In my view, WIS should greatly lessen the value of APs (which seems to me to advantage schools needing bigger classes for no other reason than they need a bigger class), and maybe bump the effect of preferences.

I'm agnostic on the value of APs. I agree it's something they should look at, to make sure it's working as intended. I'd prefer a system where the APs only mattered to unlocked recruiting actions, diminishing or no returns (even negative, with bad preference matches) after that. But I'll play with whatever system is in place.

That scenario is exactly what I'm talking about. When you only have 2 scholarships, it's reasonable, and a valid strategy, to focus all of your resources on two players, absolutely maximize your chances with them. But that's the strategy you're choosing. You have to accept the consequence then, when you don't have any backup options. You take the resources next year, when you'll be in a better position.

High level D1s are going to have to think long and hard about running press teams. FB/press is probably out of the question. I'm worried about it at D2, to be honest.

Shoe In D2, we can still make up for it. I did in Pfeiffer. I am saying even in 2.0 if I went all-in, I had the states scouted and lots of infos on players... I could even see all other stats for all players in the world. Now, it's like I am blinded... I can't get to plan B... And as a 2 scholly team, I cannot get a plan B in slowly, I will not be able to battle on the two other recruits. I had spread 30-30 ap or 40-20 ap depending.

Posted by zorzii on 11/7/2016 12:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 11/7/2016 12:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 11/7/2016 12:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 11/7/2016 12:03:00 PM (view original):
You can go to plan B and plan C, but you need to have a plan B and plan C in place. You can't make it up as you go along later, when your all-in options don't pan out. The problem you're having is a direct consequence of the strategy you chose.

Its completely valid to play all-in for 2 guys when you have 2 scholarships, and commit to taking walk-ons and cashing in the resources on a bigger class next year if you lose out. But that strategy has a risk, and it's what you're facing at Clemson.

Here's the problem with the "plan B and plan C" approach, though (especially if you're trying to deal with the EEs) -- APs are, as they stand, too valuable. If you're putting some APs on backup options, you are very likely hurting yourself with regard to your "plan A" battles. In my view, WIS should greatly lessen the value of APs (which seems to me to advantage schools needing bigger classes for no other reason than they need a bigger class), and maybe bump the effect of preferences.

I'm agnostic on the value of APs. I agree it's something they should look at, to make sure it's working as intended. I'd prefer a system where the APs only mattered to unlocked recruiting actions, diminishing or no returns (even negative, with bad preference matches) after that. But I'll play with whatever system is in place.

That scenario is exactly what I'm talking about. When you only have 2 scholarships, it's reasonable, and a valid strategy, to focus all of your resources on two players, absolutely maximize your chances with them. But that's the strategy you're choosing. You have to accept the consequence then, when you don't have any backup options. You take the resources next year, when you'll be in a better position.

High level D1s are going to have to think long and hard about running press teams. FB/press is probably out of the question. I'm worried about it at D2, to be honest.

Shoe In D2, we can still make up for it. I did in Pfeiffer. I am saying even in 2.0 if I went all-in, I had the states scouted and lots of infos on players... I could even see all other stats for all players in the world. Now, it's like I am blinded... I can't get to plan B... And as a 2 scholly team, I cannot get a plan B in slowly, I will not be able to battle on the two other recruits. I had spread 30-30 ap or 40-20 ap depending.

Yeah. I'm saying that's the strategy you chose. You could have spread it 25-25 and used the extra 10 APs per cycle to unlock recruiting actions on 3 or 4 late preferring "plan Bs", maybe even a plan C. But you have to do that in the first session, so yes, it does mean not maximizing your chance for success with your plan As. That's the game, that's the choice. To be honest, as long as you're not running press, it probably makes as much, if not more sense to do what you did, and take the resources next year if you lose.

Good .. everyone who does not want to play .. quit. Then we can get those teams filled with people who want to play.

There is nothing wrong with not liking the new system and quitting.

Some people like Hockey .. some Baseball .. some Football. Some people like them all.

If you don't like it, you don't like it. Everyone can't like everything.

Posted by hughesjr on 11/7/2016 6:12:00 PM (view original):
Good .. everyone who does not want to play .. quit. Then we can get those teams filled with people who want to play.

There is nothing wrong with not liking the new system and quitting.

Some people like Hockey .. some Baseball .. some Football. Some people like them all.

If you don't like it, you don't like it. Everyone can't like everything.

That's not the point Hughes, we both know it. I like this game but there is something obviously missing. You can't always get your way, 2.0 showed me this. At least, you could get a result and build your team... Now, I can't recruit! What am I suppose to do? The roll the dice at the end, the caps seemed like a goid idea but in competitive D1 we need something more predictable. As for ees, we all know it's idiotic... Coaches with ees are the dumbest if they stand by a system where they are bound to lose. As for D2, D3, it works but I am a bit weary about location

Posted by zorzii on 11/7/2016 6:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 11/7/2016 6:12:00 PM (view original):
Good .. everyone who does not want to play .. quit. Then we can get those teams filled with people who want to play.

There is nothing wrong with not liking the new system and quitting.

Some people like Hockey .. some Baseball .. some Football. Some people like them all.

If you don't like it, you don't like it. Everyone can't like everything.

That's not the point Hughes, we both know it. I like this game but there is something obviously missing. You can't always get your way, 2.0 showed me this. At least, you could get a result and build your team... Now, I can't recruit! What am I suppose to do? The roll the dice at the end, the caps seemed like a goid idea but in competitive D1 we need something more predictable. As for ees, we all know it's idiotic... Coaches with ees are the dumbest if they stand by a system where they are bound to lose. As for D2, D3, it works but I am a bit weary about location

Yet others are recruiting. Chapel is recruiting. He had an amazing at Oklahoma, then moved.

I am not getting amazing classes, but I have 8 teams and I have taken 1 total walkon in probably 15 sessions. And I took that one on purpose to balance classes.

Im all for adjusting and actually agree changes needed to be made.
Not a fan of random. Of high beating VH. That will make me mad quite a bit I'm sure...
But the fact they chose to punish teams with ee's, not giving them any resources to recruit until too late, is actually ridiculous. Not a strategy decision at first (obviously it will affect long term strategy, after ee teams are screwed mercilessly). It seems unjust and impossible to plan around that recruiting season.

In some ways, it's like saying if you make the final four in D1, we will give you less resources to recruit next year to even things out... as if the other natural changes aren't enough. This one will always sting and cause people to leave. I'll adjust. But I will not purchase another season.

"...it's like saying if you make the final four in D1, we will give you less resources to recruit next year to even things out..."

Hold on a moment. You made that up. No one said that. Then you're angry at what you made up. Maybe learning the new parts of the game will make you less angry. Good luck.