All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > coach_billyg - A Manefesto on 1st Class Usership
4/19/2013 6:28 PM
Yeah, as killbatman said. scholly and a start, no battle =  sign next cycle.    You have to be willing to play the kid or eat the repercussions if you don't, but it's extremely effective, particularly if you have a big class coming in.
4/19/2013 6:30 PM
Posted by killbatman on 4/19/2013 6:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tarvolon on 4/19/2013 6:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by killbatman on 4/19/2013 6:21:00 PM (view original):
Yes, 110 special = scholly offer and a start.  It's a very effective way to recruit long-distance, and part of why I don't find the 360 mile thing to be that suspicious.
presumably this just means you use a lot of target minutes? and offer redshirts only to local kids? 
Personally I start 1-3 FR on all of my teams just about every season with fatigue settings, but you could do a lot of different things with it.  People overestimate how damaging it is to start 1 or 2 FR, imo.  It would be difficult to inform of RS on anyone long-distance, for sure.

None of my teams fit the "1 recruit within 360" label currently, but I'm positive I've had teams like that at some point just by accident.
I believe you that starting 1 FR isn't that damaging, but it may be damaging to take away playing time from your upperclassmen. If you have senior studs who are the backbone of your team, and you want to recruit someone to replace them, your recruit better not take the bulk of their minutes as a freshman, or else they'll have a hard time being the backbone of your team. 
4/19/2013 6:34 PM
As he said, there are a lot of ways to do this and not all of them even involve the $110 special. Again, the main point is that no battle equals no high cost recruits. Hell, following the $110 special, you could recruit a 5-6 man class for under $1000 and rollover 1/4 of everything else. 4 seasons of mediocrity coupled with 2 6-man superclasses could in theory pay off in spades 5-6 seasons down the line. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that it isn't really theory at this point, but more a less advertised (but well known to some) fact.
4/19/2013 6:39 PM
I should clarify, because the statement isn't definitive of what I was driving at....... My earlier post, when I asked rhetorically "who's cheating and who's not?"   Wasn't intended to imply that those methods are cheating, it was meant to imply that much of this in "in the eye of the beholder".  However, I do not dispute your statement about things within the system and things outside the known rules either.
4/19/2013 6:40 PM
Posted by kashmir75 on 4/19/2013 6:34:00 PM (view original):
As he said, there are a lot of ways to do this and not all of them even involve the $110 special. Again, the main point is that no battle equals no high cost recruits. Hell, following the $110 special, you could recruit a 5-6 man class for under $1000 and rollover 1/4 of everything else. 4 seasons of mediocrity coupled with 2 6-man superclasses could in theory pay off in spades 5-6 seasons down the line. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that it isn't really theory at this point, but more a less advertised (but well known to some) fact.
I totally followed the point, was just asking about the particulars of the $110 special. I knew it was a thing, but I kinda thought it was something to be used sparingly. I'm not really that suspicious about national recruiting. International maybe, but that's only because I've tried it a few times (at D2) and rarely found anything worth a damn. 
4/19/2013 6:43 PM
Posted by killbatman on 4/19/2013 6:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by nachopuzzle on 4/18/2013 2:13:00 AM (view original):
Posted by craigcoug on 4/18/2013 1:44:00 AM (view original):
It would seem to me that the beef would be with this statement:

"wiping those teams would sound good for a minute... and i'm sure some of those multiple team guys are cheating, so you'd find a few cheaters...but the game can't survive wiping out so many of the teams from so many of the stable long term members of the community."

....shouldn't we all have beef with that statement? pretty much sounds like admission of guilt to me.
Craig, HIT THE NAIL RIGHT ON THE HEAD, and I don't understand why this statement on it's own is not extremely controversial. He's saying that he is implicitly aware of major long-term users with multiple accounts using them to cheat. How is this not scandalous on it's own.

However, to be fair, there has been a recent line of thought that concerns "grandfathering in" certain well known users to have multiple teams per world despite the practice being disallowed to all other coaches. So, the quote I posted by billyg was his reasoning for extending this privilege to specific users, AND WITHIN HIS JUSTIFICATION HE READILY ADMITTED THIS PRIVILEGE HAD ALREADY BEEN VIOLATED, yet despite this it was necessary for the "survival" of the game.

It really can't be laid out more plainly than that. Not mention how matter-of-factly the notion was proposed, which is scary in it's own right, he is saying that there are certain players that are too big to fail (because without them their knowledge won't trickle down to the rest of us second class users and in a week we'll be starting centers at the shooting guard position).

Responding to this post, since "it can't be any more plainly laid out" than this.

1. You support craig's butchering of the original quote with ellipses, "craig HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD" ,and reiterate that you think billyg is "implicitly aware of major long-term users with multiple accounts using them to cheat."  He did not say that at all, so this is just nonsense.

2. The main reason provided that you're against grandfathering is that billyg has "READILY ADMITTED THIS PRIVELAGE [sic] HAD ALREADY BEEN VIOLATED".  Again, that's false. 

Maybe you can direct me to some sort of point that isn't based on the bastardization of that one quote?
HELLOOOOOOO!?!?!?!?!?!?! The very first post I made on this thread, and whole reason for creating it, was the quote that craig was summarizing!!!! I'm not basing sh*t on anything other than my own thoughts. It's not that far off, so I went with it. At the time, I didn't think people would just jump in without knowing at least the premise of the argument.

What's even sadder is that even when you get called out for posting **** you have no clue about, you don't even take the time to go read the first f*cking post on the thread.

And with your so-called #2 criticism, the point I was making was that how could somebody justify the need to grandfather any segment of the population if they acknowledged that segment would also include cheaters, let alone that they would have a monopoly on cheating.


4/19/2013 6:51 PM
Posted by tarvolon on 4/19/2013 6:40:00 PM (view original):
Posted by kashmir75 on 4/19/2013 6:34:00 PM (view original):
As he said, there are a lot of ways to do this and not all of them even involve the $110 special. Again, the main point is that no battle equals no high cost recruits. Hell, following the $110 special, you could recruit a 5-6 man class for under $1000 and rollover 1/4 of everything else. 4 seasons of mediocrity coupled with 2 6-man superclasses could in theory pay off in spades 5-6 seasons down the line. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that it isn't really theory at this point, but more a less advertised (but well known to some) fact.
I totally followed the point, was just asking about the particulars of the $110 special. I knew it was a thing, but I kinda thought it was something to be used sparingly. I'm not really that suspicious about national recruiting. International maybe, but that's only because I've tried it a few times (at D2) and rarely found anything worth a damn. 
I get you. I was simply chiming in supporting the point. I know people who use it regular and those who use it in different scenarios. It's valid and effective either way.

Internationally, it's not much different except that you have no FSS possible. Again, it depends , for me, entirely on core ratings. If I feel a player has solid cores and will be an effect player, I don't really need him to be 90 in everything so I could care less about his potential. And that's not to say that I don't care about recruits potential either, just that if the cores are good, and he plays well, what's the problem with that?

I wouldn't recruit an entire 6 man class based only on core ratings and scout report, but I also don't feel like I need to scout 30 states either. I have recruited plenty from Canada (not for the texas team, btw) and actually done very well with them. They are not All-Americans but there play is good and they do what my team needs them to do. I don't feel like the object of the game is to out-class the rest of the world year in, year out, I simply want to win enough to make the NT frequently and see what happens from there.
4/19/2013 6:54 PM
Yeah, because just signing any freshmen, let alone most of your freshmen, without knowing their potentials is a strategy that leads to long term success. I'm not debating that it's not do able, but to recruit all those kids with a good level of certainty would take a ton of money. And something billyg is way too good of a coach to just go around signing kids without knowing how good they will be.


4/19/2013 7:20 PM
Posted by nachopuzzle on 4/19/2013 6:54:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, because just signing any freshmen, let alone most of your freshmen, without knowing their potentials is a strategy that leads to long term success. I'm not debating that it's not do able, but to recruit all those kids with a good level of certainty would take a ton of money. And something billyg is way too good of a coach to just go around signing kids without knowing how good they will be.


Your point is valid and I don't want this to come off as me disputing that, but I do want to add some things that should be considered.

ATH, SPD, DEF. A non scouted look can tell you these. If they are already in the 50-70 range you're already at a great deal of certainty. 1-2 scouts to each may answer any questions you have, but also might not. I would also argue that the ATH SPD and DEF are more than enough to guarantee a solid, if not exemplary player. I suppose that may or may not ring true for anyone in particular, but for me, that's all I would need to take the chance. Add in that he's likely not battling for them, wherever they come from, and I'd say it's a strat that wins more than it loses.

I also want to add that he does battle for some, I've seen several of them going on and he also doesn't always win these battles either, for whatever reason. I would argue he isn't spending quite so much as it would sometimes appear on some recruits and quite a bit more on others, again, it depends on the situation.

I would also say one other thing to the mix, money and scouting aside, recruit evaluation is a skill completely in and of itself.  I cannot "prove" this to you, but I know that this is so.  Old Resorter doesn't play D3 anymore to my knowledge, but when he did, he was the top of the game and this was ages before potential and FSS and all this crap we deal with now. This was an age of almost pure recruit evaluation and landing the recruit. I used to watch his recruiting religiously and I would find myself looking at these recruits and thinking, "damn, he must not have anyone within range who is worth a ****" and then this guy or that goes on to be a complete beast All-American type. Not once in a while, but season after season. Potential changed the way recruits look and the way they develop, but it hasn't changed the way recruits do or don't play in the broader sense of things, only that a marginal player may become a better one and a good one may become great as they grow. The real truth about recruits is that potential aside, some just have it while others who appear that they should, simply don't.
4/19/2013 7:37 PM
Posted by nachopuzzle on 4/19/2013 6:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by killbatman on 4/19/2013 6:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by nachopuzzle on 4/18/2013 2:13:00 AM (view original):
Posted by craigcoug on 4/18/2013 1:44:00 AM (view original):
It would seem to me that the beef would be with this statement:

"wiping those teams would sound good for a minute... and i'm sure some of those multiple team guys are cheating, so you'd find a few cheaters...but the game can't survive wiping out so many of the teams from so many of the stable long term members of the community."

....shouldn't we all have beef with that statement? pretty much sounds like admission of guilt to me.
Craig, HIT THE NAIL RIGHT ON THE HEAD, and I don't understand why this statement on it's own is not extremely controversial. He's saying that he is implicitly aware of major long-term users with multiple accounts using them to cheat. How is this not scandalous on it's own.

However, to be fair, there has been a recent line of thought that concerns "grandfathering in" certain well known users to have multiple teams per world despite the practice being disallowed to all other coaches. So, the quote I posted by billyg was his reasoning for extending this privilege to specific users, AND WITHIN HIS JUSTIFICATION HE READILY ADMITTED THIS PRIVILEGE HAD ALREADY BEEN VIOLATED, yet despite this it was necessary for the "survival" of the game.

It really can't be laid out more plainly than that. Not mention how matter-of-factly the notion was proposed, which is scary in it's own right, he is saying that there are certain players that are too big to fail (because without them their knowledge won't trickle down to the rest of us second class users and in a week we'll be starting centers at the shooting guard position).

Responding to this post, since "it can't be any more plainly laid out" than this.

1. You support craig's butchering of the original quote with ellipses, "craig HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD" ,and reiterate that you think billyg is "implicitly aware of major long-term users with multiple accounts using them to cheat."  He did not say that at all, so this is just nonsense.

2. The main reason provided that you're against grandfathering is that billyg has "READILY ADMITTED THIS PRIVELAGE [sic] HAD ALREADY BEEN VIOLATED".  Again, that's false. 

Maybe you can direct me to some sort of point that isn't based on the bastardization of that one quote?
HELLOOOOOOO!?!?!?!?!?!?! The very first post I made on this thread, and whole reason for creating it, was the quote that craig was summarizing!!!! I'm not basing sh*t on anything other than my own thoughts. It's not that far off, so I went with it. At the time, I didn't think people would just jump in without knowing at least the premise of the argument.

What's even sadder is that even when you get called out for posting **** you have no clue about, you don't even take the time to go read the first f*cking post on the thread.

And with your so-called #2 criticism, the point I was making was that how could somebody justify the need to grandfather any segment of the population if they acknowledged that segment would also include cheaters, let alone that they would have a monopoly on cheating.


Of course I read your dumbass first post and you didn't actually make a real point there either.  That's why I moved on to a post that said "can't be any more clear than this."  You've said absolutely nothing except nonsense based on poor reading comprehension.

"I'm not basing sh*t on anything other than my own thoughts"

Here's an idea, maybe you should base accusations on facts instead.

4/19/2013 7:38 PM
Seriously, all kidding aside, if you really want to know what works in this game OR if you have suspicions about someone, watch their recruiting and take notes. You really can learn a hell of a lot just by observing. Kinds of players, and what those players become. Starting and finishing ratings, career type they had, where they came from and whether there was a battle for them or not. All kinds of things you can learn simply by watching. Especially if you have any suspicions about their methods or their integrity. Watching won't tell you the hard facts, but it can give you a lot of insight as to what they do and how. Some things really ARE to good to be true and coincidences are only going to carry you so far, right? I think it's probably much easier to learn the game from watching than it is to determine if someone is cheating, but knowledge is power and the more you have, the better off you are in almost all cases, right?
4/19/2013 11:03 PM
Posted by nachopuzzle on 4/19/2013 6:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by killbatman on 4/19/2013 6:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by nachopuzzle on 4/18/2013 2:13:00 AM (view original):
Posted by craigcoug on 4/18/2013 1:44:00 AM (view original):
It would seem to me that the beef would be with this statement:

"wiping those teams would sound good for a minute... and i'm sure some of those multiple team guys are cheating, so you'd find a few cheaters...but the game can't survive wiping out so many of the teams from so many of the stable long term members of the community."

....shouldn't we all have beef with that statement? pretty much sounds like admission of guilt to me.
Craig, HIT THE NAIL RIGHT ON THE HEAD, and I don't understand why this statement on it's own is not extremely controversial. He's saying that he is implicitly aware of major long-term users with multiple accounts using them to cheat. How is this not scandalous on it's own.

However, to be fair, there has been a recent line of thought that concerns "grandfathering in" certain well known users to have multiple teams per world despite the practice being disallowed to all other coaches. So, the quote I posted by billyg was his reasoning for extending this privilege to specific users, AND WITHIN HIS JUSTIFICATION HE READILY ADMITTED THIS PRIVILEGE HAD ALREADY BEEN VIOLATED, yet despite this it was necessary for the "survival" of the game.

It really can't be laid out more plainly than that. Not mention how matter-of-factly the notion was proposed, which is scary in it's own right, he is saying that there are certain players that are too big to fail (because without them their knowledge won't trickle down to the rest of us second class users and in a week we'll be starting centers at the shooting guard position).

Responding to this post, since "it can't be any more plainly laid out" than this.

1. You support craig's butchering of the original quote with ellipses, "craig HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD" ,and reiterate that you think billyg is "implicitly aware of major long-term users with multiple accounts using them to cheat."  He did not say that at all, so this is just nonsense.

2. The main reason provided that you're against grandfathering is that billyg has "READILY ADMITTED THIS PRIVELAGE [sic] HAD ALREADY BEEN VIOLATED".  Again, that's false. 

Maybe you can direct me to some sort of point that isn't based on the bastardization of that one quote?
HELLOOOOOOO!?!?!?!?!?!?! The very first post I made on this thread, and whole reason for creating it, was the quote that craig was summarizing!!!! I'm not basing sh*t on anything other than my own thoughts. It's not that far off, so I went with it. At the time, I didn't think people would just jump in without knowing at least the premise of the argument.

What's even sadder is that even when you get called out for posting **** you have no clue about, you don't even take the time to go read the first f*cking post on the thread.

And with your so-called #2 criticism, the point I was making was that how could somebody justify the need to grandfather any segment of the population if they acknowledged that segment would also include cheaters, let alone that they would have a monopoly on cheating.


what is even sadder still, is that even though it has been made ABUNDANTLY and ABSURDLY clear that you read my post in a way completely differently than intended... that you continue to beat your the same drug, continue to beat your head against the wall. its really pretty ridiculous.

as has been clarified repeatedly, i DID NOT suggest i knew of a bunch of people abusing multiple teams. you are taking a random aside i threw into a post WAY out of proportion. and all i said in that random aside, was that there are cheaters in HD, and if you ban multiple teams, of course you are going to eliminate some cheating - just like you would any segment of the HD population. *I EVEN MADE IT CLEAR THAT YOU WOULD ELIMINATE CHEATERS BY REMOVING ANY SEGMENT IN THE ORIGINAL POST*. plain and simple, the way you are portraying it is completely wrong, and to continue to represent me that way is totally dishonest, and honestly, by continuing to do so, you are being a complete jackass.
4/19/2013 11:43 PM (edited)
i just finished catching up on the part about SIUE's recruits. i can see how an uneducated user could find that "shady" or whatever you called it. but actually i think that if you look at it intelligently - you reach quite the opposite conclusion - that crop of recruits almost PROVES i am not cheating. allow me to elaborate.

first, to say i have 1 local player is incorrect or misleading (i didnt check the 3 local recruits to see if over 360). the standard recruiting area of SIUE includes MS, and usually but not always, OH. the standard recruiting area of south carolina and university of southern california ABSOLUTELY do not include ohio, and MS, as neither has a single recruit within 360. i recruit locally with south carolina (check out the roster if you doubt me), but for d2 and d1 mid majors, i recruit all over (all my recent d2/low d1 teams rosters make that ABUNDANTLY clear - even USC to me is a lower d1 team, and look at those recruits - all over. i didnt look, but i am 99% sure they are all over - my first 2 were both over 1000 miles away, which is par for the course, for me).

so, those 2 guys + the guy from IN, those are all SIUE only scouting areas, not my d1 scouting areas. then, i have 4 internationals. *IF I HAD FSS FOR THE WHOLE NATION THROUGH MY D1 TEAMS, WOULD I REALLY SIGN 4 INTERNATIONALS????* simple answer - hell no! i sign internationals because i failed to find national players i liked. anyone in the GLV conference can testify ive been pretty significantly unhappy with my last few recruiting classes, striking out every year. all those internationals are very indicative of that, no way in hell i would strike out that bad using my FSS data from d1 schools. no way in hell.

then, you look at the other recruits... of which there are 4. so far the 7 mentioned couldnt possibly suggest more strongly, that i dont share FSS data. of these 4, two are from TX, one from FL, and one from CA. i do not scout FL on south carolina, its too far and there are big strong ACC schools down there. i think i scouted it once, trying to find a diamond in the rough. part of FL is within 360, looking at the top 15 recruits, 2 are within 360. so most of the state is out of range, and GA tech, FL state, miami fl, and flordia (from the SEC) are all right there and that is not my zone. im almost positive i have signed 0 recruits from florida in my entire tenure at south carolina. as ive explained before, after local scouting fails, i usually do big states - so having those 4 guys from CA, TX, and FL is pretty damn consistent with my strategy. also, i even listed CA, TX, and FL as my common ones in a post a few days ago, before this suggestion. TX is a place i scout on USC actually regularly, because i scout the entire western half of the country, looking far and wide for players (as i play them like a low d1 school). interesting that i have 0 recruits from all the western states who are not CA and TX, though :) besides, ive been signing TX guys specifically to SIUE like its my job, for years, thats by far the #1 state i recruit from outside local. aejones recently ribbed me for recruiting so much from texas like 2 seasons before i picked up USC.

finally, if you think only having a few local recruits is fishy in and of itself, i challenge you to compete in a conference like the GLV. a few seasons back, i did the math - of the BOTTOM HALF teams in our conference, those coaches had about TWENTY national championships. thats the bottom half teams from that season. the top half teams roughly doubled that. the conference is hard as hell and its extremely hard to mop up local talent with so many great and all-time great, hall of fame type coaches, in the conference. my failure to sign local talent is probably a big part of why i feel ive failed in recruiting the last few seasons (which wouldnt be the case if i used my d1 FSS data), and why i had to go to the far states like tx, ca, fl, and especially, to go internationally (which again, i would never do if i was essentially for-free scouting the whole damn country)
4/19/2013 11:37 PM
So what's your take on you violating the 1000 mile rule listed on the fair play guidelines?
4/19/2013 11:48 PM
Posted by hughesjr on 4/18/2013 2:47:00 AM (view original):
There is no need to have 2 teams in the same world unless you have a team in every other world and want to get an 11th one.

If possible, WIS could (should) move the 2nd team's coaching record to another world so that the coach does not need to start out at Div-3 with no wins.

But it is too easy to cheat with 2 teams in the same world.

If people want to quit because they have to have 2 teams in the same world, then let them quit. 

It is an unfair advantage, pure and simple.  You get advantages that others do not have and the only way to not take advantage of them is to very much go out of your way to do so.  I mean, if you have Div-1A team in Texas and a Div-1 team in Florida ... and if you are running low on cash with your Florida team and you scouted Arkansas from Texas ... it is ludicrous to think that you would/could forget that PlayerA is both good and undecided in Arkansas and would be a good pickup for your Florida team.

It is possible to not cheat with multiple teams in the same world.  It is IMPOSSIBLE to not collude though.  You have information that other coaches do not have about the world from another coach.  You know recruiting info from the other coach in the same world, you know his recruiting list and exactly how much money he has to recruit.  You know which players he wants and who are backups.  You know everything about 2 teams.  You are even making agreements not to recruit the same guys or the same states, etc.

Why do we need to allow something that makes cheating so easy, and just hope for the best? 

+1

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.