Posted by MikeT23 on 1/17/2017 5:44:00 PM (view original):
Well, if a baseball guy switching to a baseball is because he couldn't compete in a basketball sim with the big, swinging dick basketball guys, I guess you're right. And, if you know I still can't after one and a half seasons, I guess you're Madam Snafu reading cards. I already said A+ should win 100% time against C with all things being equal. You guys just don't want "all things being equal." You want to drop a schollie offer and have them sign immediately regardless of what else has occurred But keep to your narrative.

And, for the record, I play NCAA '14(last one made) among other games. But the college football was always my go-to sports game.

Jeebus man--college football games? Has there ever been a decent one made? Your taste in video games is about at the same level as your ability to carry a cogent argument.

You really do have an exceptional ability to entirely miss the point of a discussion in favor of picking a small, usually insignificant point to dwell on; which you then extrapolate to argue that the entire discussion is moot. Forests and trees man, forests and trees. I feel bad for your S/O....you must be hella fun to talk with at dinner.

Also....NHL '94. If you haven't played it you have no idea what a challenging sports game is. If you have played it and still chose college football games (HAHAHAH--still laughing about that in the background....talk about cakewalk games) then you are an idiot.

PS: Don't you get that you are a Spud? Everyone here thinks of you the same way they do that troll. You have accomplished nothing, cannot rationally discuss anything, yet have something to say about everything. You are a first class S-P-U-D-H-O-L-E.

Posted by skinzfan36 on 1/17/2017 12:42:00 PM (view original):
Well if both are at Very High then that means the C has what, at least a 40% chance of winning the player? I can't remember what Very High indicates.

In this situation I would only expect the A school to have probably put in around 50% effort of the C school. I would have no problem with the C school then having a legit chance at landing the recruit.

This has been a really interesting discussion. One thing I wanted to add is that I don't see where anyone has added in the "multiplier" piece of the equation. If the C team was on the recruit from the start and promised a start and 20 min per game, those promises have some additional value based on the fact that they were offered early in the process from what I understand.

So an A+ team and a C team can max out visits and have the same promises, but the C team's effort can be worth more due to the fact that they offered it first and have the benefit of the multiplier.

Is that right?

Posted by snafu4u on 1/17/2017 5:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/17/2017 5:26:00 PM (view original):
Pretty sure we know my point. I don't really care how long it took or how hard it was. It's just funny that those +1ing and agreeing all benefit from what they +1 and agree upon.

Which makes it really hard to take you serious if you contend "it's good for the game".

As for what happened 10 years ago, I quit for 2 reasons: 1. HBD was invented. I'm a baseball guy. 2. VaTech lost EVERY recruit to Duke/UNC/Kentucky. Sure, I could have ground it out. But, again, I'm a baseball guy. As I said, I don't want a participation trophy. But, if/when I get to Duke, I don't think I'm entitled to all the best players either. I play video games on the hardest level. Those who think the A+ teams should have all the advantages probably take the Patriots, set it on Rookie and try to score 100 every game.

TL:DR - Mike couldn't figure out how to compete with the big boys so he switched to HBD. Now that he is back he still can't so he favors a redistribution of wealth that diminishes the effects of prestige. Mike still plays Madden. Who the F still plays Madden?

FWIW, for somebody who like to be challenged there is only one sports game ever made to test your merit. NHL '94. Everything else is just HD 3.0.

A few quick things -

1. HBD is much more difficult than HD. There's more to account for, and less templated ways to win. (There is no "just build ath + def" in HBD).
2. Mike has only been back for a few months (I know this because we got HD teams around the same time) - this is not a reasonable amount of time to determine whether or not anyone can "compete with the big boys".
3. I definitely still play Madden. I have 5 brothers and we do online franchises every year - Madden has its issues, but is still a pretty damn good game.

I'm all for defending your stance (especially as it pertains to 2.0 vs 3.0, and especially if it's defending it against Mike), but you seem to be pretty bad at that.

Posted by drichar138 on 1/17/2017 5:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by skinzfan36 on 1/17/2017 12:42:00 PM (view original):
Well if both are at Very High then that means the C has what, at least a 40% chance of winning the player? I can't remember what Very High indicates.

In this situation I would only expect the A school to have probably put in around 50% effort of the C school. I would have no problem with the C school then having a legit chance at landing the recruit.

This has been a really interesting discussion. One thing I wanted to add is that I don't see where anyone has added in the "multiplier" piece of the equation. If the C team was on the recruit from the start and promised a start and 20 min per game, those promises have some additional value based on the fact that they were offered early in the process from what I understand.

So an A+ team and a C team can max out visits and have the same promises, but the C team's effort can be worth more due to the fact that they offered it first and have the benefit of the multiplier.

Is that right?

I believe it would make his efforts worth more relative to if he had not made the early promises, but they would/should still be worth far far less than the same efforts from an A+.

Posted by drichar138 on 1/17/2017 5:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by skinzfan36 on 1/17/2017 12:42:00 PM (view original):
Well if both are at Very High then that means the C has what, at least a 40% chance of winning the player? I can't remember what Very High indicates.

In this situation I would only expect the A school to have probably put in around 50% effort of the C school. I would have no problem with the C school then having a legit chance at landing the recruit.

This has been a really interesting discussion. One thing I wanted to add is that I don't see where anyone has added in the "multiplier" piece of the equation. If the C team was on the recruit from the start and promised a start and 20 min per game, those promises have some additional value based on the fact that they were offered early in the process from what I understand.

So an A+ team and a C team can max out visits and have the same promises, but the C team's effort can be worth more due to the fact that they offered it first and have the benefit of the multiplier.

Is that right?

yes, this is right. you get more effect from the promise minutes for a "wants to play" player if you do it before visits, lots of AP's, etc. However in the new game I have basically learned that if a guy has a "wants to play" preference I need to decide on the minutes I want to guarantee him before I do any visits as to not waste the multiplier.

So I should still be on the same playing field with the C-school all things being equal. Yet somehow they sometimes are able to hang onto "high" status.

...a guy that doesn't have "wants to play" the multiplier doesn't apply though. The promise would only carry the same weight as in 2.0 from what seble had told us.

Posted by snafu4u on 1/17/2017 5:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by drichar138 on 1/17/2017 5:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by skinzfan36 on 1/17/2017 12:42:00 PM (view original):
Well if both are at Very High then that means the C has what, at least a 40% chance of winning the player? I can't remember what Very High indicates.

In this situation I would only expect the A school to have probably put in around 50% effort of the C school. I would have no problem with the C school then having a legit chance at landing the recruit.

This has been a really interesting discussion. One thing I wanted to add is that I don't see where anyone has added in the "multiplier" piece of the equation. If the C team was on the recruit from the start and promised a start and 20 min per game, those promises have some additional value based on the fact that they were offered early in the process from what I understand.

So an A+ team and a C team can max out visits and have the same promises, but the C team's effort can be worth more due to the fact that they offered it first and have the benefit of the multiplier.

Is that right?

I believe it would make his efforts worth more relative to if he had not made the early promises, but they would/should still be worth far far less than the same efforts from an A+.

That makes sense and that aspect was present in HD 2.0 as well. I remember Purdue (B-) beating me out for a recruit at Florida St. (A-) and the Purdue coach told me how much he spent and it was less than me, so I sent in a ticket to see what was up.

They said it was the closest battle they had ever seen and that if I would have offered my promises earlier in the battle, then I would have won.

I can dig it up and post it, but not sure it has much value anymore.

Posted by snafu4u on 1/17/2017 5:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/17/2017 5:44:00 PM (view original):
Well, if a baseball guy switching to a baseball is because he couldn't compete in a basketball sim with the big, swinging dick basketball guys, I guess you're right. And, if you know I still can't after one and a half seasons, I guess you're Madam Snafu reading cards. I already said A+ should win 100% time against C with all things being equal. You guys just don't want "all things being equal." You want to drop a schollie offer and have them sign immediately regardless of what else has occurred But keep to your narrative.

And, for the record, I play NCAA '14(last one made) among other games. But the college football was always my go-to sports game.

Jeebus man--college football games? Has there ever been a decent one made? Your taste in video games is about at the same level as your ability to carry a cogent argument.

You really do have an exceptional ability to entirely miss the point of a discussion in favor of picking a small, usually insignificant point to dwell on; which you then extrapolate to argue that the entire discussion is moot. Forests and trees man, forests and trees. I feel bad for your S/O....you must be hella fun to talk with at dinner.

Also....NHL '94. If you haven't played it you have no idea what a challenging sports game is. If you have played it and still chose college football games (HAHAHAH--still laughing about that in the background....talk about cakewalk games) then you are an idiot.

PS: Don't you get that you are a Spud? Everyone here thinks of you the same way they do that troll. You have accomplished nothing, cannot rationally discuss anything, yet have something to say about everything. You are a first class S-P-U-D-H-O-L-E.

So you're really gonna start on choice of video games? I couldn't give two ***** about hockey. Especially a 22 y/o hockey VIDEO GAME.

I fully understand the point of the discussion. I'm simply pointing and laughing at the users at A+ schools demanding that A+ schools have every advantage possible.

Finally, who gives a **** how everyone here considers me? I'm not here to be your buddy. It's an internet simgame site. And, really, what have YOU accomplished in a sim game? IT'S A GODDAM SIM GAME. ****, you're stupid.

has someone in the thread said A+ schools should be able to land guys with minimal effort? can someone point it out to me because I may have missed it...

I thought the thread was about if the effort from an A and a C school are equal (and everything else is equal) what should the chance be that the C school wins the guy. I could be wrong here, but I thought that is what it was about...not A schools landing guys with a few visits compared to a C having to use all their visits. Please help!

Posted by snafu4u on 1/17/2017 3:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jpmills3 on 1/17/2017 3:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 1/17/2017 12:23:00 PM (view original):
I'm more with the skins opinion that everyone shouldn't get a participation trophy (even in 3.0). You shouldn't be able to win a recruit 2+ letter grades lower then another school.
"A" schools should be battle other "A and B" schools.
"C" schools should be battling "B/C/D" schools.

Otherwise, like skins said, if everyone can get everyone, why the fck do we even have prestige?
With regards to your last comment. That's the participation trophy mentality. Brown (at C) should have 0% at signing a top recruit. What Brown should be doing is working to get to "B" prestige so that they CAN eventually get a top recruit. But Seble and his participation trophy mentality wants everyone to feel like a winner.

I agree with you guys.

As do I.

Sure. WTF is this?

Do you need me to point out the part where C shouldn't even be able to battle A schools? That they should work to get the B so they can? That Brown should have ZERO chance at signing a top recruit?

Ok that is 1 guy that mentioned that. The rest of us throughout this thread have not indicated that as our stance.

But go ahead and lump us all together...sure, that makes sense

Uh, that's why I quoted THAT post.
A) He was agreeing with you
B) A 2nd agreed
C) A 3rd agreed

That's when I said "I don't have to look but I bet all 4 have A+ D1 teams."

You FOUR were forming a conga line. That's not one, that's FOUR.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/17/2017 6:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by snafu4u on 1/17/2017 5:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/17/2017 5:44:00 PM (view original):
Well, if a baseball guy switching to a baseball is because he couldn't compete in a basketball sim with the big, swinging dick basketball guys, I guess you're right. And, if you know I still can't after one and a half seasons, I guess you're Madam Snafu reading cards. I already said A+ should win 100% time against C with all things being equal. You guys just don't want "all things being equal." You want to drop a schollie offer and have them sign immediately regardless of what else has occurred But keep to your narrative.

And, for the record, I play NCAA '14(last one made) among other games. But the college football was always my go-to sports game.

Jeebus man--college football games? Has there ever been a decent one made? Your taste in video games is about at the same level as your ability to carry a cogent argument.

You really do have an exceptional ability to entirely miss the point of a discussion in favor of picking a small, usually insignificant point to dwell on; which you then extrapolate to argue that the entire discussion is moot. Forests and trees man, forests and trees. I feel bad for your S/O....you must be hella fun to talk with at dinner.

Also....NHL '94. If you haven't played it you have no idea what a challenging sports game is. If you have played it and still chose college football games (HAHAHAH--still laughing about that in the background....talk about cakewalk games) then you are an idiot.

PS: Don't you get that you are a Spud? Everyone here thinks of you the same way they do that troll. You have accomplished nothing, cannot rationally discuss anything, yet have something to say about everything. You are a first class S-P-U-D-H-O-L-E.

So you're really gonna start on choice of video games? I couldn't give two ***** about hockey. Especially a 22 y/o hockey VIDEO GAME.

I fully understand the point of the discussion. I'm simply pointing and laughing at the users at A+ schools demanding that A+ schools have every advantage possible.

Finally, who gives a **** how everyone here considers me? I'm not here to be your buddy. It's an internet simgame site. And, really, what have YOU accomplished in a sim game? IT'S A GODDAM SIM GAME. ****, you're stupid.

NHL '94 is regarded my most fans of sports games as this single greatest sports game ever made. Like EVER. The reason has nothing to do with hockey--hell, I haven't followed hockey since the Whalers left Hartford. It is all about the mechanics--they are superb. It is a game that can only be won by skills with the sticks. Trying to sh!t on NHL '94 makes you look like an even bigger d0che-canoe than you already are. It is not about the graphics, the hockey, or how old it is (even though it has held up amazingly well), it is about the competition, the difficulty, and the triumphant feeling of finally mastering the deke and scoring a goal. It is the best because you have to work for it to win. You are once again spouting off about something you know absolutely nothing about. Forests and trees man, forests and trees.

Also, you still are terrible at HD and are favoring a redistribution of wealth to try to give yourself anything that might help you get ahead where you so miserably failed before. You have accomplished nothing in this game, yet you have everything to say about it.

Also also, I still feel really bad for your S/O (assuming you have one). The daily bickering with someone like you must be like slowly inserting your hand into a garbage disposal.

Also also also; you are still a giant S-P-U-D-H-O-L-E.

This is what you asked: "has someone in the thread said A+ schools should be able to land guys with minimal effort? can someone point it out to me because I may have missed it..."

I provided your answer x 4.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/17/2017 6:30:00 PM (view original):
Do you need me to point out the part where C shouldn't even be able to battle A schools? That they should work to get the B so they can? That Brown should have ZERO chance at signing a top recruit?

Brown should have zero chance of signing a top recruit. Have you ever been to providence? Seriously--just talking out your azz again. You have an amazing ability to passionately argue at length about things you know nothing about.