Posted by wronoj on 8/25/2010 5:24:00 PM (view original):
that argument makes no sense at all, colonels-- seble is currently putting 0% of his time and effort into changing FSS. unless he's reading this thread, in which case it's 1%.

and how is leveling the playing field a good thing? don't we want coaches who use tools and strategies more effectively to be more successful than coaches who use them less effectively? 

Posted by wronoj on 8/25/2010 8:31:00 PM (view original):
anything that takes a layer of strategy out of recruiting makes it LESS competitive, in my opinion.

and before you go around calling people names, you might want to put a little thought into it. If i were a "puss" why would i be in the ACC in Naismith and the Upstate in Wooden, two of the toughest conferences around for their respective divisions. i mean, you have 0 active teams, and quit your last world because you didn't renew and then got bitchy when they didn't let you have it back or its equivalent... who sounds like a puss of the 2 of us? 

Posted by brip87 on 8/25/2010 8:35:00 PM (view original):
colonels sucks its a fact. his picture and name are dierctly next to the word in wikipedia.  i just ignore him sso dont sweat it juice.

Posted by jetwildcat on 8/25/2010 8:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wronoj on 8/25/2010 8:31:00 PM (view original):
anything that takes a layer of strategy out of recruiting makes it LESS competitive, in my opinion.

and before you go around calling people names, you might want to put a little thought into it. If i were a "puss" why would i be in the ACC in Naismith and the Upstate in Wooden, two of the toughest conferences around for their respective divisions. i mean, you have 0 active teams, and quit your last world because you didn't renew and then got bitchy when they didn't let you have it back or its equivalent... who sounds like a puss of the 2 of us? 

hahaha the fact that i have colonels' posts blocked makes reading this an absolute treat

Posted by grecianfox on 8/20/2010 1:06:00 PM (view original):
Not sure I like the idea. I like the strategy involved in how one decides to spend their recruiting dollars. I think it adds a nice element.

You give away FSS and it takes the "money management" and the "unknown" out  of finding recruits with potential. This takes away my mindset that "just maybe" if I buy Montana I can find that diamond in the rough, because everyone cant buy every state, or the thought that "can I risk paying for California" for that one guy only to find out he is a turd.  With that said, close one door and another opens. Now you will have competition where everyone knows exactly where and who the best recruits are. Now the strategy becomes being the high bidder on the star player and being broke for the other 3 you need (been there, done that in my fantasy auction drafts - seems like a good idea but after the fact it is very boring). Then you become the Texas Rangers winning the services of Alex Rodriguez, but you can't afford any pitching. With the current system it is more likely that you can put together a complete, deep team and build a dynasty by learning to overcome many of the traits that cause us to lose. If you are patient, experienced, savy, creative and think outside the box,  and know when to make your move (early or late, based on your budget) you will be able to build a great dynasty through recruiting. Both sides have a valid point, but I have seen the overbidding for the star players before and it aint pretty. I have built all of my teams from the bottom up and have been able to recruit top 10 recruiting classes at the C- prestige level more than once. Takes hard work and is challenging, but the harder the work, the higher the reward for me. Please do not make the game easier and take away one of the most challenging and exciting parts of the game.

I have a compromise for Seble. Create a world with free FSS and let people who think its a good idea play it that way. Hell, I might even try it to make sure I am not mistaken. But before we tinker with one the games more fun aspects, maybe it should be tested in another world without affecting those who enjoy it the way it is already.

Posted by bunkerbuster on 8/25/2010 10:03:00 PM (view original):

I have a compromise for Seble. Create a world with free FSS and let people who think its a good idea play it that way. Hell, I might even try it to make sure I am not mistaken. But before we tinker with one the games more fun aspects, maybe it should be tested in another world without affecting those who enjoy it the way it is already.

Posted by Rails on 8/25/2010 9:17:00 PM (view original):
I don't understand the rationale of those who say it would take strategy out of recruiting.  It most clearly wouldn't do that at all.  If anything it would add more strategy (just different a type) and it most certainly would become more competitive--not less.  Is it me (and please tell me it is), but I don't see how users who think this thru don't see a major disconnect with the costs associated with FSS (per state/not distance) and how connected it is to geographic recruit generation it is--not to mention how correlated it is to local human competition (or lack thereof) compared to other schools.

My gut would say that if it was rolled out to be free (or having a different cost or based on miles and not states) in the first place, no one would have been the wiser and those arguing to keep it as is would be doing the same no matter how it was rolled out.  I think it's change that they are arguing against.