I know its been said, but I'll say it again:

The key to being good and/or enjoying HD is accepting that A. the sim is flawed in some ways and B. This is not real basketball.  We can't match up defenders, we can't adjust on the fly, we can't have the coach get a strategic technical, we can't end up with Kirk Heinrich staring at your student section after he hits a 3, there is no clutch rating, no rape charges, no dumped players, no hard finals, no television contracts, etc.

It's a collection of 1's and 0's designed to try and emulate College Basketball, to a point.

Another 'secret' that I'm sure you already know is SPD and ATH kill at D3.  Big time.  Your team is lower in that regard than I would be comfortable with as a coach.  Vs. my last team in DIII, I also have a hole for your team in the paint (from my formulas, Bellamy would've been my 5th big man).

Just what I see.  I hope you stick around, and take your clear passion to make the next HD dynasty somewhere!  Good luck!

You're saying Bellamy is the 5th best big on my team? I dunno about that...but I doubt long term that he is one at all. 

A couple coaches I've talked with backchannel think he's going to be pretty good. I guess we'll see, maybe.

It is amazing how almost all the people that think you are just awesome do so 'backchannel' isn't it?

It's more like all the people that are not trying to start fights on the board don't bothre to post here because trolls like yourself populate the board.

I really should take their advice, but you keep being just germane enough to fool me into thinking you actually might offer some assistance. I'm a big dummy, obviously.

Posted by ettaexpress on 2/18/2014 2:29:00 PM (view original):
It's more like all the people that are not trying to start fights on the board don't bothre to post here because trolls like yourself populate the board.

I really should take their advice, but you keep being just germane enough to fool me into thinking you actually might offer some assistance. I'm a big dummy, obviously.

holy crap, two things we agree upon!! =)

Who do we think is nuttier, Ron Paul or ettaexpress? Hopefully you are at least as honest as Paul is. 

Posted by thinair on 2/18/2014 4:04:00 PM (view original):
Who do we think is nuttier, Ron Paul or ettaexpress? Hopefully you are at least as honest as Paul is. 

you have to at least somewhat admire a guy who speaks to what he believes in, regardless of how deeply unpopular it is. i didn't agree with a lot of what ron paul said, but i could respect him, because you could tell he believed in it. i know the system to some extent forces politicians to be slime balls who lie during campaigns, swap beliefs for what is popular, and twist like pretzels from primaries to the general. but i still have no respect for the folks who do it to such an extent... which to me is about all of them, on both sides. given how hard of a system it is to succeed a man of principles like ron paul was, i have to respect him. and also, props for being a champion of individual liberty, as well as being the only true fiscal conservative we've had running in my lifetime, as far as i know, even though i am unsure of my own position on fiscal issues. that just goes back to being ****** off about all the "fiscal conservatives" who spend just as much as their counterparts, but pretend they are vastly better on that front. no comment on which side is actually worse, i just don't like the reality-twisting.

obviously there are times that idealism has to clash with reality, and those situations are where i found ron paul to be pretty out there. however, because i believe he could never make some of the extremely radical reforms he suggested, like cutting off all foreign aid, i was less concerned about that, than some of the things he could actually change. i can see why one would consider him nutty, but i think extremely idealistic is a far more accurate term. i always found it interesting where people found him nutty though, if you care to elaborate, i'd be interested in listening. i sort of think he was idealistic for the sake of being a man of principle in a system where that was so rare, sort of how socrates decided to stay and be put to death for the fairly BS crimes he was convicted of, rather than escaping when it was clear he would be allowed to do so... because of his inflexible belief that it was the citizens duty to accept the outcome of the judicial process. if he escaped, why then could no other prisoner justify escape - surely, most considered their crimes lesser than those who convicted them. so he stayed, and died. does that make him crazy? maybe, but to me if you are going to be crazy, that is definitely the way to do it - standing up for what you believe in regardless of the extent of the clash with the reality of the situation.

I got a site mail from a guy who said he coaches Otterbein - he was obviously peeved -  Sam Aia was his name

"So it is the conference tournament and we are playing this team whose coach complains about every bounce that doesnt go his way.  So annoying.  We have a huge IQ edge over these guys on offense and defense so I expected us to do well if the game works the way it is supposed to work.

We're trailing, but its close - down 42-39 at the 10:52 mark.  But, as it has so often this year, the simulation decides that we should stop scoring.  We cant score again - not one point - for 4 and a half minutes until 6:23 and this team of C and some B IQ's now leads 48-39.  Amazing.

Fortunately, our superior IQ finally had enough effect for us to win, but what is it about this simulation that cause it to decide that we should have a long scoreless run despite putting "A" IQs on the floor.  I have almost had enough of this"

interesting

Posted by gillispie1 on 2/18/2014 5:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by thinair on 2/18/2014 4:04:00 PM (view original):
Who do we think is nuttier, Ron Paul or ettaexpress? Hopefully you are at least as honest as Paul is. 

you have to at least somewhat admire a guy who speaks to what he believes in, regardless of how deeply unpopular it is. i didn't agree with a lot of what ron paul said, but i could respect him, because you could tell he believed in it. i know the system to some extent forces politicians to be slime balls who lie during campaigns, swap beliefs for what is popular, and twist like pretzels from primaries to the general. but i still have no respect for the folks who do it to such an extent... which to me is about all of them, on both sides. given how hard of a system it is to succeed a man of principles like ron paul was, i have to respect him. and also, props for being a champion of individual liberty, as well as being the only true fiscal conservative we've had running in my lifetime, as far as i know, even though i am unsure of my own position on fiscal issues. that just goes back to being ****** off about all the "fiscal conservatives" who spend just as much as their counterparts, but pretend they are vastly better on that front. no comment on which side is actually worse, i just don't like the reality-twisting.

obviously there are times that idealism has to clash with reality, and those situations are where i found ron paul to be pretty out there. however, because i believe he could never make some of the extremely radical reforms he suggested, like cutting off all foreign aid, i was less concerned about that, than some of the things he could actually change. i can see why one would consider him nutty, but i think extremely idealistic is a far more accurate term. i always found it interesting where people found him nutty though, if you care to elaborate, i'd be interested in listening. i sort of think he was idealistic for the sake of being a man of principle in a system where that was so rare, sort of how socrates decided to stay and be put to death for the fairly BS crimes he was convicted of, rather than escaping when it was clear he would be allowed to do so... because of his inflexible belief that it was the citizens duty to accept the outcome of the judicial process. if he escaped, why then could no other prisoner justify escape - surely, most considered their crimes lesser than those who convicted them. so he stayed, and died. does that make him crazy? maybe, but to me if you are going to be crazy, that is definitely the way to do it - standing up for what you believe in regardless of the extent of the clash with the reality of the situation.

I'll send you a site mail. Extremely idealistic is a great term. Don't disagree there. Really don't disagree with much. I like the guy for a lot of the same reasons you do. But yes, I still think he's bat **** crazy. Is he nuttier than the republicans that booed him for his national security comments? Hell no. Well, maybe nuttier but a hell of a lot more intelligent.

Like I said, look for a sitemail later on. Last thing I want is to end up discussing politics with ettaexpress.

lol... understood :) looking forward to it. one thing i hate about america is that discussing politics seems to be taboo now, especially with friends and family. i don't understand why people can't disagree in a civil manner. i often hear people say something like man i didn't know so and so was ____ or was for ____, i don't know if i cant respect them anymore (or something like that). i think its ridiculous. yeah, if you are for bringing back slavery, i might struggle to respect you, but i think most issues with real splits have those splits because there is merit on both sides. i don't see why the emphasis can't be on building a better understanding of the opposing viewpoint. the mark of a good discussion is both people walk away with more appreciation for another position than their own (or just a better understanding in general when people are still undecided), or to advance the dialogue, not that one person has completely shifted views to the other side. that can happen and its fine, but to make "winning" the main goal seems so counter productive.

That's funny coming from somebody that tries to "win" all the other conversations they have, haha, but seriously though.

not really true, but i can see why you see it that way. just because i continue a discussion past a post or two doesn't mean i expect people to agree with me. often the discussions here are about subjects where everyone opens with, im not really sure, but here's what i think, and those are some of the best. i partake in those all the time. i do struggle to give up the fight when i think the other person is not really paying attention just wants to soapbox... but i don't really consider that a legitimate debate.

Posted by ettaexpress on 2/18/2014 12:03:00 PM (view original):
You're saying Bellamy is the 5th best big on my team? I dunno about that...but I doubt long term that he is one at all. 

A couple coaches I've talked with backchannel think he's going to be pretty good. I guess we'll see, maybe.

Sorry for the lack of clarity- I have him as your best, but on my last team (1st round NT caliber) he would've been the #5 big.  He should be good if he has some high-high potentials.

Posted by gillispie1 on 2/18/2014 8:54:00 PM (view original):
lol... understood :) looking forward to it. one thing i hate about america is that discussing politics seems to be taboo now, especially with friends and family. i don't understand why people can't disagree in a civil manner. i often hear people say something like man i didn't know so and so was ____ or was for ____, i don't know if i cant respect them anymore (or something like that). i think its ridiculous. yeah, if you are for bringing back slavery, i might struggle to respect you, but i think most issues with real splits have those splits because there is merit on both sides. i don't see why the emphasis can't be on building a better understanding of the opposing viewpoint. the mark of a good discussion is both people walk away with more appreciation for another position than their own (or just a better understanding in general when people are still undecided), or to advance the dialogue, not that one person has completely shifted views to the other side. that can happen and its fine, but to make "winning" the main goal seems so counter productive.

Most political disagreement in the US these days is theater, or the result of wedging on social issues.

Compared to most countries, we have no idea what political disagreement is. Look at how much the two parties agree when it's on a matter that people in power care about, like raising the debt ceiling.