Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2016 4:20:00 PM (view original):
Uh, no. It was a race to the top. I was involved. The better owners beat me to Duke, Kentucky, etc. And, when I arrived, beat the **** out of my VaTech team. And got all the best recruits to ensure they beat the **** out of me next season. I played 4 seasons of that, made marginal improvement and decided to play HBD because you really did have the same resources when the season started.

FWIW, this is a sim game. You should probably calm down just a tad. It's not worth having a stroke over. Seriously.

You again state the problem so well. You got to a big 6 school, couldn't figure out how to play, and quit. Millennial. I got to a big 6 school, I figured out how to play, and I succeeded. Now you are back, and are super stoked that they changed the rules so that now you don't need to learn to play because everyone is exactly the same and nobody has any advantages.

FWIW--you have posted a metric crap ton more than me (literally 845X MORE than me, you have over 40k freaking posts!!!), so I am a little worried you might be on your death bed with how concerned you are if we go by your logic. Otherwise, I can only interpret it to mean that once again you don't have an answer and are doing your best to deflect.

Also, how close was I on the age guess? Also also, did you play left back when you earned your soccer participation trophies? I bet you did....that is where they put kids who can't compete but who's parents get really upset when they don't get any PT.

I'll address it if you'll stop with the silly Lebron James comparisons and the stupid ad mominem rants and take it seriously.

"This is a simulation game. It should not be a level playing field. Some teams should have a distinct advantage based off of success ... a virtually unopposed position in recruiting"
The top teams still have a distinct advantage. (1) There is a division modifier completely separating the divisions, (2) the top teams have an advantage in preferences, (3) the D1 budgets are massive compared to other divisions, (4) prestige is still a very steep gradient and (5) Seble's red light arificially and arbitrarily favors upper divisions. And the idea that anyone should be entitled to "a virtually unopposed position in recruiting" is exactly the cancer that 3.0 is intended to cure.

Posted by snafu4u on 12/1/2016 4:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2016 4:20:00 PM (view original):
Uh, no. It was a race to the top. I was involved. The better owners beat me to Duke, Kentucky, etc. And, when I arrived, beat the **** out of my VaTech team. And got all the best recruits to ensure they beat the **** out of me next season. I played 4 seasons of that, made marginal improvement and decided to play HBD because you really did have the same resources when the season started.

FWIW, this is a sim game. You should probably calm down just a tad. It's not worth having a stroke over. Seriously.

You again state the problem so well. You got to a big 6 school, couldn't figure out how to play, and quit. Millennial. I got to a big 6 school, I figured out how to play, and I succeeded. Now you are back, and are super stoked that they changed the rules so that now you don't need to learn to play because everyone is exactly the same and nobody has any advantages.

FWIW--you have posted a metric crap ton more than me (literally 845X MORE than me, you have over 40k freaking posts!!!), so I am a little worried you might be on your death bed with how concerned you are if we go by your logic. Otherwise, I can only interpret it to mean that once again you don't have an answer and are doing your best to deflect.

Also, how close was I on the age guess? Also also, did you play left back when you earned your soccer participation trophies? I bet you did....that is where they put kids who can't compete but who's parents get really upset when they don't get any PT.

Mikes n his 40s. He's pretty much an anti millennial.

And aaying everyone under 30 doesn't want to work for success is pretty much a dick move. And wrong.

Yeah, I'm older than that. I have a lot of posts for a handful of reasons.
1. I own my own business. I can do what I want when I want.
2. There's a "Ask MikeT" thread in HBD. It's over a 1000 pages and this is a the 6th version. Around half of those posts are mine.
3. Because of #1, I tend to get sucked into arguments with morons. Which makes me a moron. But I can get smarter real quick. Wait here.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 12/1/2016 4:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by snafu4u on 12/1/2016 4:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2016 4:20:00 PM (view original):
Uh, no. It was a race to the top. I was involved. The better owners beat me to Duke, Kentucky, etc. And, when I arrived, beat the **** out of my VaTech team. And got all the best recruits to ensure they beat the **** out of me next season. I played 4 seasons of that, made marginal improvement and decided to play HBD because you really did have the same resources when the season started.

FWIW, this is a sim game. You should probably calm down just a tad. It's not worth having a stroke over. Seriously.

You again state the problem so well. You got to a big 6 school, couldn't figure out how to play, and quit. Millennial. I got to a big 6 school, I figured out how to play, and I succeeded. Now you are back, and are super stoked that they changed the rules so that now you don't need to learn to play because everyone is exactly the same and nobody has any advantages.

FWIW--you have posted a metric crap ton more than me (literally 845X MORE than me, you have over 40k freaking posts!!!), so I am a little worried you might be on your death bed with how concerned you are if we go by your logic. Otherwise, I can only interpret it to mean that once again you don't have an answer and are doing your best to deflect.

Also, how close was I on the age guess? Also also, did you play left back when you earned your soccer participation trophies? I bet you did....that is where they put kids who can't compete but who's parents get really upset when they don't get any PT.

Mikes n his 40s. He's pretty much an anti millennial.

And aaying everyone under 30 doesn't want to work for success is pretty much a dick move. And wrong.

I disagree. I can count on one hand the number of people under 30 I know who work hard. I worked in academia for 8 years before leaving for the private sector. I taught a range of courses (at a major basketball university) and was utterly shocked and dismayed at the entitlement displayed by my students. When the did poorly on a test, I would invariably get a phone call from their parents, screaming at me "We pay your salary, how dare you give a low grade to my special little snowflake". I got sick of the weekly phone calls, the students who would come into my office and cry like babies because they got a C on a paper, hoping I would change the grade (when I wouldn't, I would then get a phone call about that from their parents). When I started seeing the behavior creeping into the incoming graduate students, I left and started a small business in town so I could get even with all these spoiled little fops and their helicopter parents by duping them out of their money. So far it has been a colossal change for the good. But back to the point, 99% of people under 32 that I have encountered are entitled brats that wouldn't know how to work hard if their life depended on it. Call me a dick if you want (I really can be a dick when it comes down to it), but my position is based off of extensive experience, and not wrong.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2016 4:58:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, I'm older than that. I have a lot of posts for a handful of reasons.
1. I own my own business. I can do what I want when I want.
2. There's a "Ask MikeT" thread in HBD. It's over a 1000 pages and this is a the 6th version. Around half of those posts are mine.
3. Because of #1, I tend to get sucked into arguments with morons. Which makes me a moron. But I can get smarter real quick. Wait here.

"Never argue with a moron, they will suck you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Wow, just wow.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 12/1/2016 5:07:00 PM (view original):
Wow, just wow.

I know, right? I am a pretty impressive dick.

Dude earned that block.

Posted by CoachSpud on 12/1/2016 4:39:00 PM (view original):
I'll address it if you'll stop with the silly Lebron James comparisons and the stupid ad mominem rants and take it seriously.

"This is a simulation game. It should not be a level playing field. Some teams should have a distinct advantage based off of success ... a virtually unopposed position in recruiting"
The top teams still have a distinct advantage. (1) There is a division modifier completely separating the divisions, (2) the top teams have an advantage in preferences, (3) the D1 budgets are massive compared to other divisions, (4) prestige is still a very steep gradient and (5) Seble's red light arificially and arbitrarily favors upper divisions. And the idea that anyone should be entitled to "a virtually unopposed position in recruiting" is exactly the cancer that 3.0 is intended to cure.

1, 3, and 5 have nothing whatsoever to do with competition w/in D1. Not sure 2 is correct -- if so, it's pretty marginal (one of my complaints re: 3.0 is that preferences, which I thought was one of the only good ideas in the 3.0 rollout, don't matter more). 4 is just plain wrong -- my experience is that the prestige gradient has been significantly flattened, and prestige effects are currently far too minimal in my opinion. That said, I admit bias on this point, given my teams' current prestige.

Both sides here are building strawmen and not actually responding to each others' valid (to varying extents) points. And spud, you still haven't addressed my strategic question re: LSU in Knight. Am I to assume you have no ideas?

5 does. If a team has "virtually unopposed position in recruiting", they will get the best players. This really can't be argued as a competition issue.

Of course, context matters and, admittedly, I only read a couple of lines of snafu's rants. So I can't be sure what he meant by that.

Posted by johnsensing on 12/1/2016 5:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 12/1/2016 4:39:00 PM (view original):
I'll address it if you'll stop with the silly Lebron James comparisons and the stupid ad mominem rants and take it seriously.

"This is a simulation game. It should not be a level playing field. Some teams should have a distinct advantage based off of success ... a virtually unopposed position in recruiting"
The top teams still have a distinct advantage. (1) There is a division modifier completely separating the divisions, (2) the top teams have an advantage in preferences, (3) the D1 budgets are massive compared to other divisions, (4) prestige is still a very steep gradient and (5) Seble's red light arificially and arbitrarily favors upper divisions. And the idea that anyone should be entitled to "a virtually unopposed position in recruiting" is exactly the cancer that 3.0 is intended to cure.

1, 3, and 5 have nothing whatsoever to do with competition w/in D1. Not sure 2 is correct -- if so, it's pretty marginal (one of my complaints re: 3.0 is that preferences, which I thought was one of the only good ideas in the 3.0 rollout, don't matter more). 4 is just plain wrong -- my experience is that the prestige gradient has been significantly flattened, and prestige effects are currently far too minimal in my opinion. That said, I admit bias on this point, given my teams' current prestige.

Both sides here are building strawmen and not actually responding to each others' valid (to varying extents) points. And spud, you still haven't addressed my strategic question re: LSU in Knight. Am I to assume you have no ideas?

Regarding 1, 3 and 5, you'll have to tell all the guys complaining about D2 and D3 schools taking "D1 recruits" that they were wrong, it doesn't happen. Empirically, though, it does. D2 schools and to a much lesser extend D3 schools are unquestionably in the mix for some "D1" recruits, and disproportionately affect the lower prestige D1 schools. I see you granted #2. Let's see, that leaves #4 ... we can debate the steepness of the gradient but it is certainly there and strong enough to be a noticeable factor. Try competing with an A- Big 6 school from a D+ lower tier school if you don't believe that.

Okay, I tried to find the question that you're stuck on ... about LSU ... it doesn't seem to be anywhere in this thread, eh?

There's a specific example I will bring up in a few cycles, if he signs before the 2nd session, but there is an example in Smith that illustrates there is definitely a large prestige advantage. One thing spud left out is that APs are weighted, your 20 is worth a lot more than a D+ 20. If I'm recruiting a 3-star-ish guy who matches preferences reasonably well, as a B prestige D1 team, it takes about 50-60 APs to unlock scholarships. The same kind of player can take a D+ team 120 or more to unlock.

What you can do now is limited. If you're at the start of the 1st session, you can figure that you'll have 440 APs to get all actions unlocked. You of course have to target late prospects - maybe gamble on a whenever, and this is where I think they could really improve the game by increasing the number of players who will be open and available to effort from teams with early entries, so more late and whenever players. Anyway, if you expect 4 early entries, you can spend the first session unlocking actions on as many late players you can get (I'd estimate you can get at least 6 totally unlocked, probably more as an A+). You don't need to worry about starting from behind. There's no considering credit except for promising minutes for players who prefer playing time, and you can do that without any resources - so target those players first.

When the 2nd session opens, you should be able to fully extend your effort for at least 3 players with 4 early entries, as long as you stay local. If you have to go out farther, you may not be able to go all the way in. But at A+, you'll get in signing range on basically whoever you want to prioritize. You probably won't get all three, if you're fighting for all of them. But you'll pick up a player or 2 on an average year. Then you can look for jucos who you can turn into scholarship resources more quickly to fill out your team, or take a couple walk-ons and get their full advantage next season.

Posted by CoachSpud on 12/1/2016 6:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 12/1/2016 5:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 12/1/2016 4:39:00 PM (view original):
I'll address it if you'll stop with the silly Lebron James comparisons and the stupid ad mominem rants and take it seriously.

"This is a simulation game. It should not be a level playing field. Some teams should have a distinct advantage based off of success ... a virtually unopposed position in recruiting"
The top teams still have a distinct advantage. (1) There is a division modifier completely separating the divisions, (2) the top teams have an advantage in preferences, (3) the D1 budgets are massive compared to other divisions, (4) prestige is still a very steep gradient and (5) Seble's red light arificially and arbitrarily favors upper divisions. And the idea that anyone should be entitled to "a virtually unopposed position in recruiting" is exactly the cancer that 3.0 is intended to cure.

1, 3, and 5 have nothing whatsoever to do with competition w/in D1. Not sure 2 is correct -- if so, it's pretty marginal (one of my complaints re: 3.0 is that preferences, which I thought was one of the only good ideas in the 3.0 rollout, don't matter more). 4 is just plain wrong -- my experience is that the prestige gradient has been significantly flattened, and prestige effects are currently far too minimal in my opinion. That said, I admit bias on this point, given my teams' current prestige.

Both sides here are building strawmen and not actually responding to each others' valid (to varying extents) points. And spud, you still haven't addressed my strategic question re: LSU in Knight. Am I to assume you have no ideas?

Regarding 1, 3 and 5, you'll have to tell all the guys complaining about D2 and D3 schools taking "D1 recruits" that they were wrong, it doesn't happen. Empirically, though, it does. D2 schools and to a much lesser extend D3 schools are unquestionably in the mix for some "D1" recruits, and disproportionately affect the lower prestige D1 schools. I see you granted #2. Let's see, that leaves #4 ... we can debate the steepness of the gradient but it is certainly there and strong enough to be a noticeable factor. Try competing with an A- Big 6 school from a D+ lower tier school if you don't believe that.

Okay, I tried to find the question that you're stuck on ... about LSU ... it doesn't seem to be anywhere in this thread, eh?

Spud-- A lower tier D+ school should not be competing for a recruit with an A- Big 6 school. That recruit should be out of there league. That is a reflection of how things really work. If a recruit, especially one entertaining phone calls from lower tier D+ schools gets a call from an A- Big 6, he will drop everything for that chance to play at a higher level.

Mike--I am very much saddened to learn you have only been reading a couple of lines from my rants. I wrote them for you. What I meant regarding a team being "virtually unopposed in recruiting" is that a team like Kentucky should not have any competition for top recruits, unless a UConn or Duke or UNC comes knocking. The competition should be among their peers (High A+ schools), not against any C+ school that dumps their entire budget and AP into a 5 star. The reward for success in the real world is schools like Kentucky, Duke, Michigan State, etc...have such a high prestige among recruits, that any recruit contacted by them is theirs unless another elite program comes along. I thought that reflection of reality was one of the good parts of HD 2.0.

"Spud-- A lower tier D+ school should not be competing for a recruit with an A- Big 6 school. That recruit should be out of there league. That is a reflection of how things really work."

This is HD, not RL. In HD, that idea is a reflection of a sense of entitlement and incomplete understanding of 3.0. While common in RL, it isn't even absolutely true there.